Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24377675›Full record

Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2013

Safety and effectiveness using dexmedetomidine versus propofol TCI sedation during oesophagus interventions: a randomized trial.

Susanne Eberl, Benedikt Preckel, Jacques J Bergman, Markus W Hollmann

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03255824 (A Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol for Use in Intravenous Sedation), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03255824 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

A Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol for Use in Intravenous Sedation

TypeinterventionalSponsorMontefiore Medical CenterRan2018 to 2019Enrolled144ConditionsAnesthesiaArmsDexmedetomidine and Midazolam, Propofol, Midazolam, and Fentanyl
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susanne EberlDepartment of Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam 1100 DD, The Netherlands. S.Eberl@amc.uva.nl.
Benedikt Preckel
Jacques J Bergman
Markus W Hollmann
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic treatment of early neoplastic lesions in oesophagus has evolved as a valid and less invasive alternative to surgical resection. These endoscopic interventions are minimal invasive treatment options usually done with sedation on an outpatient basis. The aim of this trial is to determine the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine sedation compared to the standard used propofol TCI sedation during endoscopic oesophageal interventions.

methodsThe study will be performed as a randomized controlled trial. The first 64 consenting patients will be randomized to either the propofol or the dexmedetomidine group. Following endoscopy patients and gastroenterologists have to fill in questionnaires (PSSI, CSSI) (see abbreviations) about their sedation experiences. Additionally, patients have to accomplish the Trieger test before and after the procedure. Patient monitoring includes time adapted HR, SO₂, ECG, NIBP, exCO₂, NICO, sweat conductance measurement, OAA/S, and the Aldrete score. Effectiveness of sedation, classified by satisfaction levels and pain and sedation score measured by questionnaires is the primary outcome parameter. Respiratory and hemodynamic complications are surrogate parameters for the secondary outcome parameter "safety". DISCUSSION: The acceptance level among patients after propofol sedation is high. Dexmedetomidine is a relatively new representative for procedural sedation. Has this new form of conscious sedation the potential to be safer and more effective for patients and endoscopists than propofol during endoscopic oesophageal interventions?

trial registrationThis trial is registered in the ISRCTN Register (ISRCTN 68599804). It will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Departments of Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology & Hepatology of the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam are responsible for the design and conduct of the trial.

Indexed as

Barrett EsophagusCatheter AblationDexmedetomidineEsophagoscopyEsophagusHumansHypnotics and SedativesMucous MembranePatient SatisfactionPostoperative PainProcedural SedationPropofolTreatment OutcomeDexmedetomidineHypnotics and SedativesPropofol

Identifiers

PMID24377675
PMCPMC3922843
OpenAlexW2095921468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.