Low Dose Midazolam versus Propofol for Conscious Sedation During Diagnostic Endoscopy for Day Case Surgery: A randomized clinical trial

EFFICACY OF DEXMEDETOMIDINE VERSUS MIDAZOLAM FOR SEDATION IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING REGIONAL ANESTHESIA: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY

Objectives: The objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during regional anesthesia surgery. Methods: This prospective randomized comparative interventional study was conducted in the Department of Anesthesiology at a tertiary care hospital from January 2025 to January 2026. 100 adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under regional anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups: Group D (dexmedetomidine, n=50) and Group M (midazolam, n=50). Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) was used to evaluate sedation. Intraoperative monitoring of hemodynamic parameters, such as mean arterial pressure and heart rate, was performed. Recovery characteristics, patient satisfaction, requirement for rescue sedation and adverse effects were also assessed. Results: The mean intraoperative RASS score was significantly lower in the Group D than in the Group M (−2.8±0.5 vs. −2.5±0.7; p=0.02). The time required to reach the target sedation level was significantly greater in Group D (9.4±2.6 min vs. 7.8±2.4 min; p=0.003). The scores of patient satisfaction with dexmedetomidine use were significantly greater than with midazolam use (8.5±1.0 vs. 7.9±1.2; p=0.01). Dexmedetomidine was associated with more adverse effects of bradycardia (p=0.08) and hypotension (p=0.46), whereas midazolam was associated with more adverse effects of excessive sedation (p=0.14) and restlessness (p=0.09). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine and midazolam were both found to be effective sedatives for patients undergoing regional anesthetic. Dexmedetomidine was found to be a more effective sedative, well tolerated, more patient-satisfying and more stable for intraoperative hemodynamic despite its comparatively slower onset of sedation than midazolam.

EFFICACY OF DEXMEDETOMIDINE VERSUS PROPOFOL INFUSION IN PRODUCING CONTROLLED HYPOTENSION DURING FUNCTIONAL ENDOSCOPIC SINUS SURGERY IN A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL

Background:Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS) requires a clear and bloodless surgical field for optimal visualization and prevention of intraoperative complications. Controlled hypotension is commonly employed during FESS to reduce blood loss and improve surgical conditions. Dexmedetomidine and Propofol are widely used agents for controlled hypotensive anesthesia. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol infusion in achieving controlled hypotension during FESS.Methodology:This prospective randomized comparative study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology at Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences from June 2025 to March 2026. A total of 100 patients aged between 18 and 40 years belonging to ASA Grade I and II undergoing elective FESS were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 50 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine infusion at 0.4–0.8 μg/kg/hr, while Group P received propofol infusion at 75–100 μg/kg/min following induction of general anesthesia. Intraoperative pulse rate, mean arterial pressure, blood loss, quality of surgical field, sedation score, and complications were assessed and compared between the two groupsResults:Baseline demographic and hemodynamic parameters were comparable between the groups. Intraoperative pulse rate and mean arterial pressure were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group at various time intervals compared with the propofol group (p<0.05). Quality of surgical field and mean blood loss were comparable in both groups. Postoperative Ramsay sedation scores at 30 minutes were significantly higher in the propofol group (p=0.023). No major complications were observed in either group.Conclusion:Both dexmedetomidine and propofol were effective and safe agents for controlled hypotension during FESS. Dexmedetomidine provided superior intraoperative hemodynamic stability with comparable surgical field quality and blood loss, making it a useful alternative to propofol for hypotensive anesthesia in endoscopic sinus surgery.

Eleveld versus Schnider TCI Model for Propofol Sedation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial

Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine-Midazolam and Fentanyl-Midazolam for Sedation and Analgesia in Lower Extremity Orthopedic Surgery under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Background: Spinal anesthesia is a very commonly used procedure in modern-day anesthesia practice. Today most of the lower limb surgeries are performed under spinal anesthesia. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and fentanyl are common intravenous adjuvants used during anesthesia to allay anxiety and sedation. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine-midazolam versus fentanyl-midazolam in terms of analgesic characteristics, sedation, and adverse effects. Methods: This is a randomized prospective study that included 35 patients in each group, posted for lower limb orthopedic surgery. Intravenous dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, and midazolam were administered after subarachnoid block. Data for sedation, analgesia, hemodynamic parameters, and adverse effects were recorded. Results: RR for FM group showed significant intra-group variability in RR across perioperative stages (p<0.05), whereas the DM group maintained greater respiratory stability (p=0.243). HR for DM group exhibited significantly lower intraoperative and postoperative HR compared to FM group (p<0.001), with notable within-group changes, unlike the FM group. MAP for both groups remained stable over time (DM: p= 0.283, FM: p= 0.260), although the FM group had slightly higher values in the postoperative recovery phase. Sedation (RSS): DM produced deeper and more sustained sedation intraoperatively and postoperatively (p<0.001), while FM showed quicker sedation decline. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the DM group (VAS: 3.0 vs. 4.0, p= 0.001), although surgeon satisfaction did not differ notably. Adverse events were rare and comparable, though hypotension was more frequent in the DM group (22.9% vs. 8.6%). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine plus midazolam provided superior sedation quality and patient satisfaction, with more stable cardiopulmonary parameters during orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia. Despite a slightly higher rate of hypotension, DM appears to offer a more favorable sedative profile compared to fentanyl plus midazolam.

Comparison of the Sedative Effect and Recovery Time of Dexmedetomidine and Fentanyl during Elective Colonoscopy

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A prospective randomized controlled trial

Pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) requires deep sedation to ensure immobility and optimal image quality. Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia is effective but may cause airway depression and hemodynamic instability at higher doses. Dexmedetomidine has minimal respiratory effects but may prolong sedation. This study evaluated whether a low-dose dexmedetomidine bolus combined with propofol shortens recovery time (primary outcome); improves hemodynamic stability; reduces airway events, induction time, and total propofol dose; and minimizes scan interruptions (secondary outcomes). In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, children undergoing MRI were assigned to two groups. Group D+P received 0.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine over 2–3 minutes plus a 1 mg/kg bolus of propofol followed by infusion; Group P received propofol alone as bolus and infusion. Propofol infusion rate was adjusted to achieve a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 5–6. Recovery time was analyzed using t test; scan interruptions were compared using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. Group D+P had a shorter recovery time (19.4 ± 35 vs. 31.4 ± 36.1 min; P = 0.042) and faster induction (128.9 vs. 224.6 sec; P < 0.001). The propofol infusion rate was lower in Group D + P than in Group P (76.3 ± 65.6 vs 123 ± 45.5 μg/kg/min; P < 0.001). Additional boluses were more frequent in Group P ( P = 0.003). Bradycardia occurred in significantly more children in Group D + P than in Group P ( P = 0.008). Low-dose dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to propofol for pediatric MRI sedation reduces recovery time, propofol requirement, and airway-related complications, while enabling faster induction and fewer scan interruptions with increased risk of bradycardia.