异丙酚-芬太尼与异丙酚-右美托咪定在门诊镇静中的对比:一项三盲、随机对照临床试验。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Nicole Morem Pilau Moritz , Getúlio Rodrigues de Oliveira Filho , José Eduardo Moritz , Jefferson Luiz Traebert
{"title":"异丙酚-芬太尼与异丙酚-右美托咪定在门诊镇静中的对比:一项三盲、随机对照临床试验。","authors":"Nicole Morem Pilau Moritz ,&nbsp;Getúlio Rodrigues de Oliveira Filho ,&nbsp;José Eduardo Moritz ,&nbsp;Jefferson Luiz Traebert","doi":"10.1016/j.bjane.2025.844636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The choice of anesthetic agents plays a crucial role in procedural success. This study aimed to compare the effects of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-dexmedetomidine combinations, focusing on patient and surgeon perspectives in outpatient procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A randomized, controlled, triple-blind clinical trial including 128 adult patients undergoing elective outpatient surgical procedures with sedation and local anesthesia. Patients were randomized to receive either propofol-fentanyl (PF, n = 64) or propofol-dexmedetomidine (PDex, n = 64). Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, assessed using the ISAS-Br score, and the adequacy of sedation, evaluated by the surgeon and measured by a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for movement. Respiratory and hemodynamic changes, as well as awakening from anesthesia, adverse events during recovery, and time to hospital discharge were compared.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No difference between patient satisfaction scores (median ISAS-Br [IQR]: PF 2.64 [2.45‒3.00] vs. PDex 3.00 [2.45‒3.00], p = 0.252). The PF group had a significantly lower movement score (median NRS [IQR]: 0.5 [0.00‒2.25] vs. 2.0 [0.00‒5.00], p = 0.006). The incidence of intraoperative events related to respiration and hemodynamics, as postoperative pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting were similar. A higher proportion of patients sedated with PF awoke in the operating room (75% vs. 35.9%, p &lt; 0.001), and 98.4% of the PF group vs. 92.2% of the PDex group were ready for hospital discharge in less than thirty minutes, p = 0.208.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Single doses of fentanyl or dexmedetomidine combined with propofol resulted in equivalent patient satisfaction, safety, and discharge times. The propofol-fentanyl combination demonstrated superior sedation adequacy from the surgeon’s perspective and facilitated a faster emergence from anesthesia.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":32356,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"75 4","pages":"Article 844636"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Propofol-fentanyl versus propofol-dexmedetomidine in outpatient procedures sedation: a triple-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Morem Pilau Moritz ,&nbsp;Getúlio Rodrigues de Oliveira Filho ,&nbsp;José Eduardo Moritz ,&nbsp;Jefferson Luiz Traebert\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bjane.2025.844636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The choice of anesthetic agents plays a crucial role in procedural success. This study aimed to compare the effects of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-dexmedetomidine combinations, focusing on patient and surgeon perspectives in outpatient procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A randomized, controlled, triple-blind clinical trial including 128 adult patients undergoing elective outpatient surgical procedures with sedation and local anesthesia. Patients were randomized to receive either propofol-fentanyl (PF, n = 64) or propofol-dexmedetomidine (PDex, n = 64). Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, assessed using the ISAS-Br score, and the adequacy of sedation, evaluated by the surgeon and measured by a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for movement. Respiratory and hemodynamic changes, as well as awakening from anesthesia, adverse events during recovery, and time to hospital discharge were compared.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No difference between patient satisfaction scores (median ISAS-Br [IQR]: PF 2.64 [2.45‒3.00] vs. PDex 3.00 [2.45‒3.00], p = 0.252). The PF group had a significantly lower movement score (median NRS [IQR]: 0.5 [0.00‒2.25] vs. 2.0 [0.00‒5.00], p = 0.006). The incidence of intraoperative events related to respiration and hemodynamics, as postoperative pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting were similar. A higher proportion of patients sedated with PF awoke in the operating room (75% vs. 35.9%, p &lt; 0.001), and 98.4% of the PF group vs. 92.2% of the PDex group were ready for hospital discharge in less than thirty minutes, p = 0.208.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Single doses of fentanyl or dexmedetomidine combined with propofol resulted in equivalent patient satisfaction, safety, and discharge times. The propofol-fentanyl combination demonstrated superior sedation adequacy from the surgeon’s perspective and facilitated a faster emergence from anesthesia.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"75 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 844636\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104001425000521\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104001425000521","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:麻醉药物的选择对手术成功起着至关重要的作用。本研究旨在比较异丙酚-芬太尼和异丙酚-右美托咪定组合在门诊手术中的效果,重点关注患者和外科医生的观点。方法:一项随机、对照、三盲临床试验,包括128例在镇静和局部麻醉下接受选择性门诊手术的成年患者。患者随机接受异丙酚-芬太尼(PF, n = 64)或异丙酚-右美托咪定(PDex, n = 64)治疗。主要结果为患者满意度(使用ISAS-Br评分进行评估)和镇静的充分性(由外科医生评估并使用数字评定量表(NRS)对运动进行测量)。比较呼吸和血流动力学变化、麻醉苏醒、恢复期间不良事件和出院时间。结果:患者满意度评分无差异(ISAS-Br [IQR]中位数:PF 2.64 [2.45-3.00] vs. PDex 3.00 [2.45-3.00], p = 0.252)。PF组运动评分显著低于对照组(中位NRS [IQR]: 0.5 [0.00-2.25] vs. 2.0 [0.00 - 5.50], p = 0.006)。术中与呼吸和血流动力学相关的事件,如术后疼痛和术后恶心/呕吐的发生率相似。使用PF镇静的患者在手术室醒来的比例更高(75%对35.9%,p < 0.001), 98.4%的PF组比92.2%的PDex组在30分钟内准备出院,p = 0.208。结论:单剂量芬太尼或右美托咪定联合异丙酚可获得相同的患者满意度、安全性和出院时间。从外科医生的角度来看,异丙酚-芬太尼组合显示出优越的镇静充分性,并有助于更快地从麻醉中恢复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Propofol-fentanyl versus propofol-dexmedetomidine in outpatient procedures sedation: a triple-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial

Introduction

The choice of anesthetic agents plays a crucial role in procedural success. This study aimed to compare the effects of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-dexmedetomidine combinations, focusing on patient and surgeon perspectives in outpatient procedures.

Methods

A randomized, controlled, triple-blind clinical trial including 128 adult patients undergoing elective outpatient surgical procedures with sedation and local anesthesia. Patients were randomized to receive either propofol-fentanyl (PF, n = 64) or propofol-dexmedetomidine (PDex, n = 64). Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, assessed using the ISAS-Br score, and the adequacy of sedation, evaluated by the surgeon and measured by a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for movement. Respiratory and hemodynamic changes, as well as awakening from anesthesia, adverse events during recovery, and time to hospital discharge were compared.

Results

No difference between patient satisfaction scores (median ISAS-Br [IQR]: PF 2.64 [2.45‒3.00] vs. PDex 3.00 [2.45‒3.00], p = 0.252). The PF group had a significantly lower movement score (median NRS [IQR]: 0.5 [0.00‒2.25] vs. 2.0 [0.00‒5.00], p = 0.006). The incidence of intraoperative events related to respiration and hemodynamics, as postoperative pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting were similar. A higher proportion of patients sedated with PF awoke in the operating room (75% vs. 35.9%, p < 0.001), and 98.4% of the PF group vs. 92.2% of the PDex group were ready for hospital discharge in less than thirty minutes, p = 0.208.

Conclusion

Single doses of fentanyl or dexmedetomidine combined with propofol resulted in equivalent patient satisfaction, safety, and discharge times. The propofol-fentanyl combination demonstrated superior sedation adequacy from the surgeon’s perspective and facilitated a faster emergence from anesthesia.
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
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
68 days
×
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