Cargando…

Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedeto...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhao, Liang, Zhang, Yonglai, Xu, Shoucai, Wang, Xiuqin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36389109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/3305696
_version_ 1784830823728414720
author Zhao, Liang
Zhang, Yonglai
Xu, Shoucai
Wang, Xiuqin
author_facet Zhao, Liang
Zhang, Yonglai
Xu, Shoucai
Wang, Xiuqin
author_sort Zhao, Liang
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedetomidine (PD) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR). Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was the endoscopist satisfaction level. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, the incidence of adverse events, induction time, and time to achieve postanesthesia discharge score (PADS) ≥9. METHODS: Total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized into PD and PR groups. A bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was injected intravenously for 5 min. Subsequently, a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h for the PD group. Remifentanil was continuously infused at 1.5 μg/kg/h for the PR group. A bolus dose of 1 mg/kg propofol was administered to both groups and then continuously infused. RESULTS: The endoscopist satisfaction level was higher in the PR group than in the PD group (P = 0.009). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.738). No patients required mask ventilation or tracheal intubation in both groups. All patients were relatively hemodynamically stable. The incidence of body movements during the procedure in the PD group was higher than in the PR group (P = 0.035). The induction time and time taken to achieve PADS ≥9 in the PD group were longer than in the PR group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PR sedation can increase the satisfaction level of the endoscopist by providing faster induction time and lower body movement and that of the patient by achieving faster PADS than PD sedation. Trial registration number: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034987).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9663217
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96632172022-11-15 Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial Zhao, Liang Zhang, Yonglai Xu, Shoucai Wang, Xiuqin Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedetomidine (PD) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR). Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was the endoscopist satisfaction level. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, the incidence of adverse events, induction time, and time to achieve postanesthesia discharge score (PADS) ≥9. METHODS: Total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized into PD and PR groups. A bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was injected intravenously for 5 min. Subsequently, a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h for the PD group. Remifentanil was continuously infused at 1.5 μg/kg/h for the PR group. A bolus dose of 1 mg/kg propofol was administered to both groups and then continuously infused. RESULTS: The endoscopist satisfaction level was higher in the PR group than in the PD group (P = 0.009). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.738). No patients required mask ventilation or tracheal intubation in both groups. All patients were relatively hemodynamically stable. The incidence of body movements during the procedure in the PD group was higher than in the PR group (P = 0.035). The induction time and time taken to achieve PADS ≥9 in the PD group were longer than in the PR group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PR sedation can increase the satisfaction level of the endoscopist by providing faster induction time and lower body movement and that of the patient by achieving faster PADS than PD sedation. Trial registration number: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034987). Hindawi 2022-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9663217/ /pubmed/36389109 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/3305696 Text en Copyright © 2022 Liang Zhao et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhao, Liang
Zhang, Yonglai
Xu, Shoucai
Wang, Xiuqin
Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial
title Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial
title_full Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial
title_fullStr Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial
title_short Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial
title_sort comparison effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography: a prospective randomized comparative trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36389109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/3305696
work_keys_str_mv AT zhaoliang comparisoneffectsofpropofoldexmedetomidineversuspropofolremifentanilforendoscopicultrasonographyaprospectiverandomizedcomparativetrial
AT zhangyonglai comparisoneffectsofpropofoldexmedetomidineversuspropofolremifentanilforendoscopicultrasonographyaprospectiverandomizedcomparativetrial
AT xushoucai comparisoneffectsofpropofoldexmedetomidineversuspropofolremifentanilforendoscopicultrasonographyaprospectiverandomizedcomparativetrial
AT wangxiuqin comparisoneffectsofpropofoldexmedetomidineversuspropofolremifentanilforendoscopicultrasonographyaprospectiverandomizedcomparativetrial