芬太尼和右美托咪定与芬太尼和咪达唑仑在急诊科插管开胸术中镇静作用的比较——一项随机对照研究。

IF 1.1 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sarat Chandra Uppaluri, Anne Kiran Kumar, G Suneel Kumar, Mohammed Ismail Nizami, Ashima Sharma
{"title":"芬太尼和右美托咪定与芬太尼和咪达唑仑在急诊科插管开胸术中镇静作用的比较——一项随机对照研究。","authors":"Sarat Chandra Uppaluri, Anne Kiran Kumar, G Suneel Kumar, Mohammed Ismail Nizami, Ashima Sharma","doi":"10.4103/tjem.tjem_175_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Effective sedation and analgesia during procedures not only provide relief of suffering but also frequently facilitate the successful and timely completion of the procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of fentanyl and dexmedetomidine compared to fentanyl and midazolam in procedural sedation for tube thoracostomy in the emergency department (ED) in terms of analgesia and patient satisfaction with sedation during the procedure using Pain Numerical Rating Scale and a 7-point Likert-like verbal rating scale for comfort rating of sedation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized control study was conducted in 64 subjects admitted to the ED. Tube thoracostomy was performed in patients after the decision for Intercostal drain (ICD) placement taken on radiographic and clinical assessment depending on their condition warranting it and after optimally stabilizing the patient in the ED. Of the total study participants that met the inclusion criteria, 32 participants randomly received dexmedetomidine and the other 32 received midazolam.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pain rating scale means were 2.3 ± 1.12 and 4.4 ± 1.72, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001), in dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups. With regard to adverse effects, a statistically significant difference was seen with dexmedetomidine causing hypotension (<i>P</i> = 0.04) and midazolam causing desaturation (<i>P</i> = 0.008). The results also suggested that midazolam achieved sedation levels quicker than dexmedetomidine and this finding was statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed (<i>P</i> < 0.001) with regard to mean patient verbal ratings at recovery of sedation satisfaction between the two groups, 6 ± 0.77 (dexmedetomidine group) versus 4.7 ± 0.8 (midazolam group).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When observed in terms of analgesia, anxiolysis, and better sedation, dexmedetomidine proved to be superior. Our study shows that this drug could be a better alternative to traditional benzodiazepines for procedural sedation in ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":46536,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 2","pages":"116-122"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002142/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of fentanyl and dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl and midazolam in procedural sedation for tube thoracostomy in emergency department - A randomized control study.\",\"authors\":\"Sarat Chandra Uppaluri, Anne Kiran Kumar, G Suneel Kumar, Mohammed Ismail Nizami, Ashima Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/tjem.tjem_175_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Effective sedation and analgesia during procedures not only provide relief of suffering but also frequently facilitate the successful and timely completion of the procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of fentanyl and dexmedetomidine compared to fentanyl and midazolam in procedural sedation for tube thoracostomy in the emergency department (ED) in terms of analgesia and patient satisfaction with sedation during the procedure using Pain Numerical Rating Scale and a 7-point Likert-like verbal rating scale for comfort rating of sedation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized control study was conducted in 64 subjects admitted to the ED. Tube thoracostomy was performed in patients after the decision for Intercostal drain (ICD) placement taken on radiographic and clinical assessment depending on their condition warranting it and after optimally stabilizing the patient in the ED. Of the total study participants that met the inclusion criteria, 32 participants randomly received dexmedetomidine and the other 32 received midazolam.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pain rating scale means were 2.3 ± 1.12 and 4.4 ± 1.72, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001), in dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups. With regard to adverse effects, a statistically significant difference was seen with dexmedetomidine causing hypotension (<i>P</i> = 0.04) and midazolam causing desaturation (<i>P</i> = 0.008). The results also suggested that midazolam achieved sedation levels quicker than dexmedetomidine and this finding was statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed (<i>P</i> < 0.001) with regard to mean patient verbal ratings at recovery of sedation satisfaction between the two groups, 6 ± 0.77 (dexmedetomidine group) versus 4.7 ± 0.8 (midazolam group).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When observed in terms of analgesia, anxiolysis, and better sedation, dexmedetomidine proved to be superior. Our study shows that this drug could be a better alternative to traditional benzodiazepines for procedural sedation in ED.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"116-122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002142/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_175_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_175_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:手术过程中有效的镇静和镇痛不仅能减轻患者的痛苦,而且往往有助于手术的成功和及时完成。本研究的目的是评价芬太尼和右美托咪定与芬太尼和咪达唑仑在急诊科(ED)插管开胸术中的镇痛效果和患者在手术过程中对镇静的满意度,采用疼痛数值评定量表和7分李克特口头评定量表对镇静的舒适度进行评定。方法:对64例急诊科患者进行随机对照研究。根据患者在急诊科的病情和最佳稳定后,根据影像学和临床评估决定放置肋间引流管(ICD)后,对患者进行套管开胸术。在符合纳入标准的研究参与者中,32名参与者随机接受右美托咪定治疗,32名接受咪达唑仑治疗。结果:右美托咪定组和咪达唑仑组疼痛评分均值分别为2.3±1.12和4.4±1.72 (P < 0.001)。在不良反应方面,右美托咪定引起低血压(P = 0.04),咪达唑仑引起去饱和(P = 0.008),差异有统计学意义。结果还表明咪达唑仑比右美托咪定更快达到镇静水平,这一发现具有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。两组患者镇静满意度恢复时的平均口头评分分别为6±0.77(右美托咪定组)和4.7±0.8(咪达唑仑组),差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。结论:右美托咪定在镇痛、抗焦虑和镇静效果方面优于右美托咪定。我们的研究表明,这种药物可以更好地替代传统的苯二氮卓类药物用于ED的程序性镇静。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of fentanyl and dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl and midazolam in procedural sedation for tube thoracostomy in emergency department - A randomized control study.

Objectives: Effective sedation and analgesia during procedures not only provide relief of suffering but also frequently facilitate the successful and timely completion of the procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of fentanyl and dexmedetomidine compared to fentanyl and midazolam in procedural sedation for tube thoracostomy in the emergency department (ED) in terms of analgesia and patient satisfaction with sedation during the procedure using Pain Numerical Rating Scale and a 7-point Likert-like verbal rating scale for comfort rating of sedation.

Methods: A randomized control study was conducted in 64 subjects admitted to the ED. Tube thoracostomy was performed in patients after the decision for Intercostal drain (ICD) placement taken on radiographic and clinical assessment depending on their condition warranting it and after optimally stabilizing the patient in the ED. Of the total study participants that met the inclusion criteria, 32 participants randomly received dexmedetomidine and the other 32 received midazolam.

Results: Pain rating scale means were 2.3 ± 1.12 and 4.4 ± 1.72, respectively (P < 0.001), in dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups. With regard to adverse effects, a statistically significant difference was seen with dexmedetomidine causing hypotension (P = 0.04) and midazolam causing desaturation (P = 0.008). The results also suggested that midazolam achieved sedation levels quicker than dexmedetomidine and this finding was statistically significant (P < 0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed (P < 0.001) with regard to mean patient verbal ratings at recovery of sedation satisfaction between the two groups, 6 ± 0.77 (dexmedetomidine group) versus 4.7 ± 0.8 (midazolam group).

Conclusions: When observed in terms of analgesia, anxiolysis, and better sedation, dexmedetomidine proved to be superior. Our study shows that this drug could be a better alternative to traditional benzodiazepines for procedural sedation in ED.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine (Turk J Emerg Med) is an International, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes clinical and experimental trials, case reports, invited reviews, case images, letters to the Editor, and interesting research conducted in all fields of Emergency Medicine. The Journal is the official scientific publication of the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) and is printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. The language of the journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. The authors are responsible for the scientific content of the material to be published. The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine reserves the right to request any research materials on which the paper is based. The Editorial Board of the Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the US National Library of Medicine, the US Office of Research Integrity, the European Association of Science Editors, and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
×
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