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.

Low‐dose adjuvant dexmedetomidine did not decrease propofol sedation requirements in children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy

Anesthetic-sparing effect of dexmedetomidine during total intravenous anesthesia for children undergoing dental surgery: A randomized controlled trial

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

The Median Effective Dose of Dexmedetomidine for the Inhibition of Emergence Delirium in Preschool Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy and/or Adenoidectomy: A Retrospective Dose-response Trial

Hemodynamic Response of High- and Low-Dose Dexmedetomidine of Pediatric in General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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

Effects of Dexmedetomidine As an Adjuvant to General Anesthesia on Perioperative Hemodynamic Reaction in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Craniotomy: a Pilot Study

Dexmedetomidine for the Management of Postoperative Pain and Sedation in Newborns

Dexmedetomidine in combination with ketamine for pediatric procedural sedation or premedication: A meta-analysis

Effects of Low Dose of Dexmedetomidine on Painless Gastroscopy and Colonoscopy:a Prospective Randomized Controlled ;Study

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Emergence Agitation or Delirium in Children After Anesthesia—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies

Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study

Prophylactic application of dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of emergence delirium in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Strabismus Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study

Effect of dexmedetomidine and propofol sedation on the prognosis of children with severe respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dexmedetomidine/propofol versus dexmedetomidine/ketamine versus dexmedetomidine as a sole agent for pediatric sedation during MRI

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

Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine (DEX) combined with propofol for patients undergoing painless gastroscope

Effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on outcomes in critically ill patients with different sedation depths: a propensity score-weighted cohort study

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol for maintenance of anesthesia undergoing cardiac catbeterization in children

Effects of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol on painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy in the elderly