Comparison of safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine, midazolam and propofol for elective fiberoptic bronchoscopy: A randomised prospective double blind study

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
P. Chouhan, Shrutikirti Gupta, A. Kohli, R. Kour
{"title":"Comparison of safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine, midazolam and propofol for elective fiberoptic bronchoscopy: A randomised prospective double blind study","authors":"P. Chouhan, Shrutikirti Gupta, A. Kohli, R. Kour","doi":"10.4103/theiaforum.theiaforum_59_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Sedatives are used to improve the efficacy of fiberoptic bronchoscopy. This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and propofol for elective fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty patients of either gender aged between 18 and 80 years, belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I–III and requiring fiberoptic bronchoscopy, were randomly assigned in three groups of 40 patients each. Patients in Group D received intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg; in Group M, received IV midazolam 0.05 mg/kg; and in Group P, received IV propofol 1.5 mg/kg before the start of bronchoscopy. Parameters such as composite score, ease of bronchoscopy, and adverse effects during the procedure were assessed and analyzed statistically. Results: Patients receiving dexmedetomidine showed significantly better tolerance and cooperation with ideal mean composite score compared to those receiving propofol and midazolam (P < 0.001). Bronchoscopist scoring showed significantly better ease of bronchoscopy in patients receiving dexmedetomidine compared to other two groups (P < 0.001). Adverse effects during the procedure were least in dexmedetomidine group compared to other two groups. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) provided a better sedation and comfort, better bronchoscopist satisfaction, and least adverse effect during elective fiberoptic bronchoscopy compared to midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) and propofol (1.5 mg/kg).","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":"24 1","pages":"36 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/theiaforum.theiaforum_59_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sedatives are used to improve the efficacy of fiberoptic bronchoscopy. This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and propofol for elective fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty patients of either gender aged between 18 and 80 years, belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I–III and requiring fiberoptic bronchoscopy, were randomly assigned in three groups of 40 patients each. Patients in Group D received intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg; in Group M, received IV midazolam 0.05 mg/kg; and in Group P, received IV propofol 1.5 mg/kg before the start of bronchoscopy. Parameters such as composite score, ease of bronchoscopy, and adverse effects during the procedure were assessed and analyzed statistically. Results: Patients receiving dexmedetomidine showed significantly better tolerance and cooperation with ideal mean composite score compared to those receiving propofol and midazolam (P < 0.001). Bronchoscopist scoring showed significantly better ease of bronchoscopy in patients receiving dexmedetomidine compared to other two groups (P < 0.001). Adverse effects during the procedure were least in dexmedetomidine group compared to other two groups. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) provided a better sedation and comfort, better bronchoscopist satisfaction, and least adverse effect during elective fiberoptic bronchoscopy compared to midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) and propofol (1.5 mg/kg).
右美托咪定、咪达唑仑和异丙酚用于选择性纤维支气管镜检查的安全性和有效性比较:一项随机前瞻性双盲研究
背景:使用镇静剂来提高纤维支气管镜检查的疗效。本研究旨在评价和比较右美托咪定、咪达唑仑和异丙酚用于选择性纤维支气管镜检查的安全性和有效性。材料与方法:120例年龄在18 ~ 80岁之间,属于美国麻醉医师学会I-III级,需要纤维支气管镜检查的患者,男女不限,随机分为三组,每组40例。D组患者静脉注射右美托咪定1 μg/kg;M组,静脉滴注咪达唑仑0.05 mg/kg;P组在支气管镜检查开始前静脉滴注异丙酚1.5 mg/kg。对综合评分、支气管镜检查便利性、手术过程中不良反应等参数进行评估和统计分析。结果:与异丙酚和咪达唑仑组相比,右美托咪定组患者耐受性和理想平均综合评分的配合性显著提高(P < 0.001)。支气管镜评分显示,与其他两组相比,接受右美托咪定治疗的患者支气管镜检查的便便性显著提高(P < 0.001)。与其他两组相比,右美托咪定组手术过程中不良反应最少。结论:与咪达唑仑(0.05 mg/kg)和异丙酚(1.5 mg/kg)相比,右美托咪定(1 μg/kg)在选择性纤维支气管镜检查中具有更好的镇静和舒适性,更好的支气管镜医师满意度,不良反应最小。
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信