Comparison of Etomidate-Dexmedetomidine and Propofol-Dexmedetomidine sedation in patients with gastroesophageal relfux disease treated by endoluminal radiofrequency ablation
10.3969/j.issn.1007-1989.2016.12.002
- VernacularTitle:依托咪酯或丙泊酚联用右美托咪定用于胃食管反流病内镜下射频治疗镇静的效果比较
- Author:
Yang CHU
;
Bo SUI
;
Xiangdong LIU
;
Tao MA
;
Hao ZHANG
- Keywords:
Dexmedetomidine;
Etomidate;
Propofol;
gastroesophageal relfux disease;
radiofrequency
- From:
China Journal of Endoscopy
2016;22(12):6-11
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of Etomidate-Dexmedetomidine and Propofol-Dexmedetomidine sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic radiofrequency ablation of gastroesophageal relfux disease (GERD).Methods Sixty adult patients, scheduled for elective endoluminal radiofrequency ablation for GERD under sedation were prospectively randomized into Etomidate-Dexmedetomidine (Group-E,n = 30) or Propofol-Dexmedetomidine (Group-P,n = 30) group. A bolus of 0.2 μg/kg of intravenous Dexmedetomidine was followed by intermittent Etomidate or Propofol injection during the procedure in order to maintain a proper depth of sedation with a Ramsay sedation scores of 5~6. Heart rates, mean blood pressure, oxygen saturation, respiratory rates and Ramsay sedation scores were recorded before sedation (T0), at the beginning of the examination (T1), during radiofrequency energy delivery (T2), at the time of gastroscopy (T3) and at the end of therapy (T4). Inter-group differences in sedation proifles (duration, time to recovery, incidence of body movement, Ramsay sedation scores and satisfaction of patient and endoscopist) and cardio-respiratory responses (heart rate, mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation) were determined during and after radiofrequency ablation.Results No difference was found for therapy duration, anesthesia time or the time to recovery between Group-P and Group-E. Patients receiving Propofol experienced more bradycardia (Ρ = 0.032) and had higher incidences of vasoactives used (Ρ = 0.002) compared with that receiving Etomidate. Oxygen saturation in T1 (Ρ = 0.023) and T2 (Ρ = 0.009) was lower in the Group-P. No significant difference was found for other indicators.Conclusion Etomidate-Dexmedetomidine sedation was superior to Propofol-Dexmedetomidine sedation for GERD radiofrequency therapy with more stable cardio-respiratory responses.
