Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine alone is less than propofol for conscious sedation during ERCP.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is an accepted method of sedation for an ERCP and generally achieves deep sedation rather than conscious sedation, and dexmedetomidine has sedative properties of equivalent efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the hypothesis that dexmedetomidine is as effective as propofol combined with fentanyl for providing conscious sedation during an ERCP.

DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, blind, double-dummy clinical trial.

PATIENTS: Twenty-six adults, American Society of Anesthesiologists status I to III, underwent an ERCP.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either propofol (n = 14) (target plasma concentration range 2-4 microg/mL) combined with fentanyl 1 microg/kg, or dexmedetomidine (n = 12) 1 microg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 0.2 to 0.5 microg/kg/min. Additional sedatives were used if adequate sedation was not achieved at the maximum dose allowed.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS: The sedation level was assessed by the Richmond alertness-sedation scale and the demand for additional sedatives. Furthermore, heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were continuously assessed.

RESULTS: The relative risk (RR) was 2.71 (95% CI, 1.31-5.61) and the number of patients that needed to be treated (NNT) was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.19-4.21) to observe one additional patient with drowsiness 15 minutes after sedation in the dexmedetomidine group. Also, the RR was 9.42 (95% CI, 1.41-62.80), and the NNT was 1.42 (95% CI, 1.0-2.29) to require additional analgesic. However, there was also a greater reduction in blood pressure, a lower heart rate, and greater sedation after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine alone was not as effective as propofol combined with fentanyl for providing conscious sedation during an ERCP. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine was associated with greater hemodynamic instability and a prolonged recovery.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app