Conscious Sedation for Balloon Mitral Valvotomy: A Comparison of Fentanyl versus Sufentanil

CONTEXT: Analgesia and sedation are required for the comfort of patient and the cardiologist during balloon mitral valvotomy. AIMS: In this study, efficacy of analgesia, sedation, and patient satisfaction with sufentanil was compared with fentanyl. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Single-centered, prospective single-blind study of sixty patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients between 15 and 45 years of rheumatic mitral stenosis with valve area of 0.8–1 cm(2) undergoing elective balloon mitral valvotomy, randomly divided to receive bolus injection fentanyl 1 mcg/kg (Group 1, n = 30) followed by infusion at 1 mcg/kg/h or bolus of injection sufentanil 0.1 mcg/kg (Group 2, n = 30) followed by continuous infusion at 0.1 mcg/h. Both the groups received injection midazolam bolus 0.02 mg/kg followed by infusion at 15 mcg/kg/h. Pain intensity (by visual analog score [VAS]), level of sedation (by Ramsay sedation scale), overall patient and operator's satisfaction, effect on cardiorespiratory parameters, and discharge score (by modified Aldrete score) were assessed. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Statistical analysis used Student's unpaired t-test and Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Mean number of bolus doses in fentanyl group was 0.9 versus 0.13 in sufentanil group (P < 0.01). The mean value of mean blood pressure in fentanyl group was 83.52 mmHg versus 88 mmHg in sufentanil group (P < 0.05), but the value was within normal range in both the groups. The mean VAS – patient's opinion in fentanyl group was 8.97 versus 9.53 in sufentanil group (P < 0.05). Mean discharge score in fentanyl group was 17.87 versus 18.23 in sufentanil group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found with respect to heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, PaCO(2) values, and anxiety scores. CONCLUSION: Sufentanil was found to be better with respect to analgesia, patient satisfaction, and recovery however not cost-effective for continuous infusion technique.