| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2023 | Volume
: 2
| Issue : 1 | Page : 18-23 |
|
|
A prospective, randomized, interventional, comparative study between dexmedetomidine and propofol infusion for monitored anesthesia care during internal jugular vein chemoport insertion
Shahbaz Alam1, Nitesh Goel1, Nikhil Bhasin1, Shikha Modi2, Charanjeet Kaur1
1 Department of Anaesthesia, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Anaesthesia, MAMC, New Delhi, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shahbaz Alam
Department of Anaesthesia, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Sector-5, Rohini, New Delhi
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/jica.jica_40_22
|
|
|
Background: Chemotherapy through peripheral intravenous cannula causes severe thrombophlebitis. Chemoport is a best and favorable alternative for the same. It is done under local infiltration along with monitored anesthesia care with sedation. However, due to the lack of any fixed regimen, overt to under sedation is more common. To maintain an effective, consistent, and continuous level of sedation, we compared dexmedetomidine and propofol infusion in patients requiring monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for chemoport insertion. Methodology: Fifty patients posted for internal jugular vein chemoport insertion were randomly distributed into two groups: the propofol group and dexmedetomidine group. In Group P-injection, propofol infusion started at 125 μg/kg/min. Once observer's OAAS score 3 was achieved, propofol infusion was reduced to 25–75 μg/kg/min, whereas in Group D-Injection, dexmedetomidine bolus infusion was started at 1 μg/kg for 10 min and followed by 0.3–0.7 μg/kg/h and titrated to an OAAS score of 3. Results: OAAS score 3 was achieved significantly earlier in the propofol group as compared to the dexmedetomidine group (3.12 ± 1.7 vs. 8.04 ± 2.07, respectively). We were also able to maintain the desired sedation level throughout the procedure. Satisfaction scores in both the groups were comparable and patients in both the groups were hemodynamically stable throughout the procedure. Conclusion: In the current study, we found that propofol infusion was better regarding early onset and maintenance of OAAS score 3 with no requirement of rescue sedation during the procedure. The hemodynamic parameters and satisfaction scores were comparable in both groups. Hence, we suggest the use of injection propofol infusion for MAC under sedation in a patient requiring internal jugular vein chemoport insertion when compared to dexmedetomidine.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
