Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32904611›Full record

ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2020

Dexmedetomidine or midazolam in combination with propofol for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized double blind prospective study.

Senem Koruk, Irfan Koruk, Ayse Mizrak Arslan, Murat Bilgi, Rauf Gul, Semsettin Bozgeyik

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Up-to-date literature review and issues of sedation during digestive endoscopy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Senem KorukDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Irfan KorukDepartment of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Demiroglu Bilim University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ayse Mizrak ArslanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Gaziantep University Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Murat BilgiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey.
Rauf GulDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, NCR International Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Semsettin BozgeyikDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Defa Life Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Istanbul Medeniyet University · TRTürk Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Derneği · TRBolu Abant İzzet Baysal University · TRGaziantep University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInterventional endoscopic procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), often require sedation during the procedure. The most commonly used drugs for this purpose are midazolam and propofol, which are used as sedative and hypnotic agents with minimal analgesic potential.

aimTo compare the analgesic sedative effects of midazolam-propofol and dexmedetomidine-propofol combinations and their influence on hemodynamic and respiratory variables in patients undergoing ERCP. MATERIAL AND

methodsForty adult patients aged 20-78 and undergoing ERCP were randomized to two groups. Patients were premedicated with midazolam (0.05 mg/kg 10 min before the procedure) in group M and with dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg for 10 min) in group D. Propofol was used for maintenance. The sedation level was monitored using the bispectral index (BIS) to maintain a score between 70 and 80. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables, recovery time and adverse events were recorded.

resultsThe hemodynamic and respiratory variables were similar in both groups. Total propofol consumption was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group (208.5 ±80.0 vs. 154.5 ±66.7 mg; p = 0.011). The recovery period was shorter in group D (time to achieve the Aldrete score 9 was 9.4 ±2.1 vs. 6.6 ±1.1 min; p < 0.001). Changes in hemodynamic and respiratory variables and adverse events were not different between the two groups.

conclusionsWe found a shorter recovery time and comparable sedative and adverse effects with the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination compared with the midazolam-propofol combination. Dexmedetomidine in combination with propofol may be a safe and useful alternative for sedation for ERCP patients.

Indexed as

bispectral indexdexmedetomidineendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyrecovery timesedation

Identifiers

PMID32904611
PMCPMC7457191
OpenAlexW3027490489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.