Back to all available

Effects of dexmedetomidine nasal spray combined with propofol for deep sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A prospective randomized study

anesthesiology-and-pain-management
gastroenterology-and-hepatology

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires effective and safe deep sedation. Dexmedetomidine is a promising sedative in painless procedures. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of preoperative dexmedetomidine via nasal spray and conventional intravenous infusion for ERCP deep sedation.
Methods: In this single-center, prospective randomized trial, 180 adult patients scheduled for ERCP were assigned to three groups: preoperative nasal spray (Group NS), intravenous pumping (Group IP), or control without dexmedetomidine (Group C). A propofol-based protocol was applied to all groups. Primary outcome was the incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia. Secondary outcomes included propofol consumption, hemodynamic stability, recovery profiles, and the incidence of other adverse events.
Results: Compared to Group C, both Group NS and Group IP significantly reduced intraoperative hypoxemia (5.0% vs. 5.0% vs. 21.7%, p<0.001), lowered propofol requirements, and improved postoperative recovery (shorter time to consciousness, lower agitation and pain scores). Group NS achieved comparable clinical benefits to Group IP but with significantly shorter anesthesia time (48.9 ± 5.2 min vs. 59.7 ± 6.4 min, p<0.001) and higher endoscopist satisfaction (9 (9, 10) vs. 8 (7, 8), p<0.001).
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine nasal spray combined with propofol is as effective and safe as the intravenous route for ERCP deep sedation, offering the additional advantages of shorter anesthesia duration and greater procedural convenience.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].