The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative study
Background: Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent has not been studied in a procedure such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) where propofol is being used extensively to provide a deep level of sedation. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2020-01-01
|
Series: | The Indian Anaesthetists' Forum |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.theiaforum.org/article.asp?issn=2589-7934;year=2020;volume=21;issue=1;spage=38;epage=43;aulast=Jumle |
id |
doaj-197038b9faa54fe78e54d5f3e86bb3ea |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-197038b9faa54fe78e54d5f3e86bb3ea2020-11-25T01:13:29ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsThe Indian Anaesthetists' Forum0973-03112020-01-01211384310.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_87_19The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative studyApurva JumleVaibhav MahajanDeepak PhalguneGanesh GhongateNachiket DubaleBackground: Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent has not been studied in a procedure such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) where propofol is being used extensively to provide a deep level of sedation. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol to achieve adequate sedation levels in patients undergoing EUS. Methods: Sixty patients scheduled for EUS under sedation for the diagnostic and therapeutic purpose were randomly divided into two groups. Thirty patients in Group D received dexmedetomidine while 30 Group P patients received propofol. The recovery from sedation was assessed using the modified Aldrete's score. Once the modified Aldrete's score of 10/10 was achieved, the patients' perception regarding the pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score. Primary outcome measures were VAS score and vital parameters, whereas secondary outcome measures were gag reflex and recovery from sedation using the modified Aldrete's score. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative variables between the groups was done using unpaired Student's t-test and Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively. Results: The absence of gag reflex was significantly higher in patients who received dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine was found to have greater hemodynamic stability compared with propofol-treated patients. Dexmedetomidine achieved similar levels of sedation to propofol, although with a slower onset of sedation. Conclusions: The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with greater hemodynamic stability and absence of gag reflex.http://www.theiaforum.org/article.asp?issn=2589-7934;year=2020;volume=21;issue=1;spage=38;epage=43;aulast=Jumledexmedetomidineendoscopic ultrasoundpropofolsedation |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Apurva Jumle Vaibhav Mahajan Deepak Phalgune Ganesh Ghongate Nachiket Dubale |
spellingShingle |
Apurva Jumle Vaibhav Mahajan Deepak Phalgune Ganesh Ghongate Nachiket Dubale The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative study The Indian Anaesthetists' Forum dexmedetomidine endoscopic ultrasound propofol sedation |
author_facet |
Apurva Jumle Vaibhav Mahajan Deepak Phalgune Ganesh Ghongate Nachiket Dubale |
author_sort |
Apurva Jumle |
title |
The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative study |
title_short |
The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative study |
title_full |
The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative study |
title_fullStr |
The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative study |
title_full_unstemmed |
The efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: A comparative study |
title_sort |
efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography: a comparative study |
publisher |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
series |
The Indian Anaesthetists' Forum |
issn |
0973-0311 |
publishDate |
2020-01-01 |
description |
Background: Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent has not been studied in a procedure such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) where propofol is being used extensively to provide a deep level of sedation. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol to achieve adequate sedation levels in patients undergoing EUS.
Methods: Sixty patients scheduled for EUS under sedation for the diagnostic and therapeutic purpose were randomly divided into two groups. Thirty patients in Group D received dexmedetomidine while 30 Group P patients received propofol. The recovery from sedation was assessed using the modified Aldrete's score. Once the modified Aldrete's score of 10/10 was achieved, the patients' perception regarding the pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score. Primary outcome measures were VAS score and vital parameters, whereas secondary outcome measures were gag reflex and recovery from sedation using the modified Aldrete's score. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative variables between the groups was done using unpaired Student's t-test and Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.
Results: The absence of gag reflex was significantly higher in patients who received dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine was found to have greater hemodynamic stability compared with propofol-treated patients. Dexmedetomidine achieved similar levels of sedation to propofol, although with a slower onset of sedation.
Conclusions: The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with greater hemodynamic stability and absence of gag reflex. |
topic |
dexmedetomidine endoscopic ultrasound propofol sedation |
url |
http://www.theiaforum.org/article.asp?issn=2589-7934;year=2020;volume=21;issue=1;spage=38;epage=43;aulast=Jumle |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT apurvajumle theefficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT vaibhavmahajan theefficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT deepakphalgune theefficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT ganeshghongate theefficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT nachiketdubale theefficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT apurvajumle efficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT vaibhavmahajan efficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT deepakphalgune efficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT ganeshghongate efficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy AT nachiketdubale efficacyofdexmedetomidineandpropofolforsedationinendoscopicultrasonographyacomparativestudy |
_version_ |
1725162013955457024 |