Conscious sedation for balloon mitral valvotomy: A comparison of fentanyl versus sufentanil.

CONTEXT: Analgesia and sedation are required for the comfort of patient and the cardiologist during balloon mitral valvotomy.

AIMS: In this study, efficacy of analgesia, sedation, and patient satisfaction with sufentanil was compared with fentanyl.

SETTINGS AND

DESIGN

Single-centered, prospective single-blind study of sixty patients.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Patients between 15 and 45 years of rheumatic mitral stenosis with valve area of 0.8-1 cm2 undergoing elective balloon mitral valvotomy, randomly divided to receive bolus injection fentanyl 1 mcg/kg (Group 1, n = 30) followed by infusion at 1 mcg/kg/h or bolus of injection sufentanil 0.1 mcg/kg (Group 2, n = 30) followed by continuous infusion at 0.1 mcg/h. Both the groups received injection midazolam bolus 0.02 mg/kg followed by infusion at 15 mcg/kg/h. Pain intensity (by visual analog score [VAS]), level of sedation (by Ramsay sedation scale), overall patient and operator's satisfaction, effect on cardiorespiratory parameters, and discharge score (by modified Aldrete score) were assessed.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Statistical analysis used Student's unpaired t-test and Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Mean number of bolus doses in fentanyl group was 0.9 versus 0.13 in sufentanil group (P < 0.01). The mean value of mean blood pressure in fentanyl group was 83.52 mmHg versus 88 mmHg in sufentanil group (P < 0.05), but the value was within normal range in both the groups. The mean VAS - patient's opinion in fentanyl group was 8.97 versus 9.53 in sufentanil group (P < 0.05). Mean discharge score in fentanyl group was 17.87 versus 18.23 in sufentanil group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found with respect to heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, PaCO2values, and anxiety scores.

CONCLUSION

Sufentanil was found to be better with respect to analgesia, patient satisfaction, and recovery however not cost-effective for continuous infusion technique.