Study to Determine if the Midazolam-Meperidine-Dexmedetomidine is Superior to the Midazolam-Meperidine for Sedation During ERCP
NCT ID: NCT01404689
Last Updated: 2013-07-16
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Clinical Phase
PHASE4
Total Enrollment
110 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2011-08-31
Study Completion Date
2012-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) takes a longer time and is more complex to perform than the other parallel procedures, causing discomfort to patients. It is commonly performed under sedation endoscopy. Until recently, the combination administration of midazolam and opioid has been widely used as standard therapy due to its superior sedation effect compared to the other sedation agents. Midazolam, however, has problems, such as an insufficient sedation effect and an intermittent paradoxical response.
Unlike midazolam, propofol has no antagonist and may cause problems such as respiratory depression, and has a narrow therapeutic range for the sedation effect, consequently requiring supervision by experienced experts, although it has a better sedation effect than midazolam. Due to these disadvantages, propofol is clinically less useful than midazolam.
Meanwhile, dexmedetomidine, a selective α2 adrenergic agonist, is known to maintain the proper level of sedation and has a weak influence on respiratory depression. Recent studies have shown positive results with dexmedetomidine in relation with the sedation effect for surgery patients under local anesthesia or in intensive care units.
As such, extensive studies are being conducted on the use of dexmedetomidine in endoscopic procedures due to the increased attention to dexmedetomidine. This notwithstanding, the clinical usefulness of dexmedetomidine is still debatable. In particular, studies on the use of dexmedetomidine for ERCP are very rare.
Given the recent idea that dexmedetomidine may exert a synergistic effect in combination with midazolam, these authors endeavored to prospectively compare and analyze the sedation effect and adverse events, including respiratory depression, of the combination therapy of midazolam and meperidine, both of which have been widely used in patients undergoing ERCP, and of the combination therapy of midazolam, meperidine, and dexmedetomidine.
The small-scale comparative study on the combination administration of propofol and fentanyl, which has a high risk of causing complications, and on the single administration of dexmedetomidine is the only study on the sedation effect of dexmedetomidine in the ERCP procedure that has yet been conducted; there has been no study that investigated the effect of the combination administration of dexmedetomidine and other drugs in the ERCP procedure. This study is thus expected to contribute to the development of guidelines on sedation in the ERCP procedure.
Unlike midazolam, propofol has no antagonist and may cause problems such as respiratory depression, and has a narrow therapeutic range for the sedation effect, consequently requiring supervision by experienced experts, although it has a better sedation effect than midazolam. Due to these disadvantages, propofol is clinically less useful than midazolam.
Meanwhile, dexmedetomidine, a selective α2 adrenergic agonist, is known to maintain the proper level of sedation and has a weak influence on respiratory depression. Recent studies have shown positive results with dexmedetomidine in relation with the sedation effect for surgery patients under local anesthesia or in intensive care units.
As such, extensive studies are being conducted on the use of dexmedetomidine in endoscopic procedures due to the increased attention to dexmedetomidine. This notwithstanding, the clinical usefulness of dexmedetomidine is still debatable. In particular, studies on the use of dexmedetomidine for ERCP are very rare.
Given the recent idea that dexmedetomidine may exert a synergistic effect in combination with midazolam, these authors endeavored to prospectively compare and analyze the sedation effect and adverse events, including respiratory depression, of the combination therapy of midazolam and meperidine, both of which have been widely used in patients undergoing ERCP, and of the combination therapy of midazolam, meperidine, and dexmedetomidine.
The small-scale comparative study on the combination administration of propofol and fentanyl, which has a high risk of causing complications, and on the single administration of dexmedetomidine is the only study on the sedation effect of dexmedetomidine in the ERCP procedure that has yet been conducted; there has been no study that investigated the effect of the combination administration of dexmedetomidine and other drugs in the ERCP procedure. This study is thus expected to contribute to the development of guidelines on sedation in the ERCP procedure.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Midazolam With Meperidine and Dexmedetomidine vs. Midazolam With Meperidine and Propofol for Sedation During ERCP
NCT02475824
Complication
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Propofol Versus Dexmedetomidine for Sedation of Cancer Patients Undergoing ERCP
NCT06409104
Sedation in ERCP
COMPLETED
NA
Efficacy Study of Dexmedetomidine Nasal Spray Combined With Propofol for Deep Sedation in ERCP
NCT07204106
Dexmedetomidine Induced Sedation
Nasal Administration
Sprays
COMPLETED
NA
Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil in NORA
NCT06403670
Comparison of the Effects of Remifentanil and Dexmedetomidine
COMPLETED
PHASE4
A Comparision of Midazolam-dexmedetomidine With Dexmedetomidine Alone for Hemodynamic Stability and Quality of Sedation in Elderly Patients Under Spinal Anesthesia
NCT01979653
Sedation; Aged; Hemodynamics
WITHDRAWN
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Compared with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) takes a longer time to perform and causes more discomfort to patients. In ERCP, benzodiazepine alone or in combination with opioid is commonly used for pain control and sedation.
Of the various benzodiazepine drugs, midazolam, which is water-soluble, has been shown to act faster and to be better in terms of anterograde amnesia and its sedation effect than other drugs. As midazolam has a suitable antagonist (flumazenil), prompt measures can be taken in case of such situations as hypopnea.
As midazolam was reported to increase the sedation effect and the level of satisfaction of patients when used in combination with opioid (meperidine), a combination of midazolam and meperidine has been the most widely used regimen so far. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends a combination of midazolam and meperidine as a standard regimen for inducing sedation in upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Several studies reported, however, that midazolam alone or the combination of midazolam and meperidine was insufficient for inducing the sedation effect (47-80%). Besides, midazolam has the disadvantage of producing a paradoxical response at times, which makes the performance of the procedure impossible.
In many studies, propofol, which is preferred as an alternative to midazolam, was recently found to be superior to midazolam in terms of its sedation effect, as it does not cause adverse events.
Because propofol intermittently causes serious respiratory failure and has no antagonist, however, clinicians feel burdened with the use of propofol, due to which it is not widely used. Moreover, anesthesia specialists as well as experienced assistant staff who had received relevant education and training should be available, and all tools needed to promptly handle cardiopulmonary complications should be on hand, which lowers the usefulness of propofol in clinical practice.
The sedation effect of dexmedetomidine, however, a selective α2 adrenergic receptor, is proportional to its dose, so it allows continuous injection and makes it possible to reduce the opioid dose needed for sedation when it is used for sedation. Dexmedetomidine was reported to maintain a proper level of sedation, and to influence less the respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory tract response. Due to these advantages, several recent studies reported that dexmedetomidine can be effective for sedation during upper and lower gastrointestinal procedures.
A combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam was investigated in recent trials with animals and in clinical trials, and its synergic effect was shown in several studies.
In an animal trial using rats, Boehm et al. reported that midazolam increased the dose-related analgesic effect of dexmedetomidine when it was used in combination with dexmedetomidine. Bol et al. reported that combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam increased the sedation effect while reducing adverse cardiovascular events more significantly than with a single administration.
In addition, in a study on rats, Salonen et al. demonstrated the synergic effect of the combination of the two drugs and that flumazenil antagonized the combination of the two drugs in a dose-dependent manner.
In one of the representative clinical trials, Bergese et al. compared a combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam with a midazolam-alone regimen in 55 patients who underwent awake fibrotic intubation (AFOI).
Although there was no hemodynamic difference between the two groups, the combination regimen had a better sedation effect, resulted in a higher level of satisfaction among the patients, and led to fewer adverse events than did the single regimen.
Besides, in a study on patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery, Dasta et al. reported that the use of dexmedetomidine in combination with a standard sedation regimen decreased mortality and reduced the period of mechanical ventilation and the cost. Heard et al. reported that combined administration of midazolam and dexmedetomidine had a sufficient sedation effect on patients who had undergone MRI without adverse events. In the study by Heard et al.,however, in which the subjects were children, propofol was used as the control drug instead of midazolam.
So far, no studies have reported the effect of combination administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in gastrointestinal endoscopy, including in ERCP. Given the synergic effect of the two drugs and the usefulness of dexmedetomidine in endoscopy, such studies are urgently needed.
Though the study by Muller et al. was not on the effect of the combined administration, it is the only study that investigated the sedation effect of dexmedetomidine in ERCP.
In the study by Muller et al. on 26 patients who had undergone ERCP (12 of whom received dexmedetomidine and 14, propofol), they reported that the effect of sedation and pain control was weaker in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group (RR: 2.71/9.42 and NNT: 1.85/1.42, respectively), and that the hemodynamic instability was high in the dexmedetomidine group based on the subjects' mean blood pressure and the heart rate.
The study by Muller et al. had limitations, however, in that the dose of dexmedetomidine was lower than that in other studies and the scale of the study was small. Moreover, although the mean blood pressure and the heart rate were lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group, no clinically significant decrease in the blood pressure and the heart rate was observed.
Moreover, propofol, which was used in the control group, may impose a heavy burden in relation to its depressing respiratory effect because of the absence of an antagonist (flumazenil), unlike with midazolam, as described previously, which acts faster and requires experienced assistant staff; and because the usefulness and frequency of use of propofol in clinical practice is low. In addition, as the study by Muller et al. was about single dexmedetomidine administration, the comparison of the combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam with the single administration of propofol to produce the sedation effect could result in different outcomes.
As such, it is believed that the sedation effect and adverse events from the combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam and from single administration of midazolam in patients who had undergone ERCP should be studied.
As described previously, midazolam is considered suitable as a control drug as it is more useful than propofol in clinical practice. Moreover, since the combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam has a synergic effect on sedation, the combination is believed to be more meaningful than single dexmedetomidine administration.
In addition, the cardiovascular and respiratory safety of single dexmedetomidine administration and the combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam, as reported in several previous studies, was shown as satisfactory in this study.
Whether or not this synergic effect and safety will be seen as well in gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in ERCP, will be further investigated; and as there is no study yet that has investigated the combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in patients undergoing ERCP, this study can be considered meaningful.
Of the various benzodiazepine drugs, midazolam, which is water-soluble, has been shown to act faster and to be better in terms of anterograde amnesia and its sedation effect than other drugs. As midazolam has a suitable antagonist (flumazenil), prompt measures can be taken in case of such situations as hypopnea.
As midazolam was reported to increase the sedation effect and the level of satisfaction of patients when used in combination with opioid (meperidine), a combination of midazolam and meperidine has been the most widely used regimen so far. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends a combination of midazolam and meperidine as a standard regimen for inducing sedation in upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Several studies reported, however, that midazolam alone or the combination of midazolam and meperidine was insufficient for inducing the sedation effect (47-80%). Besides, midazolam has the disadvantage of producing a paradoxical response at times, which makes the performance of the procedure impossible.
In many studies, propofol, which is preferred as an alternative to midazolam, was recently found to be superior to midazolam in terms of its sedation effect, as it does not cause adverse events.
Because propofol intermittently causes serious respiratory failure and has no antagonist, however, clinicians feel burdened with the use of propofol, due to which it is not widely used. Moreover, anesthesia specialists as well as experienced assistant staff who had received relevant education and training should be available, and all tools needed to promptly handle cardiopulmonary complications should be on hand, which lowers the usefulness of propofol in clinical practice.
The sedation effect of dexmedetomidine, however, a selective α2 adrenergic receptor, is proportional to its dose, so it allows continuous injection and makes it possible to reduce the opioid dose needed for sedation when it is used for sedation. Dexmedetomidine was reported to maintain a proper level of sedation, and to influence less the respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory tract response. Due to these advantages, several recent studies reported that dexmedetomidine can be effective for sedation during upper and lower gastrointestinal procedures.
A combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam was investigated in recent trials with animals and in clinical trials, and its synergic effect was shown in several studies.
In an animal trial using rats, Boehm et al. reported that midazolam increased the dose-related analgesic effect of dexmedetomidine when it was used in combination with dexmedetomidine. Bol et al. reported that combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam increased the sedation effect while reducing adverse cardiovascular events more significantly than with a single administration.
In addition, in a study on rats, Salonen et al. demonstrated the synergic effect of the combination of the two drugs and that flumazenil antagonized the combination of the two drugs in a dose-dependent manner.
In one of the representative clinical trials, Bergese et al. compared a combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam with a midazolam-alone regimen in 55 patients who underwent awake fibrotic intubation (AFOI).
Although there was no hemodynamic difference between the two groups, the combination regimen had a better sedation effect, resulted in a higher level of satisfaction among the patients, and led to fewer adverse events than did the single regimen.
Besides, in a study on patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery, Dasta et al. reported that the use of dexmedetomidine in combination with a standard sedation regimen decreased mortality and reduced the period of mechanical ventilation and the cost. Heard et al. reported that combined administration of midazolam and dexmedetomidine had a sufficient sedation effect on patients who had undergone MRI without adverse events. In the study by Heard et al.,however, in which the subjects were children, propofol was used as the control drug instead of midazolam.
So far, no studies have reported the effect of combination administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in gastrointestinal endoscopy, including in ERCP. Given the synergic effect of the two drugs and the usefulness of dexmedetomidine in endoscopy, such studies are urgently needed.
Though the study by Muller et al. was not on the effect of the combined administration, it is the only study that investigated the sedation effect of dexmedetomidine in ERCP.
In the study by Muller et al. on 26 patients who had undergone ERCP (12 of whom received dexmedetomidine and 14, propofol), they reported that the effect of sedation and pain control was weaker in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group (RR: 2.71/9.42 and NNT: 1.85/1.42, respectively), and that the hemodynamic instability was high in the dexmedetomidine group based on the subjects' mean blood pressure and the heart rate.
The study by Muller et al. had limitations, however, in that the dose of dexmedetomidine was lower than that in other studies and the scale of the study was small. Moreover, although the mean blood pressure and the heart rate were lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group, no clinically significant decrease in the blood pressure and the heart rate was observed.
Moreover, propofol, which was used in the control group, may impose a heavy burden in relation to its depressing respiratory effect because of the absence of an antagonist (flumazenil), unlike with midazolam, as described previously, which acts faster and requires experienced assistant staff; and because the usefulness and frequency of use of propofol in clinical practice is low. In addition, as the study by Muller et al. was about single dexmedetomidine administration, the comparison of the combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam with the single administration of propofol to produce the sedation effect could result in different outcomes.
As such, it is believed that the sedation effect and adverse events from the combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam and from single administration of midazolam in patients who had undergone ERCP should be studied.
As described previously, midazolam is considered suitable as a control drug as it is more useful than propofol in clinical practice. Moreover, since the combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam has a synergic effect on sedation, the combination is believed to be more meaningful than single dexmedetomidine administration.
In addition, the cardiovascular and respiratory safety of single dexmedetomidine administration and the combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam, as reported in several previous studies, was shown as satisfactory in this study.
Whether or not this synergic effect and safety will be seen as well in gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in ERCP, will be further investigated; and as there is no study yet that has investigated the combined administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in patients undergoing ERCP, this study can be considered meaningful.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Undergoing ERCP for Diagnostic or Therapeutic Purposes
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Blinding Strategy
TRIPLE
Participants
Caregivers
Investigators
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Midazolam-Meperidine-Dexmedetomidine
midazolam 0.06mg/kg IV bolus, meperidine 50mg IV bolus and dexmedetomidine 1μg/Kg•hr infusion (30% reduction of midazolam dose and 25mg of meperidine for patients 65 years of age or older)
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Dexmedetomidine
Intervention Type
DRUG
dexmedetomidine 1μg/Kg•hr IV continuous infusion, initiated 15 min before the procedure (ERCP) till complete procedure
Midazolam-Meperidine
midazolam 0.06mg/kg IV bolus, meperidine 50mg IV bolus and placebo(saline) infusion(30% reduction of midazolam dose and 25mg of meperidine for patients 65 years of age or older)
Group Type
SHAM_COMPARATOR
normal saline
Intervention Type
OTHER
0.9% NaCl 1μg/Kg•hr IV continuous infusion, initiated 15 min before the procedure (ERCP) till complete procedure
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Dexmedetomidine
dexmedetomidine 1μg/Kg•hr IV continuous infusion, initiated 15 min before the procedure (ERCP) till complete procedure
Intervention Type
DRUG
normal saline
0.9% NaCl 1μg/Kg•hr IV continuous infusion, initiated 15 min before the procedure (ERCP) till complete procedure
Intervention Type
OTHER
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Precedex® 100μg/1ml vial: DMDTIA
NaCl 0.9% 20ml plastic ample: NSIP
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Those who are admitted for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCPs
* aged 20 to 80 years
* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I to III
* aged 20 to 80 years
* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I to III
Exclusion Criteria
* ASA physical status IV and V
* allergic to any components of sedation and opioid drugs
* patients with chronic illicit drug use
* allergic to any components of sedation and opioid drugs
* patients with chronic illicit drug use
Minimum Eligible Age
20 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
80 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Hana Pharm Co., Ltd.
INDUSTRY
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Seoul National University Hospital
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Sang Hyub Lee
Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Sang Hyub Lee, M.D. Ph.D
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
Ban Seok Lee, M.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Fellowship doctor, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
South Korea
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Banerjee S, Dominitz JA, Fanelli RD, Gan SI, Harrison ME, Ikenberry SO, Shen B, Stewart L, Khan K, Vargo JJ. Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Nov;68(5):815-26. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.029. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Yuksel O, Parlak E, Koklu S, Ertugrul I, Tunc B, Sahin B. Conscious sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: midazolam or midazolam plus meperidine? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Nov;19(11):1002-6. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3282cf5167.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Reimann FM, Samson U, Derad I, Fuchs M, Schiefer B, Stange EF. Synergistic sedation with low-dose midazolam and propofol for colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2000 Mar;32(3):239-44. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-134.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Honan VJ. Paradoxical reaction to midazolam and control with flumazenil. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994 Jan-Feb;40(1):86-8. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(94)70020-6. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Chen WX, Lin HJ, Zhang WF, Gu Q, Zhong XQ, Yu CH, Li YM, Gu ZY. Sedation and safety of propofol for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2005 Aug;4(3):437-40.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kongkam P, Rerknimitr R, Punyathavorn S, Sitthi-Amorn C, Ponauthai Y, Prempracha N, Kullavanijaya P. Propofol infusion versus intermittent meperidine and midazolam injection for conscious sedation in ERCP. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2008 Sep;17(3):291-7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ladas SD, Aabakken L, Rey JF, Nowak A, Zakaria S, Adamonis K, Amrani N, Bergman JJ, Boix Valverde J, Boyacioglu S, Cremers I, Crowe J, Deprez P, Dite P, Eisen M, Eliakim R, Fedorov ED, Galkova Z, Gyokeres T, Heuss LT, Husic-Selimovic A, Khediri F, Kuznetsov K, Marek T, Munoz-Navas M, Napoleon B, Niemela S, Pascu O, Perisic N, Pulanic R, Ricci E, Schreiber F, Svendsen LB, Sweidan W, Sylvan A, Teague R, Tryfonos M, Urbain D, Weber J, Zavoral M; European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey of National Endoscopy Society Members. Use of sedation for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey of National Endoscopy Society Members. Digestion. 2006;74(2):69-77. doi: 10.1159/000097466. Epub 2006 Nov 27.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Cohen LB, Delegge MH, Aisenberg J, Brill JV, Inadomi JM, Kochman ML, Piorkowski JD Jr; AGA Institute. AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterology. 2007 Aug;133(2):675-701. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.06.002. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kamibayashi T, Maze M. Clinical uses of alpha2 -adrenergic agonists. Anesthesiology. 2000 Nov;93(5):1345-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200011000-00030. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kunisawa T, Hanada S, Kurosawa A, Suzuki A, Takahata O, Iwasaki H. Dexmedetomidine was safely used for sedation during spinal anesthesia in a very elderly patient. J Anesth. 2010 Dec;24(6):938-41. doi: 10.1007/s00540-010-1025-z. Epub 2010 Oct 7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Dere K, Sucullu I, Budak ET, Yeyen S, Filiz AI, Ozkan S, Dagli G. A comparison of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation, pain and hemodynamic control, during colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jul;27(7):648-52. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283347bfe.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Boehm CA, Carney EL, Tallarida RJ, Wilson RP. Midazolam enhances the analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine in the rat. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2010 Nov;37(6):550-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2010.00565.x.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bol CJ, Vogelaar JP, Tang JP, Mandema JW. Quantification of pharmacodynamic interactions between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000 Jul;294(1):347-55.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Salonen M, Onaivi ES, Maze M. Dexmedetomidine synergism with midazolam in the elevated plus-maze test in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1992;108(1-2):229-34. doi: 10.1007/BF02245313.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bergese SD, Patrick Bender S, McSweeney TD, Fernandez S, Dzwonczyk R, Sage K. A comparative study of dexmedetomidine with midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation during elective awake fiberoptic intubation. J Clin Anesth. 2010 Feb;22(1):35-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2009.02.016.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Dasta JF, Jacobi J, Sesti AM, McLaughlin TP. Addition of dexmedetomidine to standard sedation regimens after cardiac surgery: an outcomes analysis. Pharmacotherapy. 2006 Jun;26(6):798-805. doi: 10.1592/phco.26.6.798.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Heard C, Burrows F, Johnson K, Joshi P, Houck J, Lerman J. A comparison of dexmedetomidine-midazolam with propofol for maintenance of anesthesia in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Anesth Analg. 2008 Dec;107(6):1832-9. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31818874ee.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Muller S, Borowics SM, Fortis EA, Stefani LC, Soares G, Maguilnik I, Breyer HP, Hidalgo MP, Caumo W. Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine alone is less than propofol for conscious sedation during ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Apr;67(4):651-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.041. Epub 2008 Mar 4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lee BS, Ryu J, Lee SH, Lee MG, Jang SE, Hwang JH, Ryu JK, Do SH, Kim YT. Midazolam with meperidine and dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam with meperidine for sedation during ERCP: prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial. Endoscopy. 2014 Apr;46(4):291-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1358909. Epub 2014 Mar 26.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
http://www.snubh.org/
Web site of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
http://medicine.snu.ac.kr/
Web site of Seoul National University College of Medicine
http://www.kfda.go.kr/
Web site of Korea Food and Drug Administration
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
SNUBH-129-012
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Dexmedetomidine vs Propofol in High-Risk ERCP Patients
NCT07166614
RECRUITING
NA
Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketofol for Moderate Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
NCT06212401
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Sedation Regimen in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Electrophysiology Study and Ablation : a Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and Midazolam-remifentanil Combinations
NCT01652586
COMPLETED
NA
Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine Versus Midazolam in Endoscopic Procedures
NCT04597268
COMPLETED
NA
The Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for the Sleep in Intensive Care Unit
NCT01966315
TERMINATED
The Study of Different Sedative Medications in Monitored Anesthesia Care During Eye Surgery With Local Anesthesia
NCT04018703
UNKNOWN
NA
Effect of Sedatives on Regional Cerebral Oxygen Saturation
NCT02966743
WITHDRAWN
NA
The Impact of a Dexmedetomidine Perfusion on Intraoperative Remifentanil Consumption
NCT06684197
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Comparison of Remimazolam and Dexmedetomidine for Intraoperative Sedation
NCT05447507
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Premedication for ERCP With Midazolam or Tramadol
NCT02436980
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Comparative Study on the Effects of Epidural Dexmedetomidine on Heart Rate Variability During General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Gastrectomy
NCT01857141
COMPLETED
NA
A Comparison of Efficacy and Safety During Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Between Dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and Propofol-remifentanil
NCT01920113
COMPLETED
NA
Hemodynamic Responses of Dexmedetomidine, Lidocaine or Propofol Infusions During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
NCT05937282
UNKNOWN
PHASE4
Comparison of Patients' Satisfaction Between Dexmedetomidine and Remimazolam Anesthesia in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Catheter Ablation
NCT05864404
UNKNOWN
NA
Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Vitreoretinal Surgery
NCT01001429
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Effects and Mechanism of Pretreatment With Dexmedetomidine to Etomidate Induce Myoclonus
NCT02518789
UNKNOWN
PHASE4
Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Intra-op Sedation in TIVA in Children Undergoing Inguinal Hernia Repair
NCT05337085
UNKNOWN
PHASE1
Dexmedetomidine Reduces Sevoflurane MAC-BAR During Pneumoperitoneum
NCT06575179
RECRUITING
PHASE4
Preop Dexmedetomidine Attenuates Haemodynamic Responses to Hydrodissection
NCT02102139
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Effect of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine on Heart Function - A Randomized MRI-based Study.
NCT04529187
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Sedation Complications in Urology During Spinal Anesthesia With Dexmedetomidine or Midazolam Regarding OSA Risk
NCT04817033
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Sedation by Dexmedetomidine and Propofol
NCT02993718
COMPLETED
NA
Effect of Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam Versus a Combination of the Two as a Premedication for Children Undergoing Bilateral Myringotomy Tube Insertion
NCT02134327
WITHDRAWN
NA
Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol for Sedation During Awake Endotracheal Intubation
NCT04753515
COMPLETED
PHASE4
The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Quality of Recovery
NCT03468062
UNKNOWN
PHASE4