Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26266387›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2015

Comparative Effects of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on US-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatic Neoplasm Under Monitored Anesthesia Care: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Kyoung-Woon Joung, Seong-Soo Choi, Dong-Min Jang, Yu-Gyeong Kong, Hwa-Mi Lee, Ji-Hoon Shim, Hyung-Jin Won, Yong-Moon Shin, Pyo-Nyun Kim, Myung-Hee Song

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05009550 (Effect of Erector Spina Plain), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05009550 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Erector Spina Plain (ESP) Block on Patient Outcomes in Patients With Liver Tumor Undergoing Radiofrequency Ablation

TypeinterventionalSponsorTC Erciyes UniversityRan2021 to 2021Enrolled30ConditionsHepatic CarcinomaArmsGroup ESP, Non-blocked Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. PropofolJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors.

Kyoung-Woon JoungFrom the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (K-WJ, S-SC, D-MJ, Y-GK, J-HS, M-HS), Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (H-ML), Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung; and Department of Radiology (H-JW, Y-MS, P-NK), Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seong-Soo Choi
Dong-Min Jang
Yu-Gyeong Kong
Hwa-Mi Lee
Ji-Hoon Shim
Hyung-Jin Won
Yong-Moon Shin
Pyo-Nyun Kim
Myung-Hee Song

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a useful and safe procedure for treating hepatic neoplasm. However, liver RFA causes severe pain, which thereby increases the demand for monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Here, we compared the efficacy and safety of propofol and dexmedetomidine, which are commonly administered during MAC when performing RFA to assess hepatic neoplasm.In this randomized controlled trial, 40 patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups for elective RFA. Patients received either dexmedetomidine (group D) or propofol (group P). Both groups received the continuous infusion of remifentanil for pain control. The primary outcomes were opioid consumption and differences in partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) between pre- and postprocedure RFA. In addition, hemodynamic parameters, patient satisfaction, and interventional radiologist satisfaction were determined.There were significant differences in opioid consumption (50.1 ± 16.8 ng/kg/min [group D] vs 71.2 ± 18.7 ng/kg/min [group P]; P = 0.001) and delta PaCO2 (10.4 ± 6.4 mm Hg vs 17.2 ± 9.2 mm Hg, respectively; P = 0.016). Moreover, respiratory rates were significantly different between groups during RFA (P < 0.001). However, blood pressure and heart rate did not significantly change during RFA. Neither patient nor interventional radiologist satisfaction was significantly different between groups.Dexmedetomidine provides better respiratory stability and reduces opioid consumption in comparison with propofol when administered under MAC when performing RFA for hepatic neoplasm.

Indexed as

AnalgesicsCatheter AblationDexmedetomidineFemaleHemodynamicsHumansLiver NeoplasmsMalePiperidinesPropofolRemifentanilAnalgesicsDexmedetomidinePiperidinesPropofolRemifentanil

Identifiers

PMID26266387
PMCPMC4616670

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.