10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol administration during sedation-guided upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Dexmedetomidine and ketamine popular sedative agents that result in minimal respiratory depression and the presence of analgesic activity. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of a dexmedetomidine-propofol combination and a ketamine-propofol combination during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

          Methods:

          The study commenced after receiving approval from the local ethics committee. Patients between 18 and 60 years in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II groups were included. Patients who had severe organ disease, who had allergies to the study drugs, and who refused to participate were excluded. Cases were randomized into a dexmedetomidine-propofol group (Group D, n = 30) and a ketamine-propofol group (Group K, n = 30). Cardiac monitoring, peripheral oxygen saturation, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring were performed. Group D received 1 mg/kg dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenous (IV) bolus, 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg/h propfol infusion. Group K received 1 mg/kg ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg propofol iv bolus, 0.25 mg/kg/h ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg/h propfol infusion. Patients were followed up with a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of ≥4. Means, standard deviations, lowest and highest frequency values, and ratio values were used for descriptive statistics, and the SPSS 22.0 program was used for statistical analyses.

          Results:

          In Group K, recovery time and mean blood pressure (MBP) values were significantly shorter. Furthermore, coughing rate, pulse, and BIS values were higher than in Group D ( P < .05). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of endoscopic tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction, we observed that the dexmedetomidine group experienced more comfortable levels of sedation.

          Conclusion:

          Dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol combinations may be suitable and safe for endoscopy sedation due to their different properties. It was observed that the dexmedetomidine-propfol combination was superior in terms of sedation depth and that the ketamine-propofol combination was superior in terms of early recovery. As a result, we suggest the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination for upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy sedation due to hemodynamic stability and minimal adverse effects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

            Objectives To systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation. Materials and Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (≥18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for conscious sedation and at least one group receiving dexmedetomidine and one group receiving midazolam. Exclusion criteria: patients in intensive care, pediatric subjects and per protocol use of additional sedative medication other than rescue medication. Outcome measures for efficacy comparison were patient and clinician satisfaction scores and pain scores; outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications. Results We identified 89 papers, of which 12 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 883 patients were included in these studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher patient and operator satisfaction than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced less pain and had lower analgesic requirements. Respiratory and hemodynamic safety were similar. Conclusions Dexmedetomidine is a promising alternative to midazolam for use in procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine provides more comfort during the procedure for the patient and clinician. If carefully titrated, the safety profiles are similar.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis.

              Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require sedatives such as midazolam and the more recently developed alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine. To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with midazolam.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MEDI
                Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                4 December 2020
                04 December 2020
                : 99
                : 49
                : e23317
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Van Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine
                [b ]Department of General Surgery, Van Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey.
                Author notes
                []Correspondence: Arzu Esen Tekeli, Van Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Van, Turkey (e-mail: esentekeli190807@ 123456hotmail.com ).
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6468-8850
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5489-989X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0382-1122
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3534-1078
                Article
                MD-D-20-03976 23317
                10.1097/MD.0000000000023317
                7717792
                33285707
                61797b3d-7053-49d1-bb32-28158e3f7b32
                Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History
                : 8 May 2020
                : 1 July 2020
                : 21 October 2020
                Categories
                3300
                Research Article
                Clinical Trial/Experimental Study
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                UNITED STATES

                dexmedetomidine,ketamine,propofol,sedation,bispektral indeks

                Comments

                Comment on this article