Clinical therapeutics · 2025
Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Propofol Alone for Sedation in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Randomized Comparative Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Yuanming, Shen Yi, Zhong Hai
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) necessitates well-balanced sedation to ensure patient safety while optimizing procedural conditions. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine-propofol versus propofol-only sedation in terms of respiratory safety, sedation quality, and recovery outcomes.
METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled 145 patients undergoing lower esophageal or gastric EUS from January 2022 to May 2023. All participants received standardized premedication with midazolam and tetracaine gel for mucosal topicalization. Participants were randomized into two groups: dexmedetomidine-propofol (n = 72) and propofol-only (n = 73). Continuous variables were analyzed using independent t-tests, and categorical data were compared with chi-square tests, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
FINDINGS: No significant difference was observed in patient satisfaction (P = 0.717), but endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine-propofol group (P < 0.05). This group also showed significantly fewer midazolam rescue doses, fewer respiratory adverse events, and reduced intra-procedural patient movement and cough reflexes (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, recovery outcomes were improved, with higher modified Aldrete scores and faster achievement of a post-anesthesia discharge score ≥9 (P < 0.05). However, induction time was longer and the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was higher in the combination group (P < 0.05).
IMPLICATIONS: Dexmedetomidine-propofol sedation enhances procedural conditions and recovery metrics in EUS but is associated with greater cardiovascular side effects. These findings suggest it is a valuable alternative to propofol alone, particularly when optimizing proceduralist satisfaction and minimizing respiratory complications.
METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled 145 patients undergoing lower esophageal or gastric EUS from January 2022 to May 2023. All participants received standardized premedication with midazolam and tetracaine gel for mucosal topicalization. Participants were randomized into two groups: dexmedetomidine-propofol (n = 72) and propofol-only (n = 73). Continuous variables were analyzed using independent t-tests, and categorical data were compared with chi-square tests, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
FINDINGS: No significant difference was observed in patient satisfaction (P = 0.717), but endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine-propofol group (P < 0.05). This group also showed significantly fewer midazolam rescue doses, fewer respiratory adverse events, and reduced intra-procedural patient movement and cough reflexes (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, recovery outcomes were improved, with higher modified Aldrete scores and faster achievement of a post-anesthesia discharge score ≥9 (P < 0.05). However, induction time was longer and the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was higher in the combination group (P < 0.05).
IMPLICATIONS: Dexmedetomidine-propofol sedation enhances procedural conditions and recovery metrics in EUS but is associated with greater cardiovascular side effects. These findings suggest it is a valuable alternative to propofol alone, particularly when optimizing proceduralist satisfaction and minimizing respiratory complications.