This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kaygusuz, K. Articles by Gultekin, Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kaygusuz, K. Articles by Gultekin, Y. Related Collections Ambulatory Patient Safety Clinical Pharmacology Pharmacology

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIOLOGY

A Comparison of Sedation with Dexmedetomidine or Propofol During Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Kenan Kaygusuz, MD^*, Gokhan Gokce, MD, Sinan Gursoy, MD^*, Semih Ayan, MD, Caner Mimaroglu, MD^*, and Yener Gultekin, MD

From the Departments of *Anesthesiology and Urology, Cumhuriyet University School of Medicine, Sivas, Turkey.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Kenan Kaygusuz, Department of Anesthesiology, Cumhuriyet University School of Medicine, 58140 Sivas, Turkey. Address e-mail to kaygusuz{at}cumhuriyet.edu.tr.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine, because it has both sedative and analgesic properties, may be suitable for conscious sedation during painful procedures. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a minimal to mildly painful procedure that requires conscious sedation. We thus evaluated the utility of dexmedetomidine compared with propofol during an ESWL procedure.

METHODS: Forty-six patients were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol for elective ESWL. Dexmedetomidine was infused at 6 µg · kg^–1 · h^–1 for 10 min followed by an infusion rate of 0.2 µg · kg^–1 · h^–1. Propofol was infused at 6 mg · kg^–1 · h^–1 for 10 min followed by an infusion of 2.4 mg · kg^–1 · h^–1. Fentanyl 1 µg/kg IV was given to all patients 10 min before ESWL. Pain intensity was evaluated with a visual analog scale at 5-min intervals during ESWL (10–35 min). Sedation was determined using the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation. The Observer's Assessment of Alertness/ Sedation scores and hemodynamic and respiratory variables were recorded regularly during ESWL (35 min) and up to 85 min after.

RESULTS: Forty patients were evaluated. Visual analog scale values with dexmedetomidine were significantly lower than those with propofol only at the 25–35 min assessments (P < 0.05). During sedation, the respiratory rate with dexmedetomidine was significantly slower but Spo₂ was significantly higher than with propofol (P < 0.05). Other clinical variables were similar (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: A combination of dexmedetomidine with fentanyl can be used safely and effectively for sedation and analgesia during ESWL.