A comparison of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam – Fentanyl for sedoanalgesia andstable hemodynamic parameters, during colonoscopy under Monitored Anesthesia Care. (MAC)

Shweta Patel; Manisha kapdi

doi:10.48165/ijabms.2021.23116

Authors

Shweta Patel Resident in Anesthesia NHLM Medical college, Ahmedabad Gujarat
Manisha kapdi Associate professor of anesthesia, NHLM Medical college, Ahmedabad Gujarat

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48165/ijabms.2021.23116

Keywords:

dexmedetomidine versus midazolam, Fentanyl for sedoanalgesia, stable hemodynamic parameters, colonoscopy, Anesthesia Care, Monitored Anesthesia Care. (MAC)

Abstract

Background:colonoscopy is routinely done under local anesthesia but it is stressful. Nowadays concept of conscious sedation or monitored Anesthesia care with mild sedoanalgesia is getting popular.Aim& Objective:The aim of our study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam Fentanyl combination on perioperative hemodynamics, sedation, pain, satisfaction and recovery scores during colonoscopy. Study design: Randomized comparative observational studyMaterial and methods:A total of 60 adult patients of ASA grade l/ll were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups.In Group A Midazolam 0.02 mg/ kg and fentanyl citrate 1 mcg/ kg were administered intravenously followed by 0.5 ml/ kg/ hr. of Normal saline.In Group B An initial loading dose of 1 mcg/ kg dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously in 10 min to cases before the procedure and followed by continuous infusion dose of 0.5 mcg/ kg /hr.Incremental dose of 1 mcg/ kg fentanyl citrate was administered intravenously immediately before the procedure. Peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores and colonoscopist satisfaction scores of the cases were recorded.Results:Although statistically significant values were not detected between the two groups with regard to mean arterial pressure.In Group I heart rates were higher and Spo2 scores were lower in a statistically significant manner. When the groups were compared with regard to RSS, the RSS scores of Group A at the 10th and 15th minutes were significantly lower than Group B. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when compared with regard to NRS scores. Satisfaction scores were significantly lower in Group B.Conclusion:Dexmedetomidine provides more efficient hemodynamic stability, higher Ramsay sedation scale scores, higher satisfaction scores and lower NRS score. So dexmedetomidine can be used safely as a sedoanalgesic agent.

References

Wong RCK. The menu of endoscopic sedation: all-you-can eat, combination set, a la carte, alternative cuisine, org o hungry. Endoscopy 2001; 54:122-126.

Ozel AM, Oncu K, Yazgan Y, et al. Comparison of the effects of intravenous midazolam alone and in combination with meperidine on hemodynamic and respiratory responses and on patient compliance during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized, double-blind trial. Turk J Gastroenterol 2008; 19:8-13.

Gan TJ. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of medications used for moderate sedation. Clin Pharmacokinet 2006; 45:855-869.

Robin C, Trieger N. Paradoxical reactions to benzodiazepines in intravenous sedation: a report of 2 cases and review of the literature. Anesth Prog 2002; 49:128 -132.

Aantaa R, Scheinin M. Alpha -2- adrenergic agent in anaesthesia. Acta Anesthesiol Scand 1993; 37:116.

Venn M. Preliminary UK experience of dexmedetomidine, a novel agent for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit. Anaesthesia 1999; 54:1136-1142.

Kamibayashi T, Maze M. Clinical uses of alfa2-adrenergic agonists Anesthesiology 2000; 93:13451349.

Taittonen MT, Kirvela OA, Aantaa R, Kanto JH. Effect of clonidine and dexmedetomidine premedication on perioperative oxygen consumption and haemodynamic state. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78:400 406.

Wijeysundera DN, Naik JS, Beattie WS. Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists to prevent perioperative cardiovascular complications: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 2003; 114:742-752.

Hsu YW, Cortinez LI, Robertson KM, et al. Dexmedetomidine pharmacodynamics: Part I, Crossover comparison of the respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology 2004; 101:1066-1076.

Bloor BC, Ward DS, Belleville JP, Maze M. Effects of IV dexmedetomidine in humans: II. Hemodynamic changes. Anesthesiology 1992; 77:1134-1142.

Aldrete JA. The postanesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7:89 -91.

Ramsay MAE, Savage TM, Simpson BRJ, Goodwin R. Controlled sedation with alfaxolonealphadolone. BMJ 1974; 2:656-659.

Gould D. Examining the validity of pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: developing and using illustrated patient simulations to collect the data. J Clin Nurs 2001; 10:697-706.

Demiraran Y, Korkut E, Tamer A, et al. The comparison of dexmedetomidineand midazolam used for sedation of patients during upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized study. Can J Gastroenterol 2007; 21:2529.

Jalowiecki P, Rudner R, Gonciarz M, et al. Sole use of dexmedetomidinehas limited utility for conscious sedation during outpatient colonoscopy. Anesthesiology 2005; 103:269-273.

Seybold JL, Ramamurthi RJ, Hammer GB. The use of dexmedetomidine during laryngoscopy, bronchoscopy, and tracheal extubation following tracheal reconstruction. Paediatr Anaesth 2007; 17:1212-1214.

Uzumcugil F, Canbay O, Celebi N, et al. Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol vs. fentanylpropofol for laryngeal mask insertion. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2008; 25:675-680.

Zeynelog˘ lu P, Pirat A, Candan S, et al. Dexmedetomidine causes prolonged recovery when compared with midazolam/fentanyl combination in outpatient shock wave lithotripsy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2008; 25:961967.