117 / 242
117
SATISFACTION AND SAFETY USING DEXMEDETOMIDINE OR PROPOFOL SEDATION
9
were allegorised as number and/or percentage of the total. Nonnormally distributed data
were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test where appropriate, and data are presented
as median (IQR). To compare measurements of HR, BP, SV, cardiac output, and SVR between
groups, the area under the curve (AUC) for each value was calculated over the different
measurement time points during the procedure. The difference between the AUCs for the
different groups was tested for statistical significance using the Students t-test, because the
AUC values were normally distributed.
RESULTS
In total, 102 patients were eligible for enrolment, but 39 patients declined to participate.
The remaining 63 patients were allocated randomly to receive either dexmedetomidine
(group D, n=32) or propofol (group P, n=31). The groups were comparable in respect of
demographic characteristics (Table 1) and endoscopic procedures, including the indication
for endoscopy, type and length of procedure, and results of pathology.
Table 1.
Patients’ characteristics including: Gender, age, ASA, BMI, heart disease, lung disease, and
diabetes
Dexmedetomidine
Propofol
Gender (female/male)
3 (10%)/28 (90%)
9 (29%)/22 (71%)
Age
18-65y
16 (52%)
12 (37%)
>65-80y
14 (45%)
14 (44%)
>80y
1 (3%)
6 (19%)
ASA
1
10 (32%)
6 (19%)
2
20 (65%)
23 (72%)
3
1 (3%)
3 (9%)
BMI (mean (SD))
26 (3)
27 (5)
Heart disease/ Hypertension
No
21 (71%)
23 (72%)
Yes
7 (23%)
4 (13%)
Serious
2 (6%)
5 (15%)
Lung disease
No
26 (84%)
22 (69%)
Yes
4 (13%)
9 (28%)
Serious
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
Diabetes
No
30 (97%)
28 (87%)
Yes
1 (3%)
4 (13%)