Key result
Dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol achieved faster sedation and required lower total propofol doses compared to midazolam-propofol in cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy (P<0.05).
Why the study?
A wide range of drugs are used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures, motivating a comparison of dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and midazolam combined with propofol in cancer patients.
Do dexmedetomidine or ketamine combined with propofol improve sedation efficacy and hemodynamic stability compared to midazolam combined with propofol in cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy?
RCT (n=75)
Double-blind
randomized
Do dexmedetomidine or ketamine combined with propofol improve sedation efficacy and hemodynamic stability compared to midazolam combined with propofol in cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy?
In cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy, ketamine-propofol and dexmedetomidine-propofol offer superior sedation efficacy compared to midazolam-propofol, with ketamine providing the most stable hemodynamics.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May guide sedation choices in cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Background A wide range of drugs are used for sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures, including midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of these drugs in combination with propofol among cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy.Methods This randomized, double-blinded study was carried out on 75 cancer patients who underwent GI endoscopy. Patients were categorized into three equal groups. Group D: received dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg bolus infusion over 10 min. Group K: received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg. Group M: received midazolam 0.05 mg/kg. With these drugs, 0.5 mg/kg propofol was administered intravenously with incremental 20 mg till achievement of Ramsey sedation score (RSS) 3–4. After that, 0.5 mg/kg propofol boluses were offered for rescue sedation.Results The endoscopy duration was comparable in the three groups. Time of RSS 3–4 achievement and total propofol dose (P < 0.05) were significantly lower in group D and group K compared to group M. Time to eye-opening were significantly lower in groups D, and K compared to group M, with insignificant difference between group K and group D. Moreover, the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) of group K at 10 min, 15 min, 20 min, 25 min, and 30 min, and PACU were significantly greater than D and M groups (P < 0.05). Incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were comparable in the three groups.Conclusions In cancer patients who underwent GI endoscopy, dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol had better sedation efficacy [lower achievement time of RSS 3–4, total propofol dose, and eye-opening time] compared to midazolam-propofol group with superior sedative effect of ketamine-propofol than dexmedetomidine-propofol. While ketamine-propofol had more stable HR and MAP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shehab et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy (n=75). Dexmedetomidine or Ketamine combined with propofol vs. Midazolam 0.05 mg/kg combined with propofol was evaluated on Time of Ramsey sedation score (RSS) 3-4 achievement and total propofol dose (p=<0.05). Dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol achieved faster sedation and required lower total propofol doses compared to midazolam-propofol in cancer patients undergoing GI endoscopy (P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: