SummaryFibreoptic intubation is a valuable modality for airway management. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine vs target controlled propofol infusion in providing sedation during fibreoptic intubation. Forty patients with anticipated difficult airways and due to undergo tracheal intubation for elective surgery were enrolled and randomly allocated into the dexmedetomidine group (1.0 lg.kg in the propofol group (p = 0.027), favouring the former. The dexmedetomidine group experienced fewer airway events and less heart rate response to intubation than the propofol group (p < 0.003 and p = 0.007, respectively). Both dexmedetomidine and propofol target-controlled infusion are effective for fibreoptic intubation. Dexmedetomidine allows better tolerance, more stable haemodynamic status and preserves a patent airway.

Background and objectives: Flexible bronchoscopy has been widely used for diagnosis and intervention, while various drugs are used for sedation during bronchoscopy. We examined two regular standardized sedation options (with or without dexmedetomidine) regularly used in our regional hospital. The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine on conscious sedation under bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from April 2017 to March 2018. All patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation were enrolled. Patients having received dexmedetomidine-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group D, and those having received midazolam-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group M. The primary outcome was a safety profile during the procedure, including the incidence of procedural interference by patient cough or movement, transient hypoxemia, and hypotension. The secondary outcome was measured by the recovery profile (awake and ambulation time). Results: Thirty-five patients in group D and thirty-three in group M were collected in this retrospective study. All patients underwent the procedure successfully. Group D showed higher safety with fewer procedural interference incidences by cough or body movement than Group M (3.3% versus 36.3%, p < 0.001) and minor respiratory adverse effects. Patients in group D showed faster recovery in a shorter ambulation time than group M (24.9 ± 9.7 versus 31.5 ± 11.9, p = 0.02). In group D, bronchoscopist satisfaction to sedation was higher than group M (p = 0.01). More transient bradycardia episodes were noted in patients receiving dexmedetomidine (p < 0.05), but all recovered without atropine intervention. Overall post-procedural adverse events and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions: The co-administration of dexmedetomidine met the safety and recovery demands of flexible bronchoscopy. Compared to the conventional midazolam-propofol-fentanyl regimen, the application of dexmedetomidine improved sedative effectiveness with less procedural interruptions, shorter time to ambulation and higher bronchoscopist satisfaction.

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is the major technique for diagnosis of GI disease and treatment. Various sedation and analgesia regimens such as midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol can be used during GI endoscopy. The purpose of the study was to compare propofol alone and propofol combination with midazolam and fentanyl in moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. One hundred patients undergoing GI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. All patients received a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) to maintain sedation during the procedure. Patients were randomly allocated into either Group P (propofol TCI alone) or Group C (combination of propofol TCI plus midazolam and fentanyl). Dermographic data, anesthetic parameters (sedation regimen, blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation), procedure parameters (procedure time, colonoscopy, or panendoscopy), propofol consumption, and adverse events (hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia) were all recorded. Postprocedural records included recovery time, postoperative adverse events (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, recall, and pain) and satisfaction. The average propofol consumption was 251 ± 83 mg in Group P and 159 ± 73 mg in Group C (p < 0.001). The incidence of transient hypotension was higher in Group P (p = 0.009). The recovery time and discharge time were both shorter in Group C (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006 respectively). Overall, postprocedural adverse events were similar in both groups. The postanesthetic satisfaction was comparable in both groups. TCI of propofol combined with midazolam and fentanyl achieved sedation with fewer hypotension episodes and shorter recovery and discharge time than propofol TCI alone in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

After placement of the ProSeal LMA, the central landmark could not offer a good success rate at the first puncture attempt. When using the central landmark to catheterize the IJV after a ProSeal LMA placement, medial deviation of the central landmark should be considered. Ultrasound guidance may be helpful in difficult cases.