Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection

Namo Kim, Young Chul Yoo, SangKil Lee, Hyunzu Kim, Hyang Mi Ju, Kyeong Tae Min

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 μg/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety. RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group ("very easy" 24.1% vs 56.7%, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group ("no + mild" 96.6% vs 73.3%, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group ("very good + good" 100% vs 86.7%, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100% of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4% in the DR group and 100% in the PR group (P = 0.477). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3671-3678
Number of pages8
JournalWorld Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume21
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Dexmedetomidine
Propofol
Safety
Stomach
Pharynx
Patient Satisfaction
remifentanil
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Hemodynamics
Oximetry
Patient Safety

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{bbe2bf7141814001a9aaa3ada5e54b51,
title = "Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection",
abstract = "AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 μg/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety. RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group ({"}very easy{"} 24.1{\%} vs 56.7{\%}, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group ({"}no + mild{"} 96.6{\%} vs 73.3{\%}, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group ({"}very good + good{"} 100{\%} vs 86.7{\%}, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100{\%} of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4{\%} in the DR group and 100{\%} in the PR group (P = 0.477). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility.",
author = "Namo Kim and Yoo, {Young Chul} and SangKil Lee and Hyunzu Kim and Ju, {Hyang Mi} and Min, {Kyeong Tae}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3748/wjg.v21.i12.3671",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "3671--3678",
journal = "World Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "1007-9327",
publisher = "WJG Press",
number = "12",

}

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection. / Kim, Namo; Yoo, Young Chul; Lee, SangKil; Kim, Hyunzu; Ju, Hyang Mi; Min, Kyeong Tae.

In: World Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 21, No. 12, 01.01.2015, p. 3671-3678.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection

AU - Kim, Namo

AU - Yoo, Young Chul

AU - Lee, SangKil

AU - Kim, Hyunzu

AU - Ju, Hyang Mi

AU - Min, Kyeong Tae

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 μg/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety. RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group ("very easy" 24.1% vs 56.7%, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group ("no + mild" 96.6% vs 73.3%, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group ("very good + good" 100% vs 86.7%, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100% of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4% in the DR group and 100% in the PR group (P = 0.477). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility.

AB - AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 μg/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety. RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group ("very easy" 24.1% vs 56.7%, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group ("no + mild" 96.6% vs 73.3%, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group ("very good + good" 100% vs 86.7%, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100% of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4% in the DR group and 100% in the PR group (P = 0.477). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926395085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84926395085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3748/wjg.v21.i12.3671

DO - 10.3748/wjg.v21.i12.3671

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 3671

EP - 3678

JO - World Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - World Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 1007-9327

IS - 12

ER -