J Am Dent Assoc. 2023 Nov;154(11):1008-1018.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2023.08.003. Epub 2023 Sep 19.
Sedation with continuous dexmedetomidine and bolus midazolam administration provides a lower incidence of unacceptable patient movement during procedures but requires a longer recovery time. The authors aimed to compare recovery time and unacceptable patient movement during sedation with initial loading of dexmedetomidine followed by continuous propofol infusion with those during sedation with continuous dexmedetomidine and bolus midazolam administration.
In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 54 patients undergoing dental surgery and requiring intravenous sedation were assigned to either the dexmedetomidine and propofol group (n = 27, dexmedetomidine administered at 6 μg/kg/h for 5 minutes, followed by continuous propofol infusion using a target-controlled infusion) or the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group (n = 27, dexmedetomidine administered at 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h continuously after the same initial loading dose with bolus midazolam). A bispectral index of 70 through 80 was maintained during the procedure. Patient movement that interfered with the procedure and time from the end of sedation to achieving a negative Romberg sign were assessed.
Times from the end of sedation to achieving a negative Romberg sign in the dexmedetomidine and propofol group (median, 14 minutes [interquartile range, 12-15 minutes]) were significantly shorter (P < .001) than in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group (median, 22 minutes [interquartile range, 17.5-30.5 minutes]). The incidence of unacceptable patient movement was comparable between groups (n = 3 in the dexmedetomidine and propofol group, n = 4 in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam group; P = .999).
Sedation with a single loading dose of dexmedetomidine followed by continuous propofol infusion can prevent delayed recovery without increasing unacceptable patient movement.
The combination of dexmedetomidine and propofol may provide high-quality sedation for ambulatory dental practice. This clinical trial was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. The registration number is UMIN000039668.
使用持续输注右美托咪定和咪达唑仑推注进行镇静可降低术中不可接受的患者运动发生率,但需要更长的恢复时间。作者旨在比较使用初始负荷剂量右美托咪定后持续输注丙泊酚与持续输注右美托咪定和咪达唑仑推注镇静时的恢复时间和镇静期间不可接受的患者运动。
在这项前瞻性随机对照试验中,54 名接受牙科手术并需要静脉镇静的患者被分配到右美托咪定和丙泊酚组(n=27,给予 6μg/kg/h 的右美托咪定持续输注 5 分钟,然后使用靶控输注持续输注丙泊酚)或右美托咪定和咪达唑仑组(n=27,给予初始负荷剂量后以 0.2-0.7μg/kg/h 的速度持续输注右美托咪定,然后推注咪达唑仑)。手术过程中维持双谱指数在 70-80 之间。评估干扰手术的患者运动和镇静结束至出现负 Romberg 征的时间。
右美托咪定和丙泊酚组镇静结束至出现负 Romberg 征的时间(中位数 14 分钟[四分位距 12-15 分钟])明显短于右美托咪定和咪达唑仑组(中位数 22 分钟[四分位距 17.5-30.5 分钟])(P<.001)。两组不可接受的患者运动发生率相当(右美托咪定和丙泊酚组 n=3,右美托咪定和咪达唑仑组 n=4;P=0.999)。
单次负荷剂量右美托咪定后持续输注丙泊酚可预防恢复延迟,而不增加不可接受的患者运动。
右美托咪定和丙泊酚的联合应用可为门诊牙科实践提供高质量的镇静。本临床试验在大学医院医疗信息网络临床试验注册中心注册。注册号为 UMIN000039668。