Journal of bronchology & interventional pulmonology · 2021
Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for Sedation During Medical Thoracoscopy: A Pilot Randomized-Controlled Trial (RCT).
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Sirohiya Prashant, Kumar Vinod, Mittal Saurabh, Gupta Nishkarsh, Garg Rakesh, Bharati Sachidanand Jee, Mishra Seema, Hadda Vijay, Mohan Anant, Sagiraju Hari Krishna Raju, Bhatnagar Sushma, Madan Karan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing the utility of dexmedetomidine with other drugs for sedation during medical thoracoscopy are lacking. In this pilot study, we compared dexmedetomidine with midazolam for sedation in thoracoscopy.
METHODS: Consecutive subjects were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine (n=30) (group D) or midazolam (n=30) (group M). All received fentanyl for procedural analgesia. The primary endpoint was pulmonologist-rated overall procedure satisfaction on the visual analog scale (satisfaction VAS). Key secondary outcomes were pulmonologist-rated cough on VAS (cough VAS), patient-rated faces pain scale scores, change in hemodynamic variables, total additional fentanyl dose, and adverse events during procedure.
RESULTS: The satisfaction VAS score (mean±SD) was significantly greater in group D versus group M (7.5±1.4 and 6.5±1.1, respectively) ( P =0.003). The cough VAS scores (mean±SD) were 2.1±1.5 (group D) and 3.1±1.3 (group M) ( P =0.014). The scores (mean±SD) for patient-rated faces pain scale were 2.9±1.8 and 4.2±2.3 ( P =0.019) in group D and group M, respectively. The additional dose of fentanyl administered in group M was significantly greater than in group D ( P =0.001). The responses at the local anesthesia infiltration, skin incision, thoracoscope insertion, and biopsy between both groups were similar. The hemodynamic parameters were comparable in both groups. Also, more patients were willing for repeat thoracoscopy if needed; in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this pilot RCT indicate that dexmedetomidine may be more efficacious than midazolam for sedation in patients undergoing medical thoracoscopy. These observations need to be confirmed in an adequately powered RCT.
METHODS: Consecutive subjects were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine (n=30) (group D) or midazolam (n=30) (group M). All received fentanyl for procedural analgesia. The primary endpoint was pulmonologist-rated overall procedure satisfaction on the visual analog scale (satisfaction VAS). Key secondary outcomes were pulmonologist-rated cough on VAS (cough VAS), patient-rated faces pain scale scores, change in hemodynamic variables, total additional fentanyl dose, and adverse events during procedure.
RESULTS: The satisfaction VAS score (mean±SD) was significantly greater in group D versus group M (7.5±1.4 and 6.5±1.1, respectively) ( P =0.003). The cough VAS scores (mean±SD) were 2.1±1.5 (group D) and 3.1±1.3 (group M) ( P =0.014). The scores (mean±SD) for patient-rated faces pain scale were 2.9±1.8 and 4.2±2.3 ( P =0.019) in group D and group M, respectively. The additional dose of fentanyl administered in group M was significantly greater than in group D ( P =0.001). The responses at the local anesthesia infiltration, skin incision, thoracoscope insertion, and biopsy between both groups were similar. The hemodynamic parameters were comparable in both groups. Also, more patients were willing for repeat thoracoscopy if needed; in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this pilot RCT indicate that dexmedetomidine may be more efficacious than midazolam for sedation in patients undergoing medical thoracoscopy. These observations need to be confirmed in an adequately powered RCT.