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:Although 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.One 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.Level 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.Continuous 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.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01806753.

Project description:Vasopressors are frequently used to increase blood pressure in order to ensure sufficient cerebral perfusion and oxygenation (CPO) during hypotensive periods in anaesthetized patients. Efficacy depends both on the vasopressor and anaesthetic protocol used. Propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is common in human anaesthesia, and dexmedetomidine is increasingly used as adjuvant to facilitate better haemodynamic stability and analgesia. Little is known of its interaction with vasopressors and subsequent effects on CPO. This study investigates the CPO response to infusions of norepinephrine and phenylephrine in piglets during propofol-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil-dexmedetomidine anaesthesia. Sixteen healthy female piglets (25-34 kg) were randomly allocated into a two-arm parallel group design with either normal blood pressure (NBP) or induced low blood pressure (LBP). Anaesthesia was induced with propofol without premedication and maintained with propofol-remifentanil TIVA, and finally supplemented with continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine. Norepinephrine and phenylephrine were infused in consecutive intervention periods before and after addition of dexmedetomidine. Cerebral perfusion measured by laser speckle contrast imaging was related to cerebral oxygenation as measured by an intracerebral Licox probe (partial pressure of oxygen) and transcranial near infrared spectroscopy technology (NIRS) (cerebral oxygen saturation).During propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia, increases in blood pressure by norepinephrine and phenylephrine did not change cerebral perfusion significantly, but cerebral partial pressure of oxygen (Licox) increased following vasopressors in both groups and increases following norepinephrine were significant (NBP: P = 0.04, LBP: P = 0.02). In contrast, cerebral oxygen saturation (NIRS) fell significantly in NBP following phenylephrine (P = 0.003), and following both norepinephrine (P = 0.02) and phenylephrine (P = 0.002) in LBP. Blood pressure increase by both norepinephrine and phenylephrine during propofol-remifentanil-dexmedetomidine anaesthesia was not followed by significant changes in cerebral perfusion. Licox measures increased significantly following both vasopressors in both groups, whereas the decreases in NIRS measures were only significant in the NBP group.Cerebral partial pressure of oxygen measured by Licox increased significantly in concert with the vasopressor induced increases in blood pressure in healthy piglets with both normal and low blood pressure. Cerebral oxygenation assessed by intracerebral Licox and transcranial NIRS showed opposing results to vasopressor infusions.

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