Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the sedative and analgesic outcomes of dexmedetomidine with midazolam for monitored anesthesia care in patients undergoing septoplasty.
Does dexmedetomidine improve sedation and analgesia compared to midazolam in patients undergoing septoplasty under monitored anesthesia care?
Does dexmedetomidine improve sedation and analgesia compared to midazolam in patients undergoing septoplasty under monitored anesthesia care?
Dexmedetomidine provides superior sedation and analgesia with a reduced need for rescue medications compared to midazolam during monitored anesthesia care for septoplasty.
Dexmedetomidine may be preferred over midazolam for monitored anesthesia care in septoplasty; confirms superiority in sedation and rescue needs in this RCT.
Objective: To compare the sedative and analgesic outcomes of dexmedetomidine with midazolam for monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in patients undergoing Septoplasty. Methodology: This comparative study was conducted at Shalamar Medical and Dental College Lahore from March 2019 to August 2020. A total of 150 patients who were planned for Septoplasty under MAC having age 18-45 years, and ASA status I-II in Shalamar Medical and Dental College Lahore. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups; In group D; IV dexmedetomidine 1 µg.Kg-1 was given over five mins after that IV infusion at the rate of 0.5 µg.Kg-1.hour-1 was started. In group M; midazolam 0.06 mg.Kg-1 was given as slow bolus after that continuous infusion at the rate of 0.01 mg.Kg-1.hour-1 was started. Sedation was monitored according to Ramsay sedation scale and VAS scale was used to measure the intensity of pain. Results: The Mean age was 34.3±5.7 years in group D versus 35.7±6.1 years in group M. There were 49 (65.3%) male patients in group D and 47 (62.7%) in group M. Mean sedation and pain score was significantly less in group D as compared to group M (p-value 0.001 & 0.002 respectively). There were 12 (16.0%) patients in group D who required rescue sedation and 32 (42.7%) in group M required rescue sedation (p-value 0.003). There were 14 (18.7%) patients in group D who required rescue analgesia versus 29 (38.7%) in group M (p-value 0.006). Conclusion: Use of dexmedetomidine for MAC is advantageous as compared to midazolam in-terms of better sedation and analgesia and reduced requirements of rescue doses of sedatives and analgesics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: