Trial reportJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2024
Randomized single-blinded study comparing sedation effectiveness and hemodynamic stability of remifentanil vs dexmedetomidine infusion for electrophysiology procedures in patients of National Heart Institute cathlab.
Trial report in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sedation Strategy, Procedural Comfort, and Clinically Detected Radial Artery Spasm During Transradial Coronary Angiography: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Meta-analysis of the sedative effects of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.American journal of clinical and experimental immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile studies comparing the effectiveness of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine are prevalent in other nations, using remifentanil alone is uncommon in Malaysia. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of sedation with remifentanil or dexmedetomidine infusion in monitored anesthesia care for electrophysiology procedures.
methodsThis study is a single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical study. One hundred twenty patients were randomized into two groups (remifentanil vs dexmedetomidine). Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes, including level of sedation, vital signs, and patient satisfaction were monitored and recorded.
resultsGroup R showed a higher mean observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score (3.9 ± 0.7 vs 3.6 ± 0.8; p = 0.008), mean arterial pressure (92.0 ± 12.0 vs 83.0 ± 13.0 mmHg; p < 0.001), heart rate (82.0 ± 20.0 vs 73.0 ± 18.0 beats/min; p = 0.006), systolic blood pressure (139.0 ± 16.0 vs 123.0 ± 17.0 mmHg; p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (75.0 ± 13.0 vs 69.0 ± 14.0 mmHg; p = 0.009) than Group D. Oxygen saturation (99.0 ± 1.0%; p = 0.220) and respiration rate (16.0 ± 3.0 breaths/min; p = 0.361) for both groups were the same. Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory depression were observed in both groups. Both groups gave positive responses ranging from fair to good for patient satisfaction.
conclusionDexmedetomidine is a better choice of anesthesia as it was associated with a higher level of sedation, more stable hemodynamics, lower incidence of adverse events, and better patient satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.