Comparison of the sedative effects of propofol and midazolam during fiberoptic bronchoscopy


ÖZTÜRK T., Çakan A., Dereli Ş., Gülerçe G., Olgaç G., Özsöz A.

Anestezi Dergisi, cilt.10, sa.1, ss.18-22, 2002 (Scopus, TRDizin) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 10 Sayı: 1
  • Basım Tarihi: 2002
  • Dergi Adı: Anestezi Dergisi
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.18-22
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Fiberoptic bronchoscopy, Midazolam, Propofol, Sedation
  • Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

This study aims to investigate the effects of propofol and midazolam during fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) in view to their influence to sedation, transcutane oxygen saturation (Spt O2) and restoration of psychomotor activity. 36 patient undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy were randomized into two groups. Group P(n=18) received an initial bolus dose of 1 mg kg min-1 intravenous Propofol followed by an infusion of 0,5 mg kg-1 h-1. Grup M(n=18) received 2 mg of intravenous Midazolam as an initial bolus dose, followed by 1 mg as required. During procedure, groups received 5 to 10 mg of intravenous propofol or 0.5-1 mg of intravenous midazolam as an intermittent doses as required. When the sedation score of the patient was arrived to 1, procedure was started. Arterial SpO2 was recorded during the procedure. Patient tolerance and sedation was scored at the end of the procedure. Patients completed a questionnaire 30 min after the procedure. Digital Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) was used to score the total psychomotor performance before the procedure, 15 min and 30 min after the end of the procedure. There were not significantly different between the two groups in regard to demographic datas, procedure time and patient tolerance. O2 saturation decreased during the procedure for all patients in both groups. But this didn't reach to statistical significance (p=0.17). The mean induction time was 49.5 sec in Group P, and 124 sec in Group M (p<0.05). Patient tolerance was high in both groups. DSST scores were significantly different between the two groups at 15 and 30 min in favor of Group P (p<0.0001). At 30 min, 55,5 percent (n=10) of the midazolam group was fully recovered. However, the propofol group was completely recovered (p<0.05). This study suggests that propofol and midazolam are useful sedating agents in fiberoptic bronchoscopy. But, the oncet of action and postbronchoscopy recovery are significantly faster with propofol. This allows for greater patient safety and improved efficiency.