Background: Sedation with continuous dexmedetomidine and bolus midazolam administration provides a lower incidence of unacceptable patient movement during procedures but requires a longer recovery time. The authors aimed to compare recovery time and unacceptable patient movement during sedation with initial loading of dexmedetomidine followed by continuous propofol infusion with those during sedation with continuous dexmedetomidine and bolus midazolam administration.
Methods: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 54 patients undergoing dental surgery and requiring intravenous sedation were assigned to either the dexmedetomidine and propofol group (n = 27, dexmedetomidine administered at 6 μg/kg/h for 5 minutes, followed by continuous propofol infusion using a target-controlled infusion) or the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group (n = 27, dexmedetomidine administered at 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h continuously after the same initial loading dose with bolus midazolam). A bispectral index of 70 through 80 was maintained during the procedure. Patient movement that interfered with the procedure and time from the end of sedation to achieving a negative Romberg sign were assessed.
Results: Times from the end of sedation to achieving a negative Romberg sign in the dexmedetomidine and propofol group (median, 14 minutes [interquartile range, 12-15 minutes]) were significantly shorter (P < .001) than in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group (median, 22 minutes [interquartile range, 17.5-30.5 minutes]). The incidence of unacceptable patient movement was comparable between groups (n = 3 in the dexmedetomidine and propofol group, n = 4 in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group; P = .999).
Conclusions: Sedation with a single loading dose of dexmedetomidine followed by continuous propofol infusion can prevent delayed recovery without increasing unacceptable patient movement.
Practical Implications: The combination of dexmedetomidine and propofol may provide high-quality sedation for ambulatory dental practice. This clinical trial was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. The registration number is UMIN000039668.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2023.08.003 | DOI Listing |
Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Cases
January 2025
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Osaka Rosai Hospital, Sakai, Osaka, 591-8025, Japan.
Background: Epileptic seizures following adult cardiovascular surgery occur in 0.9-3% of patients, with the condition in 3-12% of these patients progressing to status epilepticus (SE). SE is a severe condition that significantly impacts prognosis and necessitates early diagnosis and treatment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFFront Pharmacol
January 2025
Department of Anesthesiology, Lishui People's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University Lishui Hospital, Lishui, China.
Objective: Remimazolam besylate and Ciprofol are newer sedatives used in minor surgeries. Propofol is a classic drug mainly used for short surgeries. This trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate, ciprofol, and propofol during hysteroscopic surgeries.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAm J Transl Res
December 2024
Department of General Surgery and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine for Gastrointestinal Cancer, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong, China.
Objective: Gastric cancer is a prevalent and significant malignancy that occurs throughout the world, with a particularly pronounced impact on the elderly population. This study aims to compare the efficacy of nalbuphine and dezocine in managing pain following laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.
Method: Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy were divided into a nalbuphine (n=50) group and a dezocine (n=50) group according to their anesthesia agent.
Ciprofol, a novel γ-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist, outperforms propofol with minimal cardiovascular effects, higher potency, reduced injection pain, and a broader safety margin. Despite these advantages, ciprofol's clinical research is still emerging. This study compares the median effective dose (ED) and adverse reactions of ciprofol and propofol, in conjunction with sufentanil, for suppressing cardiovascular responses during tracheal intubation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCureus
December 2024
Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA.
We report a case of a 39-year-old male patient who developed propofol-induced fasciculations during the induction of general anesthesia. The patient had a history of moderate obstructive sleep apnea and was intolerant to continuous positive airway pressure therapy. He subsequently underwent the insertion of a hypoglossal nerve stimulator as a viable surgical intervention.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!