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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |