PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced

Important Notice

PubMed Central Canada to be taken offline in February 2018

On February 23, 2018, PubMed Central Canada (PMC Canada) will be taken offline permanently. No author manuscripts will be deleted, and the approximately 2,900 manuscripts authored by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-funded researchers currently in the archive will be copied to the National Research Council’s (NRC) Digital Repository over the coming months. These manuscripts along with all other content will also remain publicly searchable on PubMed Central (US) and Europe PubMed Central, meaning such manuscripts will continue to be compliant with the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.

Read more

Results 1-25 (1754496)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Comparison of Intubating Conditions using Fentanyl plus Propofol Versus Fentanyl plus Midazolam during Fiberoptic Laryngoscopy 
Introduction
Awake nasal or oral flexible fiberoptic intubation is the airway management technique of choice in known or anticipated difficult airway, unstable cervical fracture, limited mouth opening (as in temporomandibular joint disease), mandibular-maxillary fixation and severe facial burns. Both optimal intubating condition and patient comfort are important for fiberoptic intubation. Optimal intubating conditions provided by an ideal sedation regimen would ensure haemodynamic stability, patient comfort, attenuation of airway reflexes and amnesia.
Aim
To compare the intubating conditions using fentanyl plus propofol versus fentanyl plus midazolam during fiberoptic laryngoscopy.
Materials and Methods
A prospective, comparative and randomized study was conducted on 60 patients of either gender aged between 18 and 60 years belonging to the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade-I or II scheduled for elective surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 30 each. In group I, patients received i.v. fentanyl 1 μg/kg+ propofol 1 mg/kg to achieve an adequate level of sedation that is Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 3. In group II, patients received i.v. fentanyl 1 μg/kg + midazolam 0.03 mg/kg to achieve RSS= score of 3. Haemodynamic parameters (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure), SpO2, EtCO2, total comfort scale values and patient’s tolerance were assessed during preoxygenation, fiberscope insertion and endotracheal intubation.
Results
Fentanyl plus midazolam group showed better patient comfort and maintenance of oxygen saturation than fentanyl plus propofol group during fiberoptic intubation.
Conclusion
Both fentanyl plus midazolam and fentanyl plus propofol regimes are suitable for fiberoptic intubation. Fentanyl plus midazolam appeared to offer better tolerance, preservation of an airway and spontaneous ventilation, while maintaining haemodynamic stability.
doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/26479.10220
PMCID: PMC5583785
Patient’s tolerance; Ramsay sedation scale; SpO2; Total comfort scale
2.  Comparitive Evaluation of Propofol and Midazolam as Conscious Sedatives in Minor Oral Surgery 
Objective
The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of propofol and midazolam as an intravenous sedative agent in minor oral surgical procedures in terms of: (a) the onset of action, (b) heart rate, (c) oxygen saturation, (d) systolic and diastolic blood pressure, (e) respiratory rate, (f) pain during the injection of sedative agent, (g) recovery period, (h) side effects, (i) patient’s cooperation during the surgery.
Methodology
This was a double blind randomized study in which one group of 20 patients received propofol with the induction dose of 0.5 mg/kg and 50 μg/kg/min which was administered by syringe infusion pump as a maintenance dose and the other group received midazolam in a single dose of 75 μg/kg and no maintenance dose was given, instead 5 % dextrose was administered by syringe infusion pump at the rate of 50 μg/kg/min. Since propofol was milky white in colour, a green cloth was covered over the infusion pump in all cases. The surgeon, assistants and observers were blind about the medications which would be given to the patient for sedation. After the administration of the sedative, local anesthesia was achieved with 2 % lignocaine hydrochloride.
Results
The onset of action in propofol group was significant as onset of action was faster. The maximum increase in heart rate in propofol group was at 10 min intraoperatively (Mean ± 80.40 ± 12.73) and that in midazolam group was at 15 min intraoperatively (Mean 79.25 ± 13.44). Post operatively the heart rate decreased near to the baseline value in both the groups. The average oxygen saturation before induction in propofol group was 99.7 ± 0.73 % and that of midazolam group was 99.15 ± 01.31 P = 0.314. None of the patients in this study developed apnea. The systolic blood pressure (Mean ± SD) before induction in both the groups decreased from the baseline value after the administration of sedatives. The diastolic blood pressure (Mean ± SD) before induction in both the groups decreased from the baseline value after the administration of sedatives and the decreased diastolic blood pressure was maintained throughout the procedure. The respiratory rate (Mean ± SD) before induction in both the groups decreased from the baseline value after the administration of sedatives. The decreased respiratory rate remained throughout the surgical procedure. Pain during the injection of the sedatives was reported by nine patients (45 %) in the propofol group whereas none of the patients in midazolam group complained of pain during the injection. This is statistically significant (P = 0.001). The recovery time (Mean ± SD) in propofol group was 22.50 ± 3.04 (range 15–25 min) and that in midazolam group was 33.75 ± 3.93 (range 30–40 min), which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Patients in the propofol group were significantly less co-operative than midazolam group at both 10 and 25 min intra operatively.
Conclusion
The design of the present study permitted qualitative assessment of propofol and midazolam as sedative agents in minor oral surgical procedures. The ideal anesthetic agent should provide rapid onset of action, profound intra operative amnesia while ensuring rapid recovery without much complications. There were no significant differences in either patient demographics or surgical characteristics between the two groups. The propofol group was less co-operative than midazolam group. Pain during the injection of sedative was a significant adverse effect in the propofol group. Cardiovascular parameters remained stable throughout the procedure in both study groups and no intervention was required. However recovery and onset of action was faster in the propofol group as compared with the midazolam group.
doi:10.1007/s12663-014-0676-y
PMCID: PMC4510082  PMID: 26225076
Propofol; Midazolam; Minor oral surgery; Day care surgery
3.  Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Use of Propofol Plus Fentanyl versus Midazolam Plus Fentanyl as Sedation in Diagnostic Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease 
Objectives
We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of propofol plus fentanyl versus midazolam plus fentanyl as sedative for patients with advanced liver disease presented for gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Methods
A total of 100 patients with liver cirrhosis referred for upper endoscopy were enrolled and divided equally in two groups, midazolam plus fentanyl group and propofol plus fentanyl group. All patients were subjected to history taking, estimation of level of sedation, endoscopist rating, and hemodynamic parameters including oxygen saturation, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, incidence of side effect as (bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea and vomiting, cough, shivering, or diplopia), time needed for complete recovery, and time needed for discharge.
Results
There was no statistical significant difference between the studied groups regarding age, sex, weight, Child–Pugh classification score, type and duration of endoscopic intervention, time needed for complete recovery, or time needed for discharge. Complication rates were similar in both groups except for mean arterial blood pressure which was significantly lower in group of patients receiving propofol and fentanyl (P = 0.001).
Conclusion
The use of either propofol or midazolam in combination to fentanyl is effective in sedation of patients with advanced liver diseases presented for upper GIT endoscope. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03063866.
doi:10.1155/2017/8462756
PMCID: PMC5634622
4.  Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens 
AIM: To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS: After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ2 test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.
RESULTS: The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.
CONCLUSION: Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i22.3439
PMCID: PMC3683682  PMID: 23801836
Endoscopy; Deep sedation; Anesthetic administration; Anesthetic dose; Adverse effects
5.  Sedative and Analgesic Effects of Propofol-Fentanyl Versus Propofol-Ketamine During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial 
Background
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a painful procedure that requires analgesia and sedation.
Objectives
In this study, we compared the analgesic and sedative effects of propofol-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl in patients undergoing ERCP.
Methods
In this clinical trial, 72 patients, aged 30 - 70 years old, who were candidates for ERCP were randomly divided into two groups. Before the start of ERCP, both groups received midazolam 0.5 - 1 mg. The intervention group (PK) received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg, and the control group (PF) received fentanyl 50 - 100 micrograms. All patients received propofol 0.5 mg/kg in a loading dose followed by 75 mcg/kg/minute in an infusion. The patients, the anesthesiologist, and the endoscopist were unaware of the medication regimen. Sedation and analgesia quality (based on a VAS), blood pressure, respiratory rate, heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, recovery time (based on Aldrete scores), and endoscopist and patient satisfation were recorded.
Results
The sedative effects were equal in the two groups (P > 0.05), but the analgesic effects were higher in the PF group than in the PK group (P < 0.05). The PK group had higher blood pressure levels in the eighth minute. Respiratory rate, heart rate, and arterial oxygen saturation showed no significant differences between the groups (P > 0.05). Endoscopist satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and recovery time showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05).
Conclusions
The results showed that the sedative effect of propofol-ketamine was equal to the propofol-fentanyl combination during ERCP. To prevent respiratory and hemodynamic complications during ERCP, the propofol-ketamine combination should be used in patients with underlying disease.
doi:10.5812/aapm.39835
PMCID: PMC5106556  PMID: 27853681
Propofol; Midazolam; Ketamine; Fentanyl; Sedation; Analgesia
6.  Sedative Efficacy of Propofol in Patients Intubated/Ventilated after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery 
Background:
Sedation after open heart surgery is important in preventing stress on the heart. The unique sedative features of propofol prompted us to evaluate its potential clinical role in the sedation of post-CABG patients.
Objectives:
To compare propofol-based sedation to midazolam-based sedation after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Patients and Methods:
Fifty patients who were admitted to the ICU after CABG surgery was randomized into two groups to receive sedation with either midazolam or propofol infusions; and additional analgesia was administered if required. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients 40-60 years old, hemodynamic stability, ejection fraction (EF) more than 40%; exclusion criteria included patients who required intra-aortic balloon pump or inotropic drugs post-bypass. The same protocol of anesthetic medications was used in both groups. Depth of sedation was monitored using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). Invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), arterial blood gas (ABG) and ventilatory parameters were monitored continuously after the start of study drug and until the patients were extubated.
Results:
The depth of sedation was almost the same in the two groups (RSS=4.5 in midazolam group vs 4.7 in propofol group; P = 0.259) but the total dose of fentanyl in the midazolam group was significantly more than the propofol group (12.5 mg/hr vs 4 mg/hr) (P = 0.0039). No significant differences were found in MAP (P = 0.51) and HR (P = 0.41) between the groups. The mean extubation time in patients sedated with propofol was shorter than those sedated with midazolam (102 ± 27 min vs 245 ± 42 min, respectively; P < 0.05) but the ICU discharge time was not shorter (47.5 hr vs 36.3 hr, respectively; P = 0.24).
Conclusions:
Propofol provided a safe and acceptable sedation for post-CABG surgical patients, significantly reduced the requirement for analgesics, and allowed for more rapid tracheal extubation than midazolam but did not result in earlier ICU discharge.
doi:10.5812/aapm.17109
PMCID: PMC3961039  PMID: 24660162
Propofol; Analgesics; Coronary Artery Bypass; Deep Sedation; Midazolam; Airway Extubation; Length of Stay
7.  Sedation with etomidate-fentanyl versus propofol-fentanyl in colonoscopies: A prospective randomized study 
Background:
The combination of propofol-fentanyl for sedation during colonoscopy is characterized by high prevalence of side effects. Etomidate-fentanyl provides fewer hemodynamic and respiratory complications. The aim of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of propofol-fentanyl and etomidate-fentanyl for conscious sedation in elective colonoscopy.
Methods:
This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 90 patients aged between 18- 55 years old who were candidates for elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with fentanyl plus propofol or etomidate. Two minutes after injecting 1 micro/kg of fentanyl, the patients received 0.5mg/kg propofol by infusion (25 µ/kg/min) or 0.1 mg/kg etmoidate (15 µ/kg/min). Pulse rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, and saturation of peripheral oxygen (SPO2) were monitored. In addition, the patient and colonoscopist satisfaction, the recovery time, sedation and pain score in both groups were assessed.
Results:
Sedation score in propofol group was higher. Pain score as well as the physician and patient satisfaction showed no significant difference between the two study groups. Hemodynamic changes and arterial saturation were the same in both groups. The duration of recovery was 1.27±0.82 minutes in the etomidate group; versus 2.57±2.46 minutes in the propofol group (P=0.001). Recovery time in the etmoid group was 2.68±3.14 minutes and in the propofol group was 5.53±4.67 minutes (p=0.001).
Conclusion:
The combination of fentanyl and etomidate provides an acceptable alternative to sedation with fentanyl and propofol with the advantage of significantly faster recovery time, in the outpatient setting.
PMCID: PMC4478113  PMID: 26221491
Propofol; Etomidate; Colonoscopy; Sedation
8.  A randomized trial evaluating low doses of propofol infusion after intravenous ketamine for ambulatory pediatric magnetic resonance imaging 
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia  2014;8(4):510-516.
Objective:
Our study compared the discharge time after pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following sedation with propofol infusion dose of 100, 75 and 50 mcg/kg/min given after a bolus dose of ketamine and propofol.
Materials and Methods:
One hundred children of American Society of Anesthesiologists status 1/2, aged 6 months to 8 years, scheduled for elective MRI were enrolled and randomized to three groups to receive propofol infusion of 100, 75 or 50 mcg/kg/min (Groups A, B, and C, respectively). After premedicating children with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg intravenous (i.v.), sedation was induced with bolus dose of ketamine and propofol (1 mg/kg each) and the propofol infusion was connected. During the scan, heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were monitored.
Results:
The primary outcome that is, discharge time was shortest for Group C (44.06 ± 18.64 min) and longest for Group A (60.00 ± 18.66 min), the difference being statistically and clinically significant. The secondary outcomes that is, additional propofol boluses, scan quality and awakening time were comparable for the three groups. The systolic blood pressure at 20, 25 and 30 min was significantly lower in Groups A and B compared with Group C. The incidence of sedation related adverse events was highest in Group A and least in Group C.
Conclusion:
After a bolus dose of ketamine and propofol (1 mg/kg each), propofol infusion of 50 mcg/kg/min provided sedation with shortest discharge time for MRI in children premedicated with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg i.v. It also enabled stable hemodynamics with less adverse events.
doi:10.4103/1658-354X.140871
PMCID: PMC4236939  PMID: 25422610
Ambulatory; ketamine; magnetic resonance imaging; pediatric; propofol; sedation
9.  Can low dose of propofol effectively suppress fentanyl-induced cough during induction of anaesthesia? A double blind randomized controlled trial 
Background and Aims:
Fentanyl-induced cough (FIC) is often seen after intravenous (IV) administration of fentanyl during the induction of general anesthesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low dose of propofol in suppressing of FIC during induction of anesthesia.
Material and Methods:
In a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial, a total of 240 patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Class I and II, scheduled for elective surgery were randomly assigned into two equally sized groups (n = 120). Patients in Group A received low dose of propofol (10 mg) and patients in Group B received the same volume of normal saline (control group). Two minutes later, all patients were given fentanyl (2 μg/kg) over 2 s through the peripheral IV line in the forearm. The vital sign profiles and frequency and intensity of cough were recorded within 2 min after fentanyl bolus by a nurse blinded to study design. Data were analyzed using independent t-test, paired t-test and Chi-square test.
Results:
The incidences of FIC were 9.2% and 40.8% in Group A (propofol) and Group B (placebo) respectively (P = 0.04). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the intensity of cough between Groups A and B (P < 0.0001). The hemodynamic value (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, mean arterial pressure and saturation of oxygen) were similar, and there was no significant difference between two groups in the baseline value or after propofol or placebo injection.
doi:10.4103/0970-9185.169082
PMCID: PMC4676244  PMID: 26702212
Cough; fentanyl; general anesthesia; propofol
10.  Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol-based anesthesia on the hemodynamic response and recovery characteristics in patients undergoing microlaryngeal surgery 
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia  2012;6(4):380-384.
Background:
This randomized study was conducted to compare the hemodynamic changes and emergence characteristics of sevoflurane versus propofol anesthesia for microlaryngeal surgery.
Methods:
Forty adult patients undergoing microlaryngoscopy were randomly allocated into two groups. In propofol group, anesthesia was induced with 2-3 mg/kg propofol and maintained with propofol infusion 50-200 μg/kg/h. In sevoflurane group induction was carried out with 5-8% sevoflurane and maintained with sevoflurane in nitrous oxide and oxygen. The propofol and sevoflurane concentrations were adjusted to maintain the bispectral index of 40-60. All patients received fentanyl 2 μg/kg before induction and succinylcholine 2 mg/kg to facilitate tracheal intubation. The hemodynamic changes during induction and suspension laryngoscopy were compared. In addition, the emergence time, time to extubation, and recovery were assessed.
Results:
The changes in heart rate were comparable. The mean arterial pressure was significantly lower after induction and higher at insertion of operating laryngoscope in propofol group as compared to sevoflurane group. More patients in propofol group had episodes of hypotension and hypertension than sevoflurane group. The emergence time, extubation times, and recovery time were similar in both groups.
Conclusion:
We found that sevoflurane showed advantage over propofol in respect of intraoperative cardiovascular stability without increasing recovery time.
doi:10.4103/1658-354X.105876
PMCID: PMC3591559  PMID: 23493938
General anesthesia; hemodynamic changes; microlaryngeal surgery; propofol; recovery; sevoflurane
11.  Conscious Sedation and Analgesia in Colonoscopy: Ketamine/Propofol Combination has Superior Patient Satisfaction Versus Fentanyl/Propofol 
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine  2013;3(1):208-213.
Background
Colonoscopy is performed without preparing sedation in many countries. However, according to the current literature patients are more satisfied when appropriate sedation is prepared for them.
Objectives
We hypothesize that propofol-ketamine may prepare more patient satisfaction compared to propofol-fentanyl combination.
Patients and Methods
Sixty adult patients older than 18 with ASA physical status of I, II or III were enrolled in the present study after providing the informed consent. They were prospectively randomized into two equal groups: 1- Group PF: was scheduled to receive IV bolus dose of fentanyl 1µg/kg and propofol 0.5mg/kg. 2- Group PK: was scheduled to receive IV bolus dose of ketamine 0.5mg/kg and propofol 0.5mg/kg. As a primary goal, patient’s satisfaction was assessed by the use a Likert five-item scoring system in the recovery. Comparisons of hemodynamic parameters (mean heart rate, mean systolic blood pressure, mean diastolic blood pressure), mean Spo2 values during the procedure and side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and psychological reactions during the recovery period were our secondary goals. Level of sedation during the colonoscopy was assessed with the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score (OAA/S).
Results
Mean satisfaction scores in the group PK were significantly higher than the group PF (P = 0.005) while the level of sedation during the procedure was similar (P = 0.17). Hemodynamic parameters and SpO2 values were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Incidence of nausea and vomiting was the same in both groups.
Conclusions
IV bolus injection of propofol-ketamine can lead to more patients’ satisfaction than the other protocols during colonoscopy.
doi:10.5812/aapm.9653
PMCID: PMC3821150  PMID: 24223364
Colonoscopy; Ketamine; Propofol; Fentanyl; Patient Satisfaction
12.  Propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in children: Effect of two different doses 
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia  2013;7(3):266-269.
Purpose:
To compare two different doses of propofol for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion in children undergoing out-patient surgeries.
Background:
Insertion of LMA just after anesthesia induction is facilitated using propofol. However, the optimal dose of this drug not determined yet as heavy doses may lead to severe complications, whereas lower doses may not be quite as effective.
Methods:
In a double-blind randomized clinical trial, 120 children undergoing out-patient surgeries were recruited to receive intravenous propofol at a dose of either 2.5 mg/kg (group 1) or 3.5 mg/kg (group 2) for induction. Intravenous midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) were used as pre-medication in all patients and anesthesia induction was initiated using lidocaine (1 mg/kg) prior to propofol administration. Hemodynamic changes, probable complications, quality of the established airway and number of attempts for LMA insertion were compared between two groups.
Results:
There were no differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation and intraoperative complications between the groups (P>0.05). LMA insertion was successful at the first attempt in 55 (93.2%) and 54 (91.5%) cases in group 1 and group 2, respectively (P>0.05). The efficiency of the established airways was adequate in all the patients of both groups.
Conclusion:
It seems that propofol doses of 2.5 and 3.5 mg/kg are equally effective for LMA insertion following intravenous midazolam, fentanyl, and lidocaine.
doi:10.4103/1658-354X.115339
PMCID: PMC3757798  PMID: 24015128
Children; laryngeal mask airway; propofol
13.  Conscious Sedation for Balloon Mitral Valvotomy: A Comparison of Fentanyl versus Sufentanil 
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia  2017;20(2):163-168.
Context:
Analgesia and sedation are required for the comfort of patient and the cardiologist during balloon mitral valvotomy.
Aims:
In this study, efficacy of analgesia, sedation, and patient satisfaction with sufentanil was compared with fentanyl.
Settings and Design:
Single-centered, prospective single-blind study of sixty patients.
Materials and Methods:
Patients between 15 and 45 years of rheumatic mitral stenosis with valve area of 0.8–1 cm2 undergoing elective balloon mitral valvotomy, randomly divided to receive bolus injection fentanyl 1 mcg/kg (Group 1, n = 30) followed by infusion at 1 mcg/kg/h or bolus of injection sufentanil 0.1 mcg/kg (Group 2, n = 30) followed by continuous infusion at 0.1 mcg/h. Both the groups received injection midazolam bolus 0.02 mg/kg followed by infusion at 15 mcg/kg/h. Pain intensity (by visual analog score [VAS]), level of sedation (by Ramsay sedation scale), overall patient and operator's satisfaction, effect on cardiorespiratory parameters, and discharge score (by modified Aldrete score) were assessed.
Statistical Analysis Used:
Statistical analysis used Student's unpaired t-test and Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
Mean number of bolus doses in fentanyl group was 0.9 versus 0.13 in sufentanil group (P < 0.01). The mean value of mean blood pressure in fentanyl group was 83.52 mmHg versus 88 mmHg in sufentanil group (P < 0.05), but the value was within normal range in both the groups. The mean VAS – patient's opinion in fentanyl group was 8.97 versus 9.53 in sufentanil group (P < 0.05). Mean discharge score in fentanyl group was 17.87 versus 18.23 in sufentanil group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found with respect to heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, PaCO2 values, and anxiety scores.
Conclusion:
Sufentanil was found to be better with respect to analgesia, patient satisfaction, and recovery however not cost-effective for continuous infusion technique.
doi:10.4103/0971-9784.203930
PMCID: PMC5408520  PMID: 28393775
Balloon mitral valvotomy; conscious sedation; fentanyl; sufentanil
14.  Comparison of midazolam with fentanyl-midazolam combination during flexible bronchoscopy: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study 
Indian Journal of Pharmacology  2017;49(4):304-311.
BACKGROUND:
Sedation during flexible bronchoscopy is desirable, but the drugs and the dosage protocols that are used vary.
OBJECTIVE:
To study and compare the effects of midazolam with fentanyl-midazolam combination during flexible bronchoscopy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The study was conducted on 144 patients, from October 2013 to July 2015. They answered Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale and a prebronchoscopy questionnaire to assess their expectation toward flexible bronchoscopy. The patients were randomized into three groups: placebo, midazolam, and fentanyl-midazolam. Vitals signs including heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded. Furthermore, Ramsay Sedation Scale was assessed during the procedure. Primary outcome measure was the composite score of patient-reported tolerance and satisfaction (assessed after the procedure). Secondary outcome measures were composite score of physician-reported feasibility of the procedure, hemodynamic changes during bronchoscopy, and side effects.
RESULTS:
Patient-reported tolerance and satisfaction composite scores (median, interquartile range) for placebo, midazolam, and fentanyl-midazolam groups were 54 (52, 57), 59 (57, 61.5), 62 (58.5, 66), respectively; P < 0.001. Physician-reported feasibility composite scores (median, interquartile range) for the respective groups were 24.5 (20.5, 28), 25 (21, 27), 26 (25, 29); P = 0.004. There was no significant difference between the groups so far as mean heart rate (P = 0.305), mean systolic blood pressure (P = 0.532), mean diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.516), mean respiratory rate (P = 0.131), and mean SpO2 (P = 0.968) were concerned.
CONCLUSION:
Conscious sedation with fentanyl and midazolam combination can result in better patient and operator satisfaction when compared with midazolam alone.
doi:10.4103/ijp.IJP_683_16
PMCID: PMC5754938
Fentanyl; flexible bronchoscopy; midazolam
15.  Addition of low-dose ketamine to midazolam and low-dose bupivacaine improves hemodynamics and postoperative analgesia during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section 
Background and Aims:
Spinal anesthesia for cesarean section (CS) is associated with an incidence of hypotension of 60-94%. This study hypothesizes that intrathecal combination of low-dose ketamine, midazolam, and low-dose bupivacaine improves hemodynamics and postoperative analgesia compared with fentanyl and low-dose bupivacaine during CS.
Material and Methods:
Fifty parturients undergoing elective CS were randomized equally to receive ketamine (10 mg), midazolam (2 mg) and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (8 mg) in group ketamine-midazolam-bupivacaine (KMB) or fentanyl (25 μg) and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (8 mg) in group fentanyl-bupivacaine (FB). Heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation, sensorimotor block characteristics, pain-free period, side-effects including: hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, vomiting, sedation, pruritus, respiratory depression and dissociative manifestations, Apgar score at 1 and 5 min, and patients' satisfaction visual analog scores (VAS) were recorded. Patients in group KMB were followed for 6 months in order to assess any neurological disorder.
Results:
Group KMB showed higher sensory level (P = 0.006), rapid sensory (P = 0.001) and motor (P = 0.005) onsets, prolonged sensory (P = 0.008) and motor (P = 0.002) blocks, and prolonged pain free period (P = 0.002). Ketamine-midazolam stabilized HR and MAP, and significantly reduced incidence of hypotension (P = 0.002), bradycardia (P = 0.013) and vomiting (P = 0.019). Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min were comparable in both groups (P = 0.699 and 0.646 respectively). Patients' satisfaction VAS scores were significantly higher in group KMB (P = 0.001). No patients in KMB group showed dissociative or neurotoxic manifestations.
Conclusion:
Intrathecal low-dose ketamine combined with midazolam and low-dose bupivacaine stabilizes hemodynamics and prolongs postoperative analgesia without significant side-effects in parturients undergoing CS.
doi:10.4103/0970-9185.173322
PMCID: PMC4784212  PMID: 27006540
Cesarean section; intrathecal ketamine; intrathecal low-dose bupivacaine; intrathecal midazolam
16.  Sedation in hypoalbuminemic geriatric patients under spinal anesthesia in hip surgery 
Saudi Medical Journal  2015;36(10):1191-1198.
Objectives:
To compare midazolam and propofol sedation in hypoalbuminemic geriatric patients under spinal anesthesia in hip surgery with bispectral index monitoring.
Methods:
This prospective and randomized study was completed in the Department of Anesthesiology, Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey between February 2013 and December 2014. Sixty patients undergoing elective hip surgery under spinal anesthesia in the geriatric age group with albumin levels below 3 g/dl were randomly divided into Group I and Group II. After administration of spinal block, Group I were given 0.05 mg/kg bolus midazolam, and then 0.02-0.1 mg/kg/hr dose infusion was begun. In Group II, 1 mg/kg bolus propofol was given within 10 minutes, and then 1-3 mg/kg/hr infusion was begun. The systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation values, respiratory rate, and Wilson’s 5-stage sedation score were recorded at 15-minute intervals. At the end of the operation, the recovery time and surgeon satisfaction were recorded.
Results:
The recovery times for patients in Group I were found to be longer than in Group II (p<0.05). The respiration rate in patients in Group I at the start of surgery, 15th minute of surgery, and after surgery were lower than in Group II (p<0.05).
Conclusion:
We conclude that propofol is more reliable in terms of hemodynamic stability than midazolam, as it causes less respiratory depression and faster recovery in the propofol group.
doi:10.15537/smj.2015.10.12403
PMCID: PMC4621725  PMID: 26446330
17.  Comparative evaluation of recovery characteristics of fentanyl and butorphanol when used as supplement to propofol anaesthesia 
Background and Aim:
Narcotics have been used since long as a component of balanced anaesthesia, thus minimizing the anaesthetic requirement both during induction and maintenance as well as attenuating the pressor response during laryngoscopy and intubation. Equally significant is their role in provision of smoother recovery period by minimizing postoperative pain. Other than pain, the factors like postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), shivering, sedation and respiratory depression are equally important in recovery from the effects of anaesthetic drugs. The present study aimed at comparing the postoperative recovery characterstics of fentanyl and butorphanol in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia.
Materials and Methods:
The present study configured one hundred adults patients of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1 or 2 of either sex scheduled to undergo elective open cholecystectomy and were randomly assigned to receive fentanyl (group F; n = 50) or butorphanol (group B; n = 50). Both group were premedicated with midazolam 0.04 mg/kg intravenously followed by injection fentanyl 2 mcg/kg or butorphanol 40 mcg/kg. Standard induction was done with propofol 2 mg/kg and vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg was used for intubation. Anaesthesia was maintained with propofol infusion and 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters were observed and recorded. Postoperatively analgesia, sedation, PONV, shivering, respiratory depression and recovery score were observed.
Results:
The recovery time was less in group F (P > 0.05) while post operative analgesia (P < 0.001) and sedation (P > 0.05) was more in group B. The incidence of respiratory depression was more in group B (P > 0.05). PONV was comparable in both the groups. Postoperative shivering was significantly low in group B (P < 0.05).
Conclusion:
It is concluded that besides easy availability and lower cost, butorphanol decreased propofol consumption intraoperatively and provided better analgesia and prophylaxis against shivering in postoperative period.
doi:10.4103/2229-516X.106350
PMCID: PMC3678702  PMID: 23776820
Butorphanol; fentanyl; propofol; recovery
18.  Comparison of Dexmedetomidine, Propofol and Midazolam for Short-Term Sedation in Postoperatively Mechanically Ventilated Neurosurgical Patients 
Background: Effective management of analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit depends on the needs of the patient, subjective and/or objective measurement and drug titration to achieve specific endpoints.
Aim: The present study compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam for sedation in neurosurgical patients for postoperative mechanical ventilation.
Materials and Methods: Ninety patients aged 20-65 years, ASA physical status I to III, undergoing neurosurgery and requiring postoperative ventilation were included. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.4-0.7 mcg/kg/h. Group P received propofol 1 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 1-3 mg/kg/h. Group M received midazolam 0.04 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.08 mg/kg/h.
Measurements: Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, sedation level, fentanyl requirement, ventilation and extubation time were recorded.
Results: Adequate sedation level was achieved with all three agents. Dexmedetomidine group required less fentanyl for postoperative analgesia. In group D there was a decrease in HR after dexmedetomidine infusion (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference in HR between group P and group M. After administration of study drug there was a significant decrease in MAP comparison to baseline value in all groups at all time intervals (p<0.05), except postextubation period (p>0.05). Extubation time was lowest in group P (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is safer and equally effective agent compared to propofol and midazolam for sedation of neurosurgical mechanically ventilated patients with good hemodynamic stability and extubation time as rapid as propofol. Dexmedetomidine also reduced postoperative fentanyl requirements.
doi:10.7860/JCDR/2014/8797.4817
PMCID: PMC4225903  PMID: 25386451
Hemodynamic changes; Neuroprotection; Opioids
19.  Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in Sedation for Percutaneous Drainage of Hepatic Hydatid Cysts 
Objective
Hydatid cyst still continues to be a public health problem. The basic treatment for the disease is surgery, but ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage has become an important treatment alternative. Agents preferred for sedation during drainage performed under local anaesthesia must also preserve respiration and hemodynamic stability while providing adequate sedation. We compared the sedative properties of midazolam, which has a short duration of action, and a selective α2 adrenergic receptor agonist, dexmedetomidine, and the intraoperative complications.
Methods
After approval by the clinical trials ethics committee, 40 patients with similar demographic data were randomized into two groups. All patients received 10 mg metoclopramide and 45.5 mg pheniramine before the procedure. Then, midazolam (0.07 mg kg−1 IV bolus followed by 0.01 mg kg−1 h−1 infusion) was administered to Group 1, and dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg−1 loading dose in 10 minutes, followed by 0.2 μg kg−1 h−1 continuous infusion) was administered to Group 2 for sedation. Just before the surgical procedure, all patients received IV propofol in a subhypnotic dose of 0.5 mg kg−1; the dose was repeated if adequate sedation could not be achieved. Observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) scale and Bispectral index (BIS) were used to evaluate the sedation level during the procedure. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (RR), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure (ETCO2) were monitored before and after induction and every 5 minutes thereafter. Propofol requirement was noted for each group.
Results
Sedation in the dexmedetomidine group was as effective and adequate as that observed in the midazolam group. BIS values were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group, especially after 10 minutes and thereafter. RR, SpO2, and ETCO2 were similar in both groups, whereas clinically insignificant decreases in HR and MAP were observed in the dexmedetomidine group. Propofol requirements were similar in both groups.
Conclusion
We conclude that dexmedetomidine, providing adequate sedation without respiratory depression, can be considered as an appropriate agent for sedation in surgical procedures performed under local anaesthesia.
doi:10.5152/TJAR.2013.40
PMCID: PMC4894208  PMID: 27366371
Dexmedetomidine; midazolam; sedation
20.  Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam 
AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO2) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.
RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA III [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of IV midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of IV propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41 vs 12 of 42, P = 0.0004).
CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i38.5389
PMCID: PMC3471107  PMID: 23082055
Colonoscopy; Deep sedation; Propofol; Hypoventilation; Blood gas monitoring; Transcutaneous
21.  Cardioversion: What to choose? Etomidate or propofol 
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia  2015;18(3):306-311.
Context:
Electrical cardioversion is a short painful procedure to regain normal sinus rhythm requiring anaesthesia for haemodynamic stability, sedation, analgesia and early recovery.
Aims:
To compare propofol and etomidate as sedatives during cardioversion.
Settings and Design:
Single centred, prospective and randomized single blind study comprising 60 patients.
Subjects and Methods:
Patients more than 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists I/II/III grades undergoing elective cardioversion, randomly divided to receive propofol 1 mg/kg intravenous (IV) bolus followed by 0.5 mg/kg (Group P, n = 30) or etomidate (Group E, n = 30) 0.1 mg/kg followed by 0.05 mg/kg. All patients received IV fentanyl (1 μg/kg) before procedure. Heart rate, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP [SBP], diastolic BP [DBP], mean arterial pressure), respiratory rate, Aldrete recovery score (ARS) and Ramsay sedation score (RSS) were assessed at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 min post cardioversion. Incidence of hypotension, respiratory depression and side effects were compared.
Statistical analysis used:
Student's unpaired t-test, Chi-square test and Mann–Whitney test. P < 0.05 was taken as significant.
Results:
Group P showed significant fall in SBP, DBP, and mean BP at 2 min after cardioversion. Hypotension (33.3% Group P vs. 16.65% Group E) occurred more with propofol (P < 0.05). Group E showed better ARS at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15 and 20 min. Time required to attain RSS = 2 (659.1 s Group P and 435.7 s Group E) indicated longer recovery with propofol. Left atrial size (35.5-42.5 mm) did not affect success rate of cardioversion (80% Group P vs. 83.3% Group E). Incidence of myoclonus (Group E 26.67% vs. Group P 0%) showed significant difference.
Conclusions:
Etomidate/fentanyl is superior over propofol/fentanyl during cardioversion for quick recovery and haemodynamic stability.
doi:10.4103/0971-9784.159798
PMCID: PMC4881724  PMID: 26139733
Cardioversion; Etomidate; Propofol
22.  Changes in blood glucose level during and after light sedations using propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl in diabetic patients who underwent cataract surgery 
Background:
Surgeries may trigger the stress response which leads to changes in blood glucose level, and studies suggest that different sedation and anesthesia methods have different effects on blood glucose level. The aim of this study was to investigate changes of blood glucose levels in diabetic patients and compare them in two sedation methods of propofol + fentanyl and midazolam + fentanyl.
Materials and Methods:
Totally, 80 diabetic candidates for cataract surgery who had all the inclusion criteria, underwent cataract surgery using two methods of propofol (1 mg/kg/h) + fentanyl (2 μg/kg) (Group P) and midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) + fentanyl (2 μg/kg) (Group M) for light sedation. In the end, 70 patients (Group P n = 35 and Group M n = 35) remained in the study. Patients’ blood glucose levels, vital signs, and hemodynamic data were assessed 30 min prior to the surgery, each 15 min during surgery and at the end of surgery.
Results:
Hemodynamic parameters did not have a statistically significant difference between the two groups mean blood glucose level in Group M was 149.15 mg/dl and in Group P was 149.2 mg/dl, and based on repeated measures analysis of variance test, significant differences were not observed between the two groups (P = 0.99). T-test showed no significant differences in the blood glucose level at any time of the study between the two groups.
Conclusions:
Light sedation methods of propofol + fentanyl and midazolam + fentanyl did not have any differences in alteration of blood glucose level.
doi:10.4103/2277-9175.166645
PMCID: PMC4638056  PMID: 26623398
Blood glucose; diabetes mellitus; fentanyl; midazolam; propofol
23.  Pregabalin in Monitored Anesthesia Care for Ear-nose-throat Surgery 
Anesthesia, Essays and Researches  2017;11(2):350-353.
Aim:
The aim of this study was to determine intraoperative sedative and perioperative analgesic requirement and associated side effects of pregabalin (150 mg) for monitored anesthesia care during ear-nose-throat (ENT) surgeries.
Materials and Methods:
The study design was randomized and single-blinded; fifty patients undergoing elective ambulatory ENT surgeries under monitored anesthesia care were randomly allocated to receive either placebo (Group P) or pregabalin (Group PG) 150 mg, orally 1 h before surgery. All patients were then given intravenous (i.v.) midazolam 2 mg and fentanyl 1 μg/kg and local anesthesia at the site. Sedation was induced by administering an i.v. bolus of propofol 0.8 mg/kg and was maintained by continuous infusion of propofol. Level of sedation was assessed by Ramsay scale, and propofol infusion was titrated accordingly. Intraoperative pain was assessed by verbal rating scale (VRS) score. Patient having VRS >4 or complaint of pain was given fentanyl (0.5 μg/kg) i.v. bolus. Intraoperative sedative and analgesic requirement were recorded. Postoperative visual analog scale scores and requirement of analgesics were recorded for the first 24 h after surgery. Diclofenac 75 mg intramuscular (i.m.) was administered as rescue analgesic. Side effects (nausea/vomiting, sedation, dizziness, blurred vision) were also recorded.
Results:
Intraoperative propofol (212 ± 11 mg vs. 174 ± 9 mg; P = 0.013) and fentanyl (120 ± 8 μg vs. 94 ± 6 μg; P = 0.02) consumption was significantly lower in Group PG. Time to first analgesic request was longer (6.1 ± 0.4 h vs. 9.5 ± 1.2 h) with lesser requirement of analgesics (diclofenac) in the postoperative period. Incidence of side effects (sedation, nausea, vomiting) was found to be similar in both the groups.
Conclusion:
Premedication with pregabalin (150 mg) reduces intraoperative sedative and perioperative analgesic requirement in patients undergoing ENT surgeries under monitored anesthesia care with tolerable side effects.
doi:10.4103/0259-1162.194589
PMCID: PMC5490097
Analgesia; monitored anesthesia care; pregabalin
24.  Comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for monitored anesthesia care combined with tramadol via patient-controlled analgesia in endoscopic nasal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study 
Abstract
Background
Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) may be applied for septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery in which an adequate sedation and analgesia without respiratory depression are desired for comfort of both the patient and the surgeon. Several combinations with different agents have been used for this purpose in these patients. However, analgesic properties for these agents have not been reported.
Objective
The aim of this study was to investigate the analgesic and sedative effects of dexmedetomidine or midazolam infusion combined with tramadol that was used via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and to document the effects of these drugs on early cognitive functions.
Methods
This prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study enrolled patients undergoing septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery at the Abant Izzet Baysal University Hospital, Bolu, Turkey, between February and September 2006. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio into 1 of 2 groups: the dexmedetomidine group (group D) patients received IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg for 10 minutes followed by continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg · h−1; and the midazolam group (group M) patients were administered a loading dose of IV midazolam 40 μg/kg for 10 minutes followed by infusion at the rate of 50 μg/kg · h−1. A 1-minute bolus dose of IV tramadol (1.5 mg/kg) was administered in both groups 10 minutes after the administration of the primary drug, and continued via infusion using a PCA device. After baseline measurements, systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation, and rate of respiration were recorded after the loading dose of study drug, after the bolus tramadol dose, at 10-minute intervals during the operation, and twice in the recovery rooms; 5 minutes after arrival and 5 minutes before discharge. Verbal rating score (VRS) and Ramsay sedation score were determined at baseline (after surgery was started), every 10 minutes thereafter until the end of the operation, and 2 times during recovery. All patients were assessed with the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised at baseline (preoperatively) and 4 hours after the operation.
Results
Seventy patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: group D (sex, male/female, 23/12; mean [SEM] age, 32.53 [2.07] years; mean [SEM] weight, 73.03 [2.41] kg) or group M (sex, male/female, 21/14; mean [SEM] age, 34.43 [1.83] years; mean [SEM] weight, 67.90 [2.32] kg). All hemodynamic parameters (SAP, DAP, MAP, HR) were significantly higher in group M compared with group D from the onset of the surgery to discharge time (P < 0.05). Pain and sedation scores were similar in both groups, but the amount of PCA-administered rescue tramadol was significantly higher in group M (P = 0.001). A higher, though not statistically significant, prevalence of adverse events (ie, hypotension, bradycardia, and perioperative nausea and vomiting) were observed in group D. Postoperative logical verbal memory and digit span values were significantly higher in group D when compared with group M (P < 0.05). Postoperative digit span and visual reproduction scores were significantly higher than preoperative values in group D (P < 0.05). Postoperative personality functioning scores were significantly higher than preoperative values in group M (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
Based on VRS, Ramsay sedation scores, and surgeon and anesthesiologist satisfaction scores, dexmedetomidine or midazolam combined with tramadol PCA provided adequate analgesia and sedation in these adult patients undergoing septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery with MAC. A significantly larger amount of rescue tramadol was used by group M, suggesting that a better analgesic effect was achieved with dexmedetomidine.
doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2007.04.001
PMCID: PMC3965987  PMID: 24678121
dexmedetomidine; midazolam; sedoanalgesia; cognitive function
25.  Comparison of the effects of patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using dexmedetomidine and propofol during septoplasty operations: a randomized clinical trial 
SpringerPlus  2016;5:572.
Introduction
Septoplastical surgery to correct septum deviation can be performed under either local or general anesthesia. During local anesthesia, sedation helps to provide minimum anxiety/discomfort. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of patient-controlled analgesia using dexmedetomidine and propofol on sedation level, analgesic requirement, and patient satisfaction.
Study design
A prospective, randomized-parallel clinical study.
Methods
Fifty patients undergoing septoplastical surgery at our university hospital were randomized into two groups. A nasopharyngeal cotton tampon soaked in 0.25 % adrenaline solution was placed, and 1 mg midazolam and 1 mcg/kg fentanyl were applied 5 min before the injections of a surgical local anesthetic. Loading dose was 0.5 mg/kg propofol (Group I) and 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine (Group II). The sedation was sustained by a bolus dose of 0.2 mg/kg and continuous basal infusion dose of 0.5 mg/kg/h propofol in Group I, or by a bolus dose of 0.05 µg/kg and continuous basal infusion dose of 0.4 mcg/kg/h dexmedetomidine in Group II. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction via patient-controlled anesthesia and analgesic demand. Secondary outcomes were sedation level of patients under local anesthesia.
Results
In Group II, SpO2 levels were significantly higher than in Group I. Intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements were lower in Group II than in Group I. There were no statistically significant differences in patient satisfaction, hemodynamic parameters, nausea and vomiting between the two groups.
Conclusion
Dexmedetomidine can be used safely as an analgesic and sedation drug in septoplastic surgery.
doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2245-y
PMCID: PMC4864888  PMID: 27247869

Results 1-25 (1754496)