Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorKoruk, Senem
dc.contributor.authorKoruk, Irfan
dc.contributor.authorArslan, Ayse Mizrak
dc.contributor.authorBilgi, Murat
dc.contributor.authorGul, Rauf
dc.contributor.authorBozgeyik, Semsettin
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-02T18:01:37Z
dc.date.available2020-12-02T18:01:37Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn1895-4588
dc.identifier.issn2299-0054
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2020.95066
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11446/3674
dc.descriptionWOS: 000561377700019en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 32904611en_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Interventional 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. Aim: To 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 methods: Forty 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 mu g/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. Results: the 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. Conclusions: We 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTermedia Publishing House Ltden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5114/wiitm.2020.95066en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectdexmedetomidineen_US
dc.subjectsedationen_US
dc.subjectbispectral indexen_US
dc.subjectendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyen_US
dc.subjectrecovery timeen_US
dc.titleDexmedetomidine or midazolam in combination with propofol for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized double blind prospective studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalVideosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniquesen_US
dc.departmentDBÜen_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.volume15en_US
dc.identifier.startpage526en_US
dc.identifier.endpage532en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.department-temp[Koruk, Senem] Istanbul Medeniyet Univ, Fac Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Istanbul, Turkey; [Koruk, Irfan] Demiroglu Bilim Univ, Fac Med, Dept Gastroenterol, Istanbul, Turkey; [Arslan, Ayse Mizrak] Gaziantep Univ, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Fac Med, Gaziantep, Turkey; [Bilgi, Murat] Abant Izzet Baysal Univ, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Bolu, Turkey; [Gul, Rauf] NCR Int Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Gaziantep, Turkey; [Bozgeyik, Semsettin] Defa Life Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Gaziantep, Turkeyen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster