Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs ketamine vs midazolam combined with propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy for cancer patients: A randomized double-blinded trial

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-07-03 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2230404
Nahla N Shehab, Walaa Y. Elsabeeny, Sayed M Abed
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs ketamine vs midazolam combined with propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy for cancer patients: A randomized double-blinded trial","authors":"Nahla N Shehab, Walaa Y. Elsabeeny, Sayed M Abed","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2230404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background A wide range of drugs are used for sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures, including midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of these drugs in combination with propofol among cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Methods This randomized, double-blinded study was carried out on 75 cancer patients who underwent GI endoscopy. Patients were categorized into three equal groups. Group D: received dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg bolus infusion over 10 min. Group K: received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg. Group M: received midazolam 0.05 mg/kg. With these drugs, 0.5 mg/kg propofol was administered intravenously with incremental 20 mg till achievement of Ramsey sedation score (RSS) 3–4. After that, 0.5 mg/kg propofol boluses were offered for rescue sedation. Results The endoscopy duration was comparable in the three groups. Time of RSS 3–4 achievement and total propofol dose (P < 0.05) were significantly lower in group D and group K compared to group M. Time to eye-opening were significantly lower in groups D, and K compared to group M, with insignificant difference between group K and group D. Moreover, the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) of group K at 10 min, 15 min, 20 min, 25 min, and 30 min, and PACU were significantly greater than D and M groups (P < 0.05). Incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were comparable in the three groups. Conclusions In cancer patients who underwent GI endoscopy, dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol had better sedation efficacy [lower achievement time of RSS 3–4, total propofol dose, and eye-opening time] compared to midazolam-propofol group with superior sedative effect of ketamine-propofol than dexmedetomidine-propofol. While ketamine-propofol had more stable HR and MAP.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2230404","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

ABSTRACT Background A wide range of drugs are used for sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures, including midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of these drugs in combination with propofol among cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Methods This randomized, double-blinded study was carried out on 75 cancer patients who underwent GI endoscopy. Patients were categorized into three equal groups. Group D: received dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg bolus infusion over 10 min. Group K: received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg. Group M: received midazolam 0.05 mg/kg. With these drugs, 0.5 mg/kg propofol was administered intravenously with incremental 20 mg till achievement of Ramsey sedation score (RSS) 3–4. After that, 0.5 mg/kg propofol boluses were offered for rescue sedation. Results The endoscopy duration was comparable in the three groups. Time of RSS 3–4 achievement and total propofol dose (P < 0.05) were significantly lower in group D and group K compared to group M. Time to eye-opening were significantly lower in groups D, and K compared to group M, with insignificant difference between group K and group D. Moreover, the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) of group K at 10 min, 15 min, 20 min, 25 min, and 30 min, and PACU were significantly greater than D and M groups (P < 0.05). Incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were comparable in the three groups. Conclusions In cancer patients who underwent GI endoscopy, dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol had better sedation efficacy [lower achievement time of RSS 3–4, total propofol dose, and eye-opening time] compared to midazolam-propofol group with superior sedative effect of ketamine-propofol than dexmedetomidine-propofol. While ketamine-propofol had more stable HR and MAP.
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
癌症患者胃肠镜下右美托咪定、氯胺酮、咪达唑仑联合异丙酚的安全性和疗效:一项随机双盲试验
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
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊最新文献
Intrathecal levo-bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for inguinal hernia repairs in ex-preterm infants: A double blinded randomized prospective study Comparison of two different methods as reliable predictors of successful caudal block in children Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol on early cognitive functions in elderly patients after lumbar disc surgery Muscle wasting assessed by ultrasound versus scoring systems as early predictor of outcomes of intensive care unit stay in critically ill patients Posterior quadratus lumborum versus caudal epidural block for perioperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing upper abdominal surgeries: Arandomized, double-blind trial
×
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