Domenica Squillaci, Karen Console, Lara Colussi, Valentina Kiren, Marco Rabusin, Gabriele Stocco, Antonella Longo, Paolo Dalena, Egidio Barbi
{"title":"Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for Propofol Sparing in Procedural Sedation of Children With Leukemia: A Consecutive Case Series.","authors":"Domenica Squillaci, Karen Console, Lara Colussi, Valentina Kiren, Marco Rabusin, Gabriele Stocco, Antonella Longo, Paolo Dalena, Egidio Barbi","doi":"10.1111/aas.70107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Propofol is commonly used in procedural sedation in oncology due to its rapid sedative effect and favorable recovery profile. However, several preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated a dose-dependent neurotoxic effect of this drug. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are potential adjuvants that, if used as premedication, could reduce the required dose of propofol. This study compares the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in terms of propofol dose reduction during procedural sedation in oncology patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This one-year retrospective study compared the outcomes of procedural sedation, in terms of propofol-sparing, in 24 pediatric oncology patients who received midazolam (MP group, 52 procedures) or dexmedetomidine (DP group, 51 procedures) as premedication combined with propofol during bone marrow aspiration and/or lumbar puncture procedures. Data on propofol dosage, awakening time, vital parameters, and adverse events were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Premedication with dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower dose of propofol than midazolam (2.51 vs. 4.00 mg/kg, p < 0.001). Wake-up times were longer in the DP group (92 vs. 65 min; p = 0.045). Adverse events were very rare in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dexmedetomidine demonstrates superior propofol-sparing effects compared to midazolam, although it requires longer recovery times. These results support dexmedetomidine as a promising alternative in sedation protocols in pediatric oncology.</p><p><strong>Editorial comment: </strong>This retrospectively analysis of a single center series compared procedural sedation strategies for children involving propofol after standardized intravenous premedication with dexmedetomidine or midazolam. The findings demonstrated that dexmedetomidine in those doses and in combination with propofol confirmed sedative potency and duration more than that of the chosen midazolam premedication dosing.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":"69 8","pages":"e70107"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12311750/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70107","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Propofol is commonly used in procedural sedation in oncology due to its rapid sedative effect and favorable recovery profile. However, several preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated a dose-dependent neurotoxic effect of this drug. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are potential adjuvants that, if used as premedication, could reduce the required dose of propofol. This study compares the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in terms of propofol dose reduction during procedural sedation in oncology patients.
Methods: This one-year retrospective study compared the outcomes of procedural sedation, in terms of propofol-sparing, in 24 pediatric oncology patients who received midazolam (MP group, 52 procedures) or dexmedetomidine (DP group, 51 procedures) as premedication combined with propofol during bone marrow aspiration and/or lumbar puncture procedures. Data on propofol dosage, awakening time, vital parameters, and adverse events were examined.
Results: Premedication with dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower dose of propofol than midazolam (2.51 vs. 4.00 mg/kg, p < 0.001). Wake-up times were longer in the DP group (92 vs. 65 min; p = 0.045). Adverse events were very rare in both groups.
Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine demonstrates superior propofol-sparing effects compared to midazolam, although it requires longer recovery times. These results support dexmedetomidine as a promising alternative in sedation protocols in pediatric oncology.
Editorial comment: This retrospectively analysis of a single center series compared procedural sedation strategies for children involving propofol after standardized intravenous premedication with dexmedetomidine or midazolam. The findings demonstrated that dexmedetomidine in those doses and in combination with propofol confirmed sedative potency and duration more than that of the chosen midazolam premedication dosing.
期刊介绍：
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
