Propofol versus Dexmedetomidine for Sedation of Cancer Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Randomized Single-Blinded Controlled Study

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a primary diagnostic and therapeutic option for pancreaticobiliary pathologies. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus propofol during ERCP in cancer patients. Methods: This randomized controlled single-blinded trial was conducted with 202 cancer patients aged 21 to 60 years, of both sexes, with a body mass index of 18.5 to 30 kg/m2, and classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II - III, who were undergoing ERCP. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal groups. The Propofol Group (n = 101) received a loading dose of propofol (1 - 2 mg/kg over 30 seconds) followed by an infusion (0.05 - 0.1 mg/kg/hour). The Dexmedetomidine Group (n = 101) received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg over 10 minutes) followed by an infusion (0.2 - 0.7 μg/kg/hour). The maintenance dose was adjusted during the procedure based on vital signs, Bispectral Index (BIS), and oxygen saturation. Results: The Dexmedetomidine group showed a significantly lower incidence of intra-procedural hypoxemic events (14.9% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.037) and a comparable incidence of hypotension (17.8% vs. 13.9%, P = 0.441). Dexmedetomidine also demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative pain scores according to the Facial Pain Score (P < 0.05), significantly lower postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (P < 0.05), and a lower frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) compared to the Propofol group. Additionally, there was a significantly higher frequency of endoscopist satisfaction in the Dexmedetomidine group compared to the Propofol group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine can be used as a safe and effective alternative to propofol for deep sedation of cancer patients undergoing ERCP. It is associated with a lower incidence of hypoxemic events, effective intraoperative sedation, quicker recovery, and superior analgesic effects both intraoperatively and postoperatively compared to propofol.