Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols with the use of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND

The study was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different sedation protocols of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil for percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects (ASD) under transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) guidance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From March 2020 to January 2021, of 114 patients screened, 59 ASD patients scheduled for percutaneous closure under TTE guidance were randomly allocated into the dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (D-R) group (n = 29) and the propofol-remifentanil (P-R) group (n = 30). The incidence of hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events, arterial blood gas analysis, induction and recovery time, pain score, infusion rate of remifentanil, satisfaction of the surgeon and patient, additional sedatives were collected for analysis and comparison.

RESULTS

The induction time was longer in the D-R group than that in the P-R group (17.66 ± 2.65 min vs 11.43 ± 1.48 min; difference, 6.22 min; 95% CI 5.10 to 7.35; P < 0.001). No differences were observed in the 2 groups in terms of the additional sedatives, infusion rate of remifentanil, pain score, recovery time (P > 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events (6 [20.7%] vs 4 [13.3%]; difference, 7.4%; 95% CI - 11.7 to 26.5%; P = 0.506). Respiratory adverse events occurred in 1 patient (3.4%) in the D-R group, and 8 patients (26.7%) in the P-R group (difference, 23.3%; 95% CI 6.2 to 40.5%; P = 0.026). The incidence of hypercapnia was significantly lower in the D-R group (4 [13.8%]) than in the P-R group (13 [43.3%]; difference, 29.5%; 95% CI 7.8 to 51.2%; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Except for more rapid the induction time and higher the surgeon satisfaction score in the propofol-remifentanil protocol, the efficacy was similar between two sedation protocols. The hemodynamic stability was comparable, the dexmedetomidine-remifentanil protocol had superior airway security due to fewer hypercapnia and respiratory adverse events.