Cargando…
Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study
BACKGROUND: Management of difficult airway due to laryngeal mass is a major challenge to the anesthesiologists, and awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) would be the technique of choice. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed at comparing the effects of administration of dexmedetomidine-propofol or ketof...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Kowsar
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412910/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30881913 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/aapm.86442 |
_version_ | 1783402715677720576 |
---|---|
author | El Mourad, Mona Blough Elghamry, Mona Raafat Mansour, Radwa Fathy Afandy, Mohamed Elsayed |
author_facet | El Mourad, Mona Blough Elghamry, Mona Raafat Mansour, Radwa Fathy Afandy, Mohamed Elsayed |
author_sort | El Mourad, Mona Blough |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Management of difficult airway due to laryngeal mass is a major challenge to the anesthesiologists, and awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) would be the technique of choice. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed at comparing the effects of administration of dexmedetomidine-propofol or ketofol for sedation during AFOI in terms of intubation conditions, hemodynamic stability, and patients and anesthesiologist’s satisfaction. METHODS: Eighty adult patients, 18 - 60 years old, ASA (the American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I-III, with difficult airway due to laryngeal mass and planned for AFOI were enrolled. Sedation was randomly given to the patients according to their assigned group by either dexmedetomidine-propofol (group D; n = 40) or ketofol (group K; n = 40). Outcome variables included time to reach Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) ≥ 3, intubation time, number of patients in need of rescue propofol, patient’s discomfort score, tolerance to endoscopy and intubation, hemodynamic parameters, patients and anesthesiologist’s satisfaction, and occurrence of side effects. RESULTS: Time to reach RSS ≥ 3 and intubation time were significantly shorter, and fewer patients required rescue propofol in the K group as compared to the D group (P = 0.000*, and 0.035*, respectively). Higher discomfort score and better tolerance to endoscopy and intubation were noticed in group K than group D, but with no statistical significance (P = 0.132, 0.137, and 0.211, respectively). Patients in group D had significantly lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) after the loading dose till five minutes after intubation (P = 0.000*). There was no significant difference in patients’ satisfaction between the two groups (P = 0.687), while anesthesiologist’s satisfaction was higher in group K compared with that of group D (P = 0.013*). Cough score as well as incidence of unfavorable respiratory outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.611, 0.348, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Ketofol and dexmedetomidine-propofol combination were suitable and satisfactory for AFOI. However, ketofol was more advantageous in offering faster onset of sedation, shorter intubation time, stable hemodynamic profile, as well as higher anesthesiologist’s satisfaction when compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6412910 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Kowsar |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64129102019-03-16 Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study El Mourad, Mona Blough Elghamry, Mona Raafat Mansour, Radwa Fathy Afandy, Mohamed Elsayed Anesth Pain Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Management of difficult airway due to laryngeal mass is a major challenge to the anesthesiologists, and awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) would be the technique of choice. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed at comparing the effects of administration of dexmedetomidine-propofol or ketofol for sedation during AFOI in terms of intubation conditions, hemodynamic stability, and patients and anesthesiologist’s satisfaction. METHODS: Eighty adult patients, 18 - 60 years old, ASA (the American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I-III, with difficult airway due to laryngeal mass and planned for AFOI were enrolled. Sedation was randomly given to the patients according to their assigned group by either dexmedetomidine-propofol (group D; n = 40) or ketofol (group K; n = 40). Outcome variables included time to reach Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) ≥ 3, intubation time, number of patients in need of rescue propofol, patient’s discomfort score, tolerance to endoscopy and intubation, hemodynamic parameters, patients and anesthesiologist’s satisfaction, and occurrence of side effects. RESULTS: Time to reach RSS ≥ 3 and intubation time were significantly shorter, and fewer patients required rescue propofol in the K group as compared to the D group (P = 0.000*, and 0.035*, respectively). Higher discomfort score and better tolerance to endoscopy and intubation were noticed in group K than group D, but with no statistical significance (P = 0.132, 0.137, and 0.211, respectively). Patients in group D had significantly lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) after the loading dose till five minutes after intubation (P = 0.000*). There was no significant difference in patients’ satisfaction between the two groups (P = 0.687), while anesthesiologist’s satisfaction was higher in group K compared with that of group D (P = 0.013*). Cough score as well as incidence of unfavorable respiratory outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.611, 0.348, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Ketofol and dexmedetomidine-propofol combination were suitable and satisfactory for AFOI. However, ketofol was more advantageous in offering faster onset of sedation, shorter intubation time, stable hemodynamic profile, as well as higher anesthesiologist’s satisfaction when compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. Kowsar 2019-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6412910/ /pubmed/30881913 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/aapm.86442 Text en Copyright © 2019, Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article El Mourad, Mona Blough Elghamry, Mona Raafat Mansour, Radwa Fathy Afandy, Mohamed Elsayed Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study |
title | Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study |
title_full | Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study |
title_short | Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study |
title_sort | comparison of intravenous dexmedetomidine-propofol versus ketofol for sedation during awake fiberoptic intubation: a prospective, randomized study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412910/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30881913 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/aapm.86442 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elmouradmonablough comparisonofintravenousdexmedetomidinepropofolversusketofolforsedationduringawakefiberopticintubationaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT elghamrymonaraafat comparisonofintravenousdexmedetomidinepropofolversusketofolforsedationduringawakefiberopticintubationaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT mansourradwafathy comparisonofintravenousdexmedetomidinepropofolversusketofolforsedationduringawakefiberopticintubationaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT afandymohamedelsayed comparisonofintravenousdexmedetomidinepropofolversusketofolforsedationduringawakefiberopticintubationaprospectiverandomizedstudy |