A Comparison of the Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam on Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endosonography Outside the Operating Room.

Q2 Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-01 eCollection Date: 2023-06-01 DOI:10.5812/aapm-109721
Ali Ghomeishi, Reza Akhondzadeh, Reza Baghbanian, Kamran Mahmoudi, Nima Bakhtiari
{"title":"A Comparison of the Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam on Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endosonography Outside the Operating Room.","authors":"Ali Ghomeishi, Reza Akhondzadeh, Reza Baghbanian, Kamran Mahmoudi, Nima Bakhtiari","doi":"10.5812/aapm-109721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients may experience anxiety, discomfort, and pain during endoscopy, which cannot be tolerated without sedative drugs.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam on patients undergoing endosonography outside the operating room.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 126 patients aged 18 - 65 years old with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I - II undergoing elective endosonography. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The dexmedetomidine group received dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) for 25 minutes with propofol (0.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) at the start of the procedure. The midazolam group received midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) with propofol (0.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg). Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>) were recorded before and 5, 10, and 15 minutes after starting the procedure. The Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) and the need for an additional dose of propofol were recorded during the procedure. The Numeric Pain Rating scale (Ambesh score) scores were recorded at the beginning, immediately after, and 1 hour after the procedure. Nausea and vomiting were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale in cooperation with the patient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The dexmedetomidine group had significantly higher SpO<sub>2</sub> and RSS scores during sedation than the midazolam group (P = 0.02). Overall, specialist satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group than in the midazolam group. There was no clinically significant difference in pain score and nausea and vomiting frequencies between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dexmedetomidine is more effective than midazolam for sedation during gastrointestinal endosonography.</p>","PeriodicalId":7841,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e109721"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664169/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-109721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients may experience anxiety, discomfort, and pain during endoscopy, which cannot be tolerated without sedative drugs.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam on patients undergoing endosonography outside the operating room.

Methods: This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 126 patients aged 18 - 65 years old with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I - II undergoing elective endosonography. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The dexmedetomidine group received dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) for 25 minutes with propofol (0.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) at the start of the procedure. The midazolam group received midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) with propofol (0.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg). Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded before and 5, 10, and 15 minutes after starting the procedure. The Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) and the need for an additional dose of propofol were recorded during the procedure. The Numeric Pain Rating scale (Ambesh score) scores were recorded at the beginning, immediately after, and 1 hour after the procedure. Nausea and vomiting were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale in cooperation with the patient.

Results: The dexmedetomidine group had significantly higher SpO2 and RSS scores during sedation than the midazolam group (P = 0.02). Overall, specialist satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group than in the midazolam group. There was no clinically significant difference in pain score and nausea and vomiting frequencies between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine is more effective than midazolam for sedation during gastrointestinal endosonography.

右美托咪定和咪唑安定对手术室外胃肠道超声检查患者镇静作用的比较
背景:患者在内镜检查过程中可能会感到焦虑、不适和疼痛,如果没有镇静药物,这些症状是无法忍受的。目的:比较右美托咪定与咪达唑仑对手术外超声患者的镇静作用。方法:本随机双盲临床试验对126例年龄在18 ~ 65岁,身体状态为美国麻醉医师学会(ASA) I ~ II级的患者进行选择性超声检查。患者随机分为两组。右美托咪定组在手术开始时给予右美托咪定(1 μg/kg) 25分钟,同时给予异丙酚(0.5 mg/kg)和芬太尼(1 μg/kg)。咪达唑仑组给予咪达唑仑(0.03 mg/kg)、异丙酚(0.5 mg/kg)、芬太尼(1 μg/kg)。心率、平均动脉压(MAP)和血氧饱和度(SpO2)分别在手术开始前、5分钟、10分钟和15分钟后记录。在手术过程中记录了Ramsay镇静量表(RSS)和额外剂量异丙酚的需要。在手术开始、手术后立即和手术后1小时分别记录数值疼痛评定量表(Ambesh评分)评分。恶心和呕吐在患者的协助下使用视觉模拟量表进行评估。结果:右美托咪定组镇静时SpO2和RSS评分明显高于咪达唑仑组(P = 0.02)。总体而言,右美托咪定组的专家满意度高于咪达唑仑组。两组患者疼痛评分、恶心呕吐次数均无显著差异。结论:右美托咪定在胃肠超声检查中的镇静效果优于咪达唑仑。
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
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
×
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