Comparing the efficacy and safety between propofol and dexmedetomidine for sedation in claustrophobic adults undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (PADAM trial).

STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine compared to propofol for claustrophobic adults undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in our institution.

DESIGN

Randomized, prospective, double-blinded study.

SETTING

University-based tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS: Thirty claustrophobic adults with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II who were planned for MRI.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to target-controlled infusion propofol or dexmedetomidine loading followed by maintenance dose for procedural sedation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

RESULTS

The primary end point was adequate reduction in patient anxiety levels to allow successful completion of the MRI sequence. Both methods of sedation adequately reduced anxiety levels in visual analog scale scores and Spielberger Strait Test Anxiety Inventory (P<.001). Dexmedetomidine required a longer time to achieve anxiolysis, 7.36minutes (SD, 2.59), and required increasing maintenance dose to induce sleep compared to 10.71minutes (SD, 4.63) for propofol. In terms of image quality, 2 patients (16.67%) in the dexmedetomidine group were satisfactory, whereas all with propofol were graded as good to excellent. Adverse effects were seen in patients sedated with dexmedetomidine with number needed to harm 8 for hypotension and 15 for bradycardia compared to none recorded in the propofol arm. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction scores or home readiness after the MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Both dexmedetomidine and propofol can effectively reduce anxiety levels of claustrophobic adults undergoing MRI, but dexmedetomidine takes longer to achieve adequate anxiolysis and sleep and may have an effect on image quality. Hypotension and bradycardia are common adverse effects observed with dexmedetomidine.