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}
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.
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.