Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 1258 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as premedication to propofol anesthesia in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography


1 Department of Anaesthesia, SGRDIMSAR, Amritsar, Punjab, India
2 Department of Critical Care, Fortis Escort Hospital, Amritsar, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Geetanjali Pushkarna,
Department of Anaesthesia, SGRDIMSAR, Amritsar - 143 001, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_62_19

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is used to diagnose and treat pancreaticobiliary diseases. It is a potentially uncomfortable procedure that needs to be performed under conscious sedation. Safe and effective sedation protocol is the need of an hour. Aims: This study aims to evaluate the requirement of propofol using midazolam and dexmedetomidine as premedication for ERCP. The degree of comfort experienced by endoscopist and the patients was also assessed. Materials and Methods: A total of sixty patients were enrolled in a randomized, assessor-blinded study in the age group of 40–80 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class II–III undergoing elective ERCP procedures. They were divided into two groups of 30 each. Group D (n = 30): Dexmedetomidine (100 μg/mL + 18 mL saline) loading dose at 1 μg/kg intravenous (IV) over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion, and Group M (n = 30): Midazolam at 0.05 mg/kg IV bolus over 10 min followed by normal saline infusion under hemodynamic monitoring. Satisfaction scores, total propofol requirement, and complications such as gagging, restlessness, agitation, postoperative nausea and vomiting were noted and analyzed statistically. Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis was performed using SSPS 17.0 software (SPSS Inc., 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, USA). The Chi-square test was applied for nonparametric data and parametric numerical data, unpaired t-test for intergroup comparison, and repeated measures ANOVA for intragroup comparison. Results were expressed as a mean ± standard deviation. Value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and <0.001 as highly significant. Results: Surgeons and patients were more satisfied and comfortable along with less requirement of propofol in the dexmedetomidine group. The incidence of complications was also less in the dexmedetomidine group as compared to that of midazolam group. Conclusion: Both dexmedetomidine and midazolam can be safely administered as an anesthetic adjuvant to propofol for short procedures like ERCP's. Dexmedetomidine provided intense and better sedation quality along with lesser requirement of propofol doses. Moreover, it provided stable hemodynamic conditions and good recovery characteristics as compared to midazolam group.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Pushkarna G
    -  Sarangal P
    -  Pushkarna V
    -  Gupta R
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed67    
    PDF Downloaded1    

Recommend this journal