Open AccessA comparative study of dexmedetomidine and propofol infusion during monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a randomized controlled trial
Author(s) -
Nidhi Srivastava,
Mamta Harjai,
Suraj Kumar,
Sujeet Rai,
Deepak Malviya,
Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
ain shams journal of anesthesiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2090-925X
pISSN - 1687-7934
DOI - 10.1186/s42077-021-00168-0
Subject(s) - dexmedetomidine , medicine , sedation , anesthesia , propofol , endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography , heart rate , randomized controlled trial , blood pressure , surgery , pancreatitis
Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) is an invasive procedure and hence is distressing for awake patients, requiring adequate level of sedation and analgesia. Recent advancements have encouraged use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC), that allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant procedures while maintaining cardio-respiratory function. The main aim is to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine and propofol on the hemodynamics during ERCP, quality of sedation, recovery profile, and any side effects. A total of 100 patients were randomized by a computer-generated random number table into two groups of 30 patients each. The group P received continuous propofol infusion at a rate of 25-75 mcg/kg/min to achieve a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of 3-4 before starting the procedure. Group D received dexmedetomidine at loading dose of 1 μg/kg i.v. over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion until RSS reached 3-4. Results The present study shows significant decrease in heart rate in group D (65.27 ± 4. 3 vs.77.27 ± 9.3) with more stable blood pressure values throughout than group P. There were episodes of transient desaturation in few patients in group P while no patient showed any signs of respiratory depression or desaturation in group D. The time to achieve Ramsay sedation score (RSS) 3-4 is significantly more in group D (11.4 ± 1.37 vs. 7.93 ± 1.32) with increased tendency to use rescue drug but shows better and early recovery. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine is a better substitute to propofol for patients undergoing ERCP; however, use of adjunct may be necessary to decrease the need for rescue drug.