Year : 2015  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 223-229

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy under conscious sedation

Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mohamed A Lotfy
Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, El Gheish St, Tanta 31257, Gharbia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1687-7934.156693

Rights and Permissions

Background Dexmedetomidine may be appropriate for painful procedures as a conscious sedation because of its sedative and analgesic properties. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is mildly painful and thus may need conscious sedation. Hence, in this trial we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of propofol in comparison with dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation during PEG. Patients and methods Forty-four patients between 40 and 60 years old were included in the study. Patients undergoing elective PEG were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine group or the propofol group. All patients received fentanyl 1 μg/kg, intravenous, 10 min before the procedure. An initial loading dose of 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously over 10 min to patients in group I (n = 22) before the procedure and as a continuous infusion dose of 0.2 μg/kg/h just before the procedure started. In group II (n = 22) propofol was infused at 4 mg/kg/h for 10 min, followed by infusion of 2 mg/kg/h. The visual analog scale was used to evaluate pain intensity at 5-min intervals during PEG (15-30 min). The Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation was used to evaluate the sedation degree. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scores were regularly recorded during PEG at 5-min intervals (35 min) and to 90 min after. Results Forty-four patients were evaluated. In the dexmedetomidine group, visual analog scale values were significantly lower than those in the propofol group at the 20-35 min assessments (P < 0.05). During sedation, the respiratory rate was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group; however, SpO 2 was significantly higher than that in the propofol group (P < 0.05). Conclusion Dexmedetomidine provides more efficient hemodynamic stability, higher Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation, higher satisfaction scores, and lower visual analog scale scores. According to our results we believe that dexmedetomidine can be safely used as a sedoanalgesic agent in PEG.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded150    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal