ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Study of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol-Ketamine for the Anesthetic Management of Patients During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-ketamine for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography sedation.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires effective sedation for patient comfort and procedural success. This study compares propofol-dexmedetomidine (group DP) and propofol-ketamine (group KP) for anesthetic management during ERCP. Methods This randomized, double-blinded study enrolled 50 patients (aged 18-60 years) scheduled for ERCP at Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India. Patients were randomly allocated to group DP (n=25) or group KP (n=25). Hemodynamic parameters, propofol consumption, recovery time, post-procedural pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), sedation levels (Ramsay sedation score), and post-operative side effects were recorded and analyzed. Results Group DP showed significantly lower heart rates, systolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure throughout the procedure (p<0.001). Group KP had lower post-operative VAS scores only in the initial post-operative period (p<0.001 at 15 minutes) but similar Ramsay sedation scores as compared to group DP. Total propofol consumption was lower in group DP, though not statistically significant (378.9 vs 454.8 mg, p=0.08). Group DP required significantly less additional propofol bolus (7.8 vs 18 mg, p<0.001) and had shorter recovery times (7.24 vs 15.2 minutes, p<0.001). Group DP showed no incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) or post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), while group KP had a 26.7% incidence of PONV and a 66.7% incidence of POCD. Conclusion The propofol-dexmedetomidine combination offers more stable hemodynamic control, lower propofol requirements, and quicker recovery times for ERCP anesthesia. It is recommended for patients requiring tight cardiovascular control and rapid post-procedure recovery.
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.