Sedation for Colonoscopy Procedures Using Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol-Fentanyl Infusions: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Sameh Hamdy Seyam, Mohamed Abdelgawad Abdelhalim Aboelsuod, Ismail Mohamed Abdelgawad Ahmed, Abdallah Elabd Hassan
{"title":"Sedation for Colonoscopy Procedures Using Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol-Fentanyl Infusions: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Sameh Hamdy Seyam, Mohamed Abdelgawad Abdelhalim Aboelsuod, Ismail Mohamed Abdelgawad Ahmed, Abdallah Elabd Hassan","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2024.231485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Different anaesthetists for sedation or monitored anaesthesia care have been used for colonoscopy. The target of this research was the ability to perform colonoscopy under a painless degree of sedation and the prevalence of undesired proceedings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 60 patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group D received dexmedetomidine and Group PF received propofol-fentanyl. Patients in both groups received the same infusion ratio. The minimum infusion amount of dexmetatomidine is (0.1 to 0.4 μg kg<sup>-1</sup> h<sup>-1</sup>) in Group D, whereas fentanyl is administered at a rate of 0.01 to 0.05 μg kg<sup>-1</sup> min<sup>-1</sup> in the PF group during the approximately 45-min colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group D exhibited significantly lower modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scores at intraoperative time points T1-T12. Group D also exhibited significantly lower visual analog scale scores for pain at intraoperative time points T4 and T7. The mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in Group D at intraoperative times T6-T8 and T11-T12, as well as upon admission to the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and 30 min after admission to the PACU. The results of the ANOVA tests revealed a significantly lower heart rate in Group D. The respiratory rate exhibited a notable decrease during time intervals T8 and T10 in the PF group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The administration of dexmetatomidine and propofol-fentanyl during colonoscopy was found to be safe. In addition, dexmetatomidine may present significant benefits in this context because of its lower occurrence of adverse respiratory events.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":"52 2","pages":"60-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11074601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2024.231485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Different anaesthetists for sedation or monitored anaesthesia care have been used for colonoscopy. The target of this research was the ability to perform colonoscopy under a painless degree of sedation and the prevalence of undesired proceedings.

Methods: A total of 60 patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group D received dexmedetomidine and Group PF received propofol-fentanyl. Patients in both groups received the same infusion ratio. The minimum infusion amount of dexmetatomidine is (0.1 to 0.4 μg kg-1 h-1) in Group D, whereas fentanyl is administered at a rate of 0.01 to 0.05 μg kg-1 min-1 in the PF group during the approximately 45-min colonoscopy.

Results: Group D exhibited significantly lower modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scores at intraoperative time points T1-T12. Group D also exhibited significantly lower visual analog scale scores for pain at intraoperative time points T4 and T7. The mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in Group D at intraoperative times T6-T8 and T11-T12, as well as upon admission to the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and 30 min after admission to the PACU. The results of the ANOVA tests revealed a significantly lower heart rate in Group D. The respiratory rate exhibited a notable decrease during time intervals T8 and T10 in the PF group.

Conclusion: The administration of dexmetatomidine and propofol-fentanyl during colonoscopy was found to be safe. In addition, dexmetatomidine may present significant benefits in this context because of its lower occurrence of adverse respiratory events.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用右美托咪定与丙泊酚-芬太尼输注进行结肠镜检查手术镇静:前瞻性随机对照试验。
目的:结肠镜检查中使用了不同的麻醉师进行镇静或监测麻醉护理。本研究的目标是在无痛镇静状态下进行结肠镜检查的能力以及不良反应的发生率:共有 60 名患者被随机分为两组:D组接受右美托咪定,PF组接受丙泊酚-芬太尼。两组患者的输注比例相同。在大约 45 分钟的结肠镜检查过程中,D 组的右美托咪定最低输注量为(0.1 至 0.4 μg kg-1 h-1),而 PF 组的芬太尼输注量为 0.01 至 0.05 μg kg-1 min-1:结果:D组在术中T1-T12时间点的改良观察者警觉/镇静评估(OAA/S)评分明显较低。D 组在术中时间点 T4 和 T7 的疼痛视觉模拟量表评分也明显较低。在术中时间点 T6-T8、T11-T12,以及进入麻醉后护理病房(PACU)时和进入 PACU 后 30 分钟,D 组的平均动脉压明显较低。方差分析的结果显示,D组的心率明显降低,PF组的呼吸频率在T8和T10时间段明显下降:结论:结肠镜检查期间使用右美托咪定和丙泊酚-芬太尼是安全的。此外,由于右美托咪定发生呼吸系统不良事件的几率较低,因此在结肠镜检查中使用右美托咪定可能具有显著的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Comparative Study of Magnesium Sulfate, Lignocaine, and Propofol for Attenuating Hemodynamic Response During Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Under General Anaesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Anaesthesia Management of A Patient with Airway Obstruction Caused by Prosthetic Vascular Graft Invasion into the Tracheal Lumen. Bispectral Index Guidance Reduced Target Plasma Propofol Concentration During ERCP in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. Dexmedetomidine Versus Fentanyl in Intraoperative Neuromuscular Monitoring Using A Propofol-based Total Intravenous Anaesthesia Regimen in Spine Surgeries. Implementation of ERAS Protocols: In Theory and Practice.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1