A comparative study of Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam with fentanyl for monitored anaesthesia care in tympanoplastyunder local anaesthesia

Journal Title: Medpulse International Journal of Anesthesiology - Year 2019, Vol 10, Issue 2

Abstract

Background and Aims: Monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) is a procedure in which the local anaesthesia(LA) and sedation provided using different drugs. We conducted this comparative study to see the safety and efficacy of Dexmedetomidine and midazolam with fentanyl for tympanoplasty under MAC. Methods: Fifty patients of age between 18 to 60 years of either sex posted for tympanoplasty under MAC were randomly allocated into two groups. Group D (n = 25) patient received intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine 1 µg/ kg as bolus followed by an infusion 0.2 µg/kg/h. Group MF (n =25) patient received IV midazolam 0.05 mg / kg plus fentanyl 1.5µg/ kg as bolus followed by 0.2 ml/kg/h normal saline as an infusion. Sedation was titrated according to Ramsay Sedation score of 3. Rescue doses of midazolam 0.01mg/kg IV as sedation and fentanyl 1µg/ kg IV as analgesic was given when required, maximum 3 doses allowed.Patient’s oxygen saturation, hemodynamics, and need for intraoperative rescue sedation/analgesia were assessed as primary outcome. Surgeon satisfaction score were assessed as secondary outcome.The data were analyzed by Chi-square and unpaired t-test.Result: Number of rescue analgesia /sedation/infiltration/ was less in dexemeditomidine group (2/2/4) compared to group MF (14/14/20). Surgeon satisfaction score was higher in group D than group MF (P=0.001). Haemodynamically patients were stable in both the groups. Conclusion: Compared to midazolam with fentanyl, dexmedetomidine is a better alternative as it is associated with good haemodynamic control, without respiratory depression, lower pain scores and greater surgeon satisfaction.

Authors and Affiliations

Jigisha Badheka, Pratik M Doshi, Peram Shrividhya, Jaykishan Gol, Vandana Parmar

Keywords

Related Articles

Comparative study between epidural tramadol vs buprenorphine for postoperative analgesia

Aim: This study was designed to compare the postoperative analgesia between tramadol and Buprenorphine through an epidural technique in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgeries based on the onset of analgesia, its d...

Reasons of cancellation of elective cases on the day of surgery - A retrospective study

Background and Aim: Hospitals invest major resources in maintaining and arranging Operation rooms, appointing anaesthetists, Operating surgeons, and OT staff to run an institute. But unindicted cancellation or postponeme...

Comparison of effect of intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine as premedication on haemodynamic stability among paediatric patients

Background: Fear of unpleasant and painful procedures, separation from parents and an unwillingness to breathe through an anaesthesia face mask may produce stormy anaesthetic induction in unpremedicated patients. Because...

Tramadol in perioperative shivering in patients undergoing caesrean section under regional anaesthesia

Background: Shivering can be unpleasant and physiologically stressful for the patients. The incidence of post-operative shivering is more in obstetric patients. Many physical and pharmacological interventions are used to...

A comparative study of spinal anaesthesia with 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.75% ropivacaine for percutaneous nephrolithotomy surgeries

This prospective comparative study was conducted to study and compare the intraoperative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia between 0.5% Bupivacaine and 0.75% Ropivacainefor spinal anaesthesia for percutaneous Nephr...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP616672
  • DOI 10.26611/101510217
  • Views 205
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Jigisha Badheka, Pratik M Doshi, Peram Shrividhya, Jaykishan Gol, Vandana Parmar (2019). A comparative study of Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam with fentanyl for monitored anaesthesia care in tympanoplastyunder local anaesthesia. Medpulse International Journal of Anesthesiology, 10(2), 152-156. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-616672