Propofol versus dexmedetomidine for sedation in colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study

Sula, Hektor; Domi, Rudin; Ohri, I.; Broqi, I.; Beqiri, Arben; Gani, H.

doi:10.1097/00003643-201206001-00105

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although dexmedetomidine has a short half-life (2-3 h) due to its rapid distribution and extensive metabolization by the liver, the recovery time was longer than that of propofol, which has a three times shorter half-life (30-60 min). Many studies have been conducted to evaluate the use of dexmedetomidine as a single agent for sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, with better results in terms of hemodynamic stability, sedation efficacy, the incidence of side effects, and endoscopist satisfaction [26][27][28][29][30][31]. However, studies conducted by [32][33][34] revealed that using dexmedetomidine as a single agent for sedation of GIE procedures was ineffective in achieving the required sedation level except by using higher doses of rescue sedation doses, resulting in a significant decrease in hemodynamics with a longer time required for recovery and home discharge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in hepatic patients (a comparative randomized study)

Algharabawy

Abusinna

Abdelrahman

2021

Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in hepatic patients (a comparative randomized study)

Algharabawy

Abusinna

Abdelrahman

2021

Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many anesthetic drugs such as midazolam, propofol, and/or alfentanil or pethidine combinations, α-agonists, and neuroleptics are frequently administered for this matter. 1,2,3 Conscious sedation-analgesia is aimed to comfort the patients with minimal adverse effects, and the ideal method is the one with fast induction and emergence, which preserves respiration and hemodynamics stability. Several regimens of drugs are being used at this time for this purpose.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many anesthetic drugs such as midazolam, propofol, and/or alfentanil or pethidine combinations, α-agonists, and neuroleptics are frequently administered for this matter. 1 , 2 , 3 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol in Combination with Fentanyl for Sedation-Analgesia in Colonoscopy Procedures: A Randomized Prospective Study

Kavousi

Shariefnia

Pourfakhr

et al. 2021

Middle East J Dig Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is an uncomfortable and short procedure needing brief sedation with fast emergence. METHODS This research is going to measure intravenous dexmedetomidine against propofol-fentanyl combination in terms of sedation-analgesia and hemodynamic changes in non-obligatory colonoscopy procedures. 70 colonoscopy candidates aged between 20 to 70 years were enrolled in this study while separated into two random equal-sized groups (p stands for propofol- & D stands for dexmedetomidine groups). All patients were premedicated with 0.03 mg/kg midazolam and 1 µ/kg fentanyl, 10 minutes and 5 minutes before the colonoscopy process, respectively. 0.5-1 mg/kg propofol for the P group and 1 µ/kg dexmedetomidine for the D group were infused in one minute before the initiation of the procedure following by normal saline as maintenance liquid and boluses of 25-50 µg fentanyl as needed. RESULTS These variables were entered into a datasheet: hemodynamic changes, sedation-analgesia level throughout the procedure, and patients’ and physicians’ contentment. The mean arterial pressure changes were similar and insignificant in the two groups (82.44±12.34 vs. 87.63±22.45 p=0.2). The D group had lower heart rates in comparison with the P group (72.51±16.7 vs. 81.56±15.71 p=0.001). The P group was deeply to moderately sedated and required a significantly lower doses of fentanyl rescue treatment (71.02±25.63 vs. 91.45±38.62 µg p=0.003). The P group was associated with a high incidence of apnea and was significantly superior to the D group in the matter of satisfaction (43% against 77%). CONCLUSION Colonoscopists’ contentment rates were identical in both groups. Propofol infusion is more satisfactory yet having more respiratory depression possibility in comparison with dexmedetomidine infusion in colonoscopy candidates.

show abstract

“…Dexmedetomidine, the S-enantiomer of medetomidine, a relatively newer alpha-2 adrenoreceptor agonist was first used in 1999 as a sedative during premedication primarily in the Intensive Care Units. [ 1 2 3 ] However, with the passage of time, dexmedetomidine has proved to be a novel drug which is currently used for the purpose of analgesia,[ 4 ] day-care surgeries,[ 5 ] short procedures such as colonoscopies,[ 6 7 ] and as an adjunct to general anesthesia for the purpose of co-induction. [ 8 ] The term co-induction of anesthesia has been applied to the use of two or more drugs to induce anesthesia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic efficacy of two different doses of dexmedetomidine on the hemodynamic response to intubation, the intubating conditions, and the effect on the induction dose of propofol: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Sharma

Mehta

2018

Anesth Essays Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context:The hemodynamic response associated with laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation is a common concern for the anesthesiologist, especially in high-risk patients. The use of dexmedetomidine has found favor in obtunding this response, in addition to providing better intubating conditions and reducing the dose of other anesthetic drugs. Most of the current literature states a loading dose of 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine to be superior to lower doses in this regard. However, using a lower dose may be advantageous by reducing incidence of adverse effects such as hypotension and bradycardia which are likelier with the use of higher dose, in addition to being more cost-effective.Aims:The aim of the study was (1) to evaluate and compare the effect of loading doses of 1 μg/kg and 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine on attenuation of hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation and (2) to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in reducing the induction dose of propofol for achieving better intubating conditions.Materials and Methods:A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was planned on ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into three groups. Two groups received different loading doses of dexmedetomidine infusion before induction and the third group was a control group. The induction dose of propofol required to abolish the verbal response was noted and compared in all the three groups. All patients were assessed for the intubating conditions and hemodynamic response.Statistical Analysis:Nonparametric data were compared using the Chi-square test and parametric data were compared using Student's t-test using SPSS 16.0 software.Results:Both the loading doses of 1 μg/kg and 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine were equally effective in reducing the induction dose of propofol, improving the intubating conditions and blunting the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation. The incidence of adverse effects such as hypotension and bradycardia was lesser with the loading dose of 0.5 μg/kg.Conclusions:Dexmedetomidine when used as infusion in the loading dose of 0.5 μg/kg is therapeutically as effective as when used in the dose of 1.0 μg/kg not only in reducing the induction dose of propofol but also in providing good intubating conditions and blunting the hemodynamic response to intubation. A lower dose is associated with a lesser incidence of adverse effects such as hypotension and bradycardia.

show abstract

Propofol versus dexmedetomidine for sedation in colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in hepatic patients (a comparative randomized study)

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in hepatic patients (a comparative randomized study)

Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol in Combination with Fentanyl for Sedation-Analgesia in Colonoscopy Procedures: A Randomized Prospective Study

Therapeutic efficacy of two different doses of dexmedetomidine on the hemodynamic response to intubation, the intubating conditions, and the effect on the induction dose of propofol: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About