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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Apurva Jumle, Vaibhav Mahajan, Deepak Phalgune, Ganesh Ghongate, Nachiket Dubale
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