Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35291989›Full record

Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2022

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Barak Pertzov, Boris Krasulya, Karam Azem, Yael Shostak, Shimon Izhakian, Dror Rosengarten, Svetlana Kharchenko, Mordechai R Kramer

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04211298 (Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Sedation in Flexible Bronchoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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.

NCT04211298 phase4unknown statusnot on this map

Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Sedation in Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRabin Medical CenterRan2019 to 2020Enrolled100ConditionsSedation ComplicationArmsDexmedetomidine, Propofol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Comparative analysis of guidelines and recommendations for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy: a narrative review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Anesthesia for Bronchoscopy-An Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Foreign body aspirations in dental clinics: a narrative review.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2022
    Review
  13. 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

8 authors.

Barak PertzovPulmonary Division, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, 49100, Petach-Tikvah, Israel. pertzovb@gmail.com.
Boris KrasulyaDepartment of Anesthesia, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Karam AzemDepartment of Anesthesia, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Yael ShostakPulmonary Division, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, 49100, Petach-Tikvah, Israel.
Shimon IzhakianPulmonary Division, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, 49100, Petach-Tikvah, Israel.
Dror RosengartenPulmonary Division, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, 49100, Petach-Tikvah, Israel.
Svetlana KharchenkoDepartment of Anesthesia, Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Mordechai R KramerPulmonary Division, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, 49100, Petach-Tikvah, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDexmedetomidine (DEX), is a highly selective alpha2 adrenoceptor (α2-AR) agonist, successfully used in various procedures including flexible bronchoscopy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DEX sedation during bronchoscopy report equivocal results regarding respiratory and hemodynamic outcomes.

methodsWe conducted an RCT to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine compared to propofol for sedation during bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was the number of desaturation events, secondary outcomes were transcutaneous Pco2 level, hemodynamic adverse events and physician and patient satisfaction.

resultsOverall, 63 patients were included, 30 and 33 in the DEX and propofol groups, respectively. The number of desaturation events was similar between groups, median (IQR) 1 (0-1) and 1 (0-2) in the DEX and control groups, respectively (P = 0.29). Median desaturation time was 1 (0-2) and 1 (0-3) minutes in the DEX and control groups, respectively (P = 0.48). Adverse events included hypotension, 33% vs 21.1% in intervention and control groups, respectively (P = 0.04), bradycardia, cough, and delayed recovery from sedation. Total adverse events were 22 and 7 in DEX and propofol groups, respectively (P = 0.009).

conclusionDexmedetomidine sedation during bronchoscopy did not show differences in oxygen saturation and transcutaneous CO2 level in comparison to propofol. Moreover, DEX sedation required a significantly higher number of rescue boluses, due to inadequate sedation and was associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Trial registration NCT04211298, registration date: 26.12.2019.

Indexed as

DexmedetomidinePropofolBronchoscopyHumansHypnotics and SedativesProcedural SedationDexmedetomidineHypnotics and SedativesPropofolAdverse eventsDesaturationDexmedetomidineFlexible bronchoscopySedation

Identifiers

PMID35291989
PMCPMC8922860

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.