English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background In the modern medicine, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy has become a definitive tool for diagnosis and management of many diseases. It is usually preformed in separate unit as day-case procedure and for outpatient clinic. The search of a safe and effective sedation for these patients is still an open topic. Objective The aim of the study is to compare the use of propofol and dexmedetomedine in upper GI endoscopy regarding the hemodynamics, sedative effect and the patient satisfaction. Methods Double – blinded, randomized controlled trial with allocation ratio 1:1 arranged in two parallel groups. This study was conducted in the endoscopy unit of Ainshams University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt within a period of 6 months started from April 2019. All recruited patients were adults undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. They were included in the study according to the following criteria: Age 21-60 years; elective procedures under general anesthesia with patients who completed eight hours of fasting; and physical Status: ASA I and II Patients after taking written and informed consent. Results Concerning the results of the study, there was no statistically significant difference considering the heart rate in relation to base line readings. The changes of heart rate between the two groups were significantly different with dexmedetomidine associated with lower readings. Respiratory rate and oxygen saturation were insignificantly different in both groups. Time of induction was significantly shorter in propofol than dexmedetomidine (P &amp;lt; 0.001) and time to reach full recovery identified by modified Alderete’s score 10/10 was significantly shorter in dexmedetomidine than propofol (P &amp;lt; 0.014). There was a significant difference between the two dugs concerning the patients and endoscopists satisfaction. The patients were more satisfied with propofol (P 0.047), while the endoscopists were more satisfied with dexmedetomidine (P 0.034). Conclusion Dexmedetomidine and propofol are equally effective and safe to provide enough sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a day-case manner. Advantages of dexmedetomidine were providing analgesic effect, rapid recovery from sedation and stability of respiratory rate and oxygen saturation. However, there were some disadvantages such as the bradycardia and patient dissatisfaction although the bradycardia can be utilized in cardiac patients as a safety factor against myocardial ischemia. Other point noticed that using dexmedetomidine for sedation was more costly than propofol and requires the usage of a syringe pump for accurate dosing. On the contrary, propofol is cheap and available in all centers with rabid onset of induction but it causes hypotension and respiratory depression which might be risky in cardiac patients.

A Comparative study between Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol for sedation in upper GI endoscopy procedure considering effect on intraoperative vital data, patient amnesia and onset of recovery after the procedure