Dexmedetomidine or midazolam in combination with propofol for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized double blind prospective study

dc.authorid0000-0001-7739-902X
dc.authorid0000-0001-6092-3040
dc.contributor.authorKoruk, Senem
dc.contributor.authorKoruk, Irfan
dc.contributor.authorArslan, Ayse Mizrak
dc.contributor.authorBilgi, Murat
dc.contributor.authorGul, Rauf
dc.contributor.authorBozgeyik, Semsettin
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-10T19:31:38Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Interventional endoscopic procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), often require sedation during the procedure. The most commonly used drugs for this purpose are midazolam and propofol, which are used as sedative and hypnotic agents with minimal analgesic potential. Aim: To compare the analgesic sedative effects of midazolam-propofol and dexmedetomidine-propofol combinations and their influence on hemodynamic and respiratory variables in patients undergoing ERCP. Material and methods: Forty adult patients aged 20-78 and undergoing ERCP were randomized to two groups. Patients were premedicated with midazolam (0.05 mg/kg 10 min before the procedure) in group M and with dexmedetomidine (1 mu g/kg for 10 min) in group D. Propofol was used for maintenance. The sedation level was monitored using the bispectral index (BIS) to maintain a score between 70 and 80. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables, recovery time and adverse events were recorded. Results: The hemodynamic and respiratory variables were similar in both groups. Total propofol consumption was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group (208.5 +/- 80.0 vs. 154.5 +/- 66.7 mg; p = 0.011). The recovery period was shorter in group D (time to achieve the Aldrete score 9 was 9.4 +/- 2.1 vs. 6.6 +/- 1.1 min; p < 0.001). Changes in hemodynamic and respiratory variables and adverse events were not different between the two groups. Conclusions: We found a shorter recovery time and comparable sedative and adverse effects with the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination compared with the midazolam-propofol combination. Dexmedetomidine in combination with propofol may be a safe and useful alternative for sedation for ERCP patients.
dc.identifier.doi10.5114/wiitm.2020.95066
dc.identifier.endpage532
dc.identifier.issn1895-4588
dc.identifier.issn2299-0054
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.pmid32904611
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85091057881
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage526
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2020.95066
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/7995
dc.identifier.volume15
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000561377700019
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTermedia Publishing House Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofVideosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectdexmedetomidine
dc.subjectsedation
dc.subjectbispectral index
dc.subjectendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
dc.subjectrecovery time
dc.titleDexmedetomidine or midazolam in combination with propofol for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized double blind prospective study
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket

Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Yükleniyor...
Küçük Resim
İsim:
Tam Metin / Full Text
Boyut:
93.18 KB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format