Cargando…
Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is used to diagnose and treat pancreaticobiliary diseases. It is a potentially uncomfortable procedure that needs to be performed under conscious sedation. Safe and effective sedation protocol is the need of an hour. AIMS: This study...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6545960/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31198249 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_62_19 |
_version_ | 1783423472888709120 |
---|---|
author | Pushkarna, Geetanjali Sarangal, Pankaj Pushkarna, Varun Gupta, Ruchi |
author_facet | Pushkarna, Geetanjali Sarangal, Pankaj Pushkarna, Varun Gupta, Ruchi |
author_sort | Pushkarna, Geetanjali |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is used to diagnose and treat pancreaticobiliary diseases. It is a potentially uncomfortable procedure that needs to be performed under conscious sedation. Safe and effective sedation protocol is the need of an hour. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the requirement of propofol using midazolam and dexmedetomidine as premedication for ERCP. The degree of comfort experienced by endoscopist and the patients was also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of sixty patients were enrolled in a randomized, assessor-blinded study in the age group of 40–80 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class II–III undergoing elective ERCP procedures. They were divided into two groups of 30 each. Group D (n = 30): Dexmedetomidine (100 μg/mL + 18 mL saline) loading dose at 1 μg/kg intravenous (IV) over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion, and Group M (n = 30): Midazolam at 0.05 mg/kg IV bolus over 10 min followed by normal saline infusion under hemodynamic monitoring. Satisfaction scores, total propofol requirement, and complications such as gagging, restlessness, agitation, postoperative nausea and vomiting were noted and analyzed statistically. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statistical analysis was performed using SSPS 17.0 software (SPSS Inc., 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, USA). The Chi-square test was applied for nonparametric data and parametric numerical data, unpaired t-test for intergroup comparison, and repeated measures ANOVA for intragroup comparison. Results were expressed as a mean ± standard deviation. Value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and <0.001 as highly significant. RESULTS: Surgeons and patients were more satisfied and comfortable along with less requirement of propofol in the dexmedetomidine group. The incidence of complications was also less in the dexmedetomidine group as compared to that of midazolam group. CONCLUSION: Both dexmedetomidine and midazolam can be safely administered as an anesthetic adjuvant to propofol for short procedures like ERCP's. Dexmedetomidine provided intense and better sedation quality along with lesser requirement of propofol doses. Moreover, it provided stable hemodynamic conditions and good recovery characteristics as compared to midazolam group. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6545960 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65459602019-06-13 Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pushkarna, Geetanjali Sarangal, Pankaj Pushkarna, Varun Gupta, Ruchi Anesth Essays Res Original Article BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is used to diagnose and treat pancreaticobiliary diseases. It is a potentially uncomfortable procedure that needs to be performed under conscious sedation. Safe and effective sedation protocol is the need of an hour. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the requirement of propofol using midazolam and dexmedetomidine as premedication for ERCP. The degree of comfort experienced by endoscopist and the patients was also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of sixty patients were enrolled in a randomized, assessor-blinded study in the age group of 40–80 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class II–III undergoing elective ERCP procedures. They were divided into two groups of 30 each. Group D (n = 30): Dexmedetomidine (100 μg/mL + 18 mL saline) loading dose at 1 μg/kg intravenous (IV) over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion, and Group M (n = 30): Midazolam at 0.05 mg/kg IV bolus over 10 min followed by normal saline infusion under hemodynamic monitoring. Satisfaction scores, total propofol requirement, and complications such as gagging, restlessness, agitation, postoperative nausea and vomiting were noted and analyzed statistically. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statistical analysis was performed using SSPS 17.0 software (SPSS Inc., 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, USA). The Chi-square test was applied for nonparametric data and parametric numerical data, unpaired t-test for intergroup comparison, and repeated measures ANOVA for intragroup comparison. Results were expressed as a mean ± standard deviation. Value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and <0.001 as highly significant. RESULTS: Surgeons and patients were more satisfied and comfortable along with less requirement of propofol in the dexmedetomidine group. The incidence of complications was also less in the dexmedetomidine group as compared to that of midazolam group. CONCLUSION: Both dexmedetomidine and midazolam can be safely administered as an anesthetic adjuvant to propofol for short procedures like ERCP's. Dexmedetomidine provided intense and better sedation quality along with lesser requirement of propofol doses. Moreover, it provided stable hemodynamic conditions and good recovery characteristics as compared to midazolam group. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6545960/ /pubmed/31198249 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_62_19 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Anesthesia: Essays and Researches http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Pushkarna, Geetanjali Sarangal, Pankaj Pushkarna, Varun Gupta, Ruchi Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography |
title | Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography |
title_full | Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography |
title_fullStr | Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography |
title_short | Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography |
title_sort | comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as premedication to propofol anesthesia in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6545960/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31198249 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_62_19 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pushkarnageetanjali comparativeevaluationofdexmedetomidineversusmidazolamaspremedicationtopropofolanesthesiainendoscopicretrogradecholangiopancreatography AT sarangalpankaj comparativeevaluationofdexmedetomidineversusmidazolamaspremedicationtopropofolanesthesiainendoscopicretrogradecholangiopancreatography AT pushkarnavarun comparativeevaluationofdexmedetomidineversusmidazolamaspremedicationtopropofolanesthesiainendoscopicretrogradecholangiopancreatography AT guptaruchi comparativeevaluationofdexmedetomidineversusmidazolamaspremedicationtopropofolanesthesiainendoscopicretrogradecholangiopancreatography |