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

• Published in: Wideochirurgia i inne techniki mało inwazyjne Vol. 15; no. 3; pp. 526 - 532
• Main Authors: Koruk, Senem, Koruk, Irfan, Arslan, Ayse Mizrak, Bilgi, Murat, Gul, Rauf, Bozgeyik, Semsettin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Poland Termedia Publishing House 01-09-2020
• Subjects: Analgesics; Anesthesia; bispectral index; dexmedetomidine; Double-blind studies; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Endoscopy; Original Paper; recovery time; sedation; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; dexmedetomidine; recovery time; sedation; bispectral index
• ISSN: 1895-4588; 2299-0054; 2299-0054
• DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2020.95066

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.
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.
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 μg/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.
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.
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.