A comparison of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam – Fentanyl for sedoanalgesia and stable hemodynamic parameters, during colonoscopy under Monitored Anesthesia Care. (MAC)

Shweta Patel and Manisha kapdi
{"title":"A comparison of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam – Fentanyl for sedoanalgesia and stable hemodynamic parameters, during colonoscopy under Monitored Anesthesia Care. (MAC)","authors":"Shweta Patel and Manisha kapdi","doi":"10.48165/ijabms.2021.23116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:colonoscopy is routinely done under local anesthesia but it is stressful. Nowadays concept of conscious sedation or monitored Anesthesia care with mild sedoanalgesia is getting popular.Aim& Objective:The aim of our study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam Fentanyl combination on perioperative hemodynamics, sedation, pain, satisfaction and recovery scores during colonoscopy. Study design: Randomized comparative observational studyMaterial and methods:A total of 60 adult patients of ASA grade l/ll were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups.In Group A Midazolam 0.02 mg/ kg and fentanyl citrate 1 mcg/ kg were administered intravenously followed by 0.5 ml/ kg/ hr. of Normal saline.In Group B An initial loading dose of 1 mcg/ kg dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously in 10 min to cases before the procedure and followed by continuous infusion dose of 0.5 mcg/ kg /hr.Incremental dose of 1 mcg/ kg fentanyl citrate was administered intravenously immediately before the procedure. Peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores and colonoscopist satisfaction scores of the cases were recorded.Results:Although statistically significant values were not detected between the two groups with regard to mean arterial pressure.In Group I heart rates were higher and Spo2 scores were lower in a statistically significant manner. When the groups were compared with regard to RSS, the RSS scores of Group A at the 10th and 15th minutes were significantly lower than Group B. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when compared with regard to NRS scores. Satisfaction scores were significantly lower in Group B.Conclusion:Dexmedetomidine provides more efficient hemodynamic stability, higher Ramsay sedation scale scores, higher satisfaction scores and lower NRS score. So dexmedetomidine can be used safely as a sedoanalgesic agent.","PeriodicalId":354981,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Applied Basic Medical Sciences","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Applied Basic Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48165/ijabms.2021.23116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:colonoscopy is routinely done under local anesthesia but it is stressful. Nowadays concept of conscious sedation or monitored Anesthesia care with mild sedoanalgesia is getting popular.Aim& Objective:The aim of our study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam Fentanyl combination on perioperative hemodynamics, sedation, pain, satisfaction and recovery scores during colonoscopy. Study design: Randomized comparative observational studyMaterial and methods:A total of 60 adult patients of ASA grade l/ll were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups.In Group A Midazolam 0.02 mg/ kg and fentanyl citrate 1 mcg/ kg were administered intravenously followed by 0.5 ml/ kg/ hr. of Normal saline.In Group B An initial loading dose of 1 mcg/ kg dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously in 10 min to cases before the procedure and followed by continuous infusion dose of 0.5 mcg/ kg /hr.Incremental dose of 1 mcg/ kg fentanyl citrate was administered intravenously immediately before the procedure. Peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores and colonoscopist satisfaction scores of the cases were recorded.Results:Although statistically significant values were not detected between the two groups with regard to mean arterial pressure.In Group I heart rates were higher and Spo2 scores were lower in a statistically significant manner. When the groups were compared with regard to RSS, the RSS scores of Group A at the 10th and 15th minutes were significantly lower than Group B. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when compared with regard to NRS scores. Satisfaction scores were significantly lower in Group B.Conclusion:Dexmedetomidine provides more efficient hemodynamic stability, higher Ramsay sedation scale scores, higher satisfaction scores and lower NRS score. So dexmedetomidine can be used safely as a sedoanalgesic agent.
右美托咪定与咪达唑仑-芬太尼在麻醉监护下结肠镜检查中镇痛和稳定血流动力学参数的比较。(MAC)
背景:结肠镜检查是在局部麻醉下进行的常规检查,但它是有压力的。目前,有意识镇静或监测麻醉护理与轻度镇静镇痛的概念越来越流行。目的与目的:本研究的目的是比较右美托咪定与咪达唑仑芬太尼联合应用对结肠镜检查围手术期血流动力学、镇静、疼痛、满意度和恢复评分的影响。研究设计:随机比较观察性研究材料和方法:共纳入60例ASA l/ll级成人患者。患者随机分为两组。A组静脉滴注咪达唑仑0.02 mg/ kg,枸橼酸芬太尼1 mcg/ kg,随后滴注0.5 ml/ kg/ hr。生理盐水。B组患者术前10分钟内静脉给予右美托咪定初始负荷剂量1 mcg/ kg,随后持续输注剂量0.5 mcg/ kg /hr。在手术前立即静脉注射枸橼酸芬太尼1微克/千克的增量剂量。记录患者外周血氧饱和度(SpO2)、平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)、Ramsay镇静量表(RSS)、数值评定量表(NRS)评分及结肠镜医师满意度评分。结果:两组患者平均动脉压差异无统计学意义。第一组患者心率较高,Spo2评分较低,差异有统计学意义。比较两组的rrs评分时,A组在第10、15分钟的rrs评分明显低于b组,两组的NRS评分比较,差异无统计学意义。结论:右美托咪定提供更有效的血流动力学稳定性、更高的Ramsay镇静量表评分、更高的满意度评分和更低的NRS评分。因此,右美托咪定可以作为一种安全的镇痛药使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信