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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pushkarna, Geetanjali, Sarangal, Pankaj, Pushkarna, Varun, Gupta, Ruchi
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