Dataset Information

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection.

ABSTRACT: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil.Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 ?g/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety.Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group ("very easy" 24.1% vs 56.7%, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group ("no + mild" 96.6% vs 73.3%, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group ("very good + good" 100% vs 86.7%, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100% of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4% in the DR group and 100% in the PR group (P = 0.477).The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility.

SUBMITTER: Kim N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4375593 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Kim Namo N Yoo Young-Chul YC Lee Sang Kil SK Kim Hyunzu H Ju Hyang Mi HM Min Kyeong Tae KT

World journal of gastroenterology 20150301 12

<h4>Aim</h4>To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil.<h4>Methods</h4>Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. ...[more]

PMID: 25834336

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed under sedation, the difference in ESD performance according to sedation method is not well known. This study attempted to prospectively assess and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patient stability during ESD between two sedation methods.MethodsOne hundred and fifty-four adult patients scheduled for ESD were sedated by either the IMIE (intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopist) or CPIA (continuous propofol infusion by anesthesiologist) method. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the level of satisfaction of the endoscopists between the two groups. The secondary endpoints included level of satisfaction of the patients, patient's pain scores, events interfering with the procedure, incidence of unintended deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications.ResultsLevel of satisfaction of the endoscopists was significantly higher in the CPIA Group compared to the IMIE group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 63.2% vs. 87.2%, P=0.001). The incidence of unintended deep sedation was significantly higher in the IMIE Group compared to the CPIA Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; 17.1% vs. 5.1%, P=0.018) as well as the number of patients showing spontaneous movement or those requiring physical restraint (IMIE vs. CPIA; spontaneous movement; 60.5% vs. 42.3%, P=0.024, physical restraint; 27.6% vs. 10.3%, P=0.006, respectively). In contrast, level of satisfaction of the patients were found to be significantly higher in the IMIE Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 85.5% vs. 67.9%, P=0.027). Pain scores of the patients, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications were not different between the two groups.ConclusionContinuous propofol and remifentanil infusion by an anesthesiologist during ESD can increase the satisfaction levels of the endoscopists by providing a more stable state of sedation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01806753.

Project description:BackgroundFearful and anxious patients who find dental treatment intolerable without sedative and analgesic support may benefit from moderate sedation. Target controlled infusion (TCI) pumps are superior to bolus injection in maintaining low plasma and effect-site concentration variability, resulting in stable, steady-state drug concentrations. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of moderate sedation with remifentanil and propofol using TCI pumps in non-hospital dental settings.MethodsA prospective chart review was conducted on 101 patients sedated with propofol and remifentanil using TCI pumps. The charts were completed at two oral surgeons and one general dentist's office over 6 months. Hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and over-sedation were considered adverse events and were collected using Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation (TROOPS). Furthermore, patient recovery time, sedation length, drug dose, and patient satisfaction questionnaires were used to measure sedation effectiveness.ResultsOf the 101 reviewed sedation charts, 54 were of men, and 47 were of women. The mean age of the patients was 40.5 ±18.7 years, and their mean BMI was 25.6 ± 4.4. The patients did not experience hypoxia, bradycardia, and hypotension during the 4694 min of sedation. The average minimum Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) and heartbeats were 75.1 mmHg and 60.4 bpm, respectively. 98% of patients agreed that the sedation technique met their needs in reducing their anxiety, and 99% agreed that they were satisfied with the sedation 24 hours later. The average sedation time was 46.9 ± 55.6 min, and the average recovery time was 12.4 ± 4.4 min. Remifentanil and propofol had mean initial effect-site concentration doses of 0.96 µ/ml and 1.0 ng/ml respectively. The overall total amount of drug administered was significantly higher in longer sedation procedures compared to shorter ones, while the infusion rate decreased as the procedural stimulus decreased.ConclusionAccording to the results of this study, no patients experienced adverse events during sedation, and all patients were kept at a moderate sedation level for a wide range of sedation times and differing procedures. The results showed that TCI pumps are safe and effective for administering propofol and remifentanil for moderate sedation in dentistry.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Publications

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets