{"title":"右美托咪定-异丙酚与单独异丙酚在上消化道内镜超声中的镇静作用:一项随机比较研究。","authors":"Yuanming Liu MM , Yi Shen MM , Hai Zhong BM","doi":"10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.05.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) necessitates well-balanced sedation to ensure patient safety while optimizing procedural conditions. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine-propofol versus propofol-only sedation in terms of respiratory safety, sedation quality, and recovery outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled 145 patients undergoing lower esophageal or gastric EUS from January 2022 to May 2023. All participants received standardized premedication with midazolam and tetracaine gel for mucosal topicalization. Participants were randomized into two groups: dexmedetomidine-propofol (n = 72) and propofol-only (n = 73). Continuous variables were analyzed using independent t-tests, and categorical data were compared with chi-square tests, with statistical significance set at <em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>No significant difference was observed in patient satisfaction (<em>P</em> = 0.717), but endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine-propofol group (<em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05). This group also showed significantly fewer midazolam rescue doses, fewer respiratory adverse events, and reduced intra-procedural patient movement and cough reflexes (all <em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05). Furthermore, recovery outcomes were improved, with higher modified Aldrete scores and faster achievement of a post-anesthesia discharge score ≥9 (<em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05). However, induction time was longer and the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was higher in the combination group (<em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05).</div></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><div>Dexmedetomidine-propofol sedation enhances procedural conditions and recovery metrics in EUS but is associated with greater cardiovascular side effects. These findings suggest it is a valuable alternative to propofol alone, particularly when optimizing proceduralist satisfaction and minimizing respiratory complications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10699,"journal":{"name":"Clinical therapeutics","volume":"47 8","pages":"Pages 554-558"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Propofol Alone for Sedation in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Randomized Comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"Yuanming Liu MM , Yi Shen MM , Hai Zhong BM\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.05.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) necessitates well-balanced sedation to ensure patient safety while optimizing procedural conditions. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine-propofol versus propofol-only sedation in terms of respiratory safety, sedation quality, and recovery outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled 145 patients undergoing lower esophageal or gastric EUS from January 2022 to May 2023. All participants received standardized premedication with midazolam and tetracaine gel for mucosal topicalization. Participants were randomized into two groups: dexmedetomidine-propofol (n = 72) and propofol-only (n = 73). Continuous variables were analyzed using independent t-tests, and categorical data were compared with chi-square tests, with statistical significance set at <em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>No significant difference was observed in patient satisfaction (<em>P</em> = 0.717), but endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine-propofol group (<em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05). This group also showed significantly fewer midazolam rescue doses, fewer respiratory adverse events, and reduced intra-procedural patient movement and cough reflexes (all <em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05). Furthermore, recovery outcomes were improved, with higher modified Aldrete scores and faster achievement of a post-anesthesia discharge score ≥9 (<em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05). However, induction time was longer and the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was higher in the combination group (<em>P <</em> 0<em>.</em>05).</div></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><div>Dexmedetomidine-propofol sedation enhances procedural conditions and recovery metrics in EUS but is associated with greater cardiovascular side effects. These findings suggest it is a valuable alternative to propofol alone, particularly when optimizing proceduralist satisfaction and minimizing respiratory complications.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"47 8\",\"pages\":\"Pages 554-558\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014929182500178X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014929182500178X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Propofol Alone for Sedation in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Randomized Comparative Study
Purpose
Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) necessitates well-balanced sedation to ensure patient safety while optimizing procedural conditions. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine-propofol versus propofol-only sedation in terms of respiratory safety, sedation quality, and recovery outcomes.
Methods
This prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled 145 patients undergoing lower esophageal or gastric EUS from January 2022 to May 2023. All participants received standardized premedication with midazolam and tetracaine gel for mucosal topicalization. Participants were randomized into two groups: dexmedetomidine-propofol (n = 72) and propofol-only (n = 73). Continuous variables were analyzed using independent t-tests, and categorical data were compared with chi-square tests, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
Findings
No significant difference was observed in patient satisfaction (P = 0.717), but endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine-propofol group (P < 0.05). This group also showed significantly fewer midazolam rescue doses, fewer respiratory adverse events, and reduced intra-procedural patient movement and cough reflexes (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, recovery outcomes were improved, with higher modified Aldrete scores and faster achievement of a post-anesthesia discharge score ≥9 (P < 0.05). However, induction time was longer and the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was higher in the combination group (P < 0.05).
Implications
Dexmedetomidine-propofol sedation enhances procedural conditions and recovery metrics in EUS but is associated with greater cardiovascular side effects. These findings suggest it is a valuable alternative to propofol alone, particularly when optimizing proceduralist satisfaction and minimizing respiratory complications.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Therapeutics provides peer-reviewed, rapid publication of recent developments in drug and other therapies as well as in diagnostics, pharmacoeconomics, health policy, treatment outcomes, and innovations in drug and biologics research. In addition Clinical Therapeutics features updates on specific topics collated by expert Topic Editors. Clinical Therapeutics is read by a large international audience of scientists and clinicians in a variety of research, academic, and clinical practice settings. Articles are indexed by all major biomedical abstracting databases.