{"title":"Comparison of intravenous sedation with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam in double-J ureteral stent removal.","authors":"Hamidreza Shetabi, Faride Akrami Moghaddam, Reza Kazemi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>According to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during double-j stent removal and lack of studies investigating the sedative effect of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam during this procedure. This study aimed to compare the effects of intravenous sedation with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam in double-J ureteral stent removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients aged 18-72 who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal in Alzahra hospital, Isfahan, Iran from September to November 2021. Patients were randomly divided into 3 groups. In the first group, propofol was titrated with normal saline and was infused with a loading dose of 0.5 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 1.5-2.5 mg/kg/h. In the second group, Dexmedetomidine was titrated with normal saline and was infused at a dose of 1 µg/kg within 10 min and then continued at 0.45-0.55 µg/kg. In third group, midazolam was titrated was infused with a loading dose of 0.05 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 0.05 mg/kg/h. 50 mg of fentanyl was also infused in all the groups. If the patients did not reach the desired sedation level, 10 mg ketamine was infused as a rescue sedative agent for all three groups and repeated if needed in all groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal. The comparison of the sedative effect of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and propofol showed significant differences among the three groups and was higher in the midazolam group (P=0.018). Between the three groups systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the propofol group (P=0.002). Heart rate was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group during both surgery and recovery time (P<0.001). There was no significant difference among the groups during surgery regarding oxygen saturation (<i>P</i> value =0.84). The intergroup comparison indicates that the mean score of surgeon satisfaction is significantly higher in the midazolam group (<i>P</i>-value =0.039).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to this study midazolam was superior to two other groups and was associated with deeper sedation and higher satisfaction among both patient and surgeon.</p>","PeriodicalId":7438,"journal":{"name":"American journal of clinical and experimental urology","volume":"11 2","pages":"160-167"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10165230/pdf/ajceu0011-0160.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of clinical and experimental urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: According to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during double-j stent removal and lack of studies investigating the sedative effect of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam during this procedure. This study aimed to compare the effects of intravenous sedation with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam in double-J ureteral stent removal.
Methods: This double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients aged 18-72 who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal in Alzahra hospital, Isfahan, Iran from September to November 2021. Patients were randomly divided into 3 groups. In the first group, propofol was titrated with normal saline and was infused with a loading dose of 0.5 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 1.5-2.5 mg/kg/h. In the second group, Dexmedetomidine was titrated with normal saline and was infused at a dose of 1 µg/kg within 10 min and then continued at 0.45-0.55 µg/kg. In third group, midazolam was titrated was infused with a loading dose of 0.05 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 0.05 mg/kg/h. 50 mg of fentanyl was also infused in all the groups. If the patients did not reach the desired sedation level, 10 mg ketamine was infused as a rescue sedative agent for all three groups and repeated if needed in all groups.
Results: The current study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal. The comparison of the sedative effect of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and propofol showed significant differences among the three groups and was higher in the midazolam group (P=0.018). Between the three groups systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the propofol group (P=0.002). Heart rate was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group during both surgery and recovery time (P<0.001). There was no significant difference among the groups during surgery regarding oxygen saturation (P value =0.84). The intergroup comparison indicates that the mean score of surgeon satisfaction is significantly higher in the midazolam group (P-value =0.039).
Conclusion: According to this study midazolam was superior to two other groups and was associated with deeper sedation and higher satisfaction among both patient and surgeon.