Abstract:Cirrhotic patients are more vulnerable to sedation-related complications than the general population, and there is no consensus on sedation during endoscopic procedures for these patients, whose numbers are increasing globally. Our study compared the efficacy of sedation, hemodynamic, respiratory effects, the incidence of side effects, and patient and endoscopist satisfaction with dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in hepatic patients with Child-Pugh classification A & B.Seventy adult hepatic patients with Child-Pugh classification class A and B scheduled for UGIE were randomly assigned to one of two groups:The ketamine/dexmedetomidine (KD) group received an IV loading of 1 mg/kg ketamine and 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes, followed by 0.1 mg/kg/hr ketamine and 0.1 µg/kg/hr dexmedetomidine maintenance. Ketamine/propofol (KP) group received an IV loading of 1 mg/kg ketamine and 1 mg/kg propofol over 10 minutes, followed by 0.1 mg/kg/hr ketamine and 0.1 mg/kg/hr propofol. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) were measured every 5 minutes (min) until the procedure was completed. The time required to reach the target Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) (3–4) which is called the induction time, the time required to recover (the recovery time), and the occurrence of side effects were all recorded. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) at baseline and 2 hours after recovery were measured.Demographic data showed no significant differences between the two groups. HR changes in the KD group were significantly lower than in the KP group at T1 (after the loading dose), T2 (after the endoscopy was inserted), and at all time points until the procedure was completed. MAP values were lower in the KD group compared to the KP group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Induction and recovery times were longer in the group (KD) than in group (KP), with (8.00 ± 1.26 min in the group (KD) vs 3.00 ± 1.14 min in the group (KP) for induction and (19.00 ± 1.53 min in the group (KD) vs 9.00 ± 1.41 min in the group (KP) for recovery. The prevalence of oxygen desaturation was higher in the group (KP) than in group (KD) ("9" pts in the group (KP) vs "3" pts in the group(KD)) (KD). However, unwanted movements were statistically more common in group KD than in group KP (6 patients versus two patients, respectively). Baseline MMSE and MMSE at PACU values were comparable within and between the two groups. The levels of satisfaction among patients and endoscopists were comparable in both groups.The dexmedetomidine/ketamine combination is as effective as the propofol/ketamine combination in terms of sedation efficacy, with more hemodynamic and respiratory stability, but it has longer induction and recovery times with comparable results in terms of ketamine bolus consumption, MMSE scores after recovery, and patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Propofol Versus Ketofol for Sedation During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized Study

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion for Sedation During Coblation-Assisted Upper Airway Procedure.

Dexmedetomidine <em>versus</em> Ketofol for Moderate Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol in Combination with Fentanyl for Sedation-Analgesia in Colonoscopy Procedures: A Randomized Prospective Study

Comparison of propofol versus dexmedetomidine sedation for awake C-MAC® D-Blade video laryngoscopic nasotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airway: A randomised clinical study

Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation during awake intubation using a Shikani optical stylet: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial

A comparison of dexmedetomidine versus propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy in sleep apnea patients

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus propofol-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in hepatic patients (a comparative randomized study)

Comparison of the Effect of Adding Low-dose Ketamine to Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on the Quality of Sedation and Hemodynamic Response in Children During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Ketofol versus Dexmedetomidine for preventing postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing intestinal obstruction surgeries: a randomized controlled study

Dexmedetomidine versus Ketamine-Propofol for Sedation of Obese Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

[Comparison of dexmedetomidine and propofol for short-term sedation in early postoperative period after cardiac surgery]

Evaluation of different doses of dexmedetomidine for awake fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries: A randomised, double-blind study

Dexmedetomidine-fentanyl Versus Propofol-Fentanyl in Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Study.

Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Sedation ocirculation After Cardiac Surgery : A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam-Fentanyl Combination in Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blinded Study

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol sedation reduces delirium in patients after cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

The comparison of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-midazolam for patient sedation during flexible bronchoscopy: a prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial

Comparison of remifentanil and esketamine in combination with propofol for patient sedation during fiberoptic bronchoscopy

Etomidate-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for entropy-guided procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: A randomized single blind study