BackgroundWe evaluated whether the addition of a small dose of ketamine or fentanyl would lead to a reduction in the total dose of propofol consumed without compromising the safety and recovery of patients having endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).MethodsA total of 210 adult patients undergoing elective EUS under sedation were included in the study. Patients were randomized into three groups. Patients were premedicated intravenously with normal saline in group 1, 50 µg fentanyl in group 2, and 0.5 mg/kg ketamine in group 3. All patients received intravenous propofol for sedation. Propofol consumption in mg/kg/h was noted. The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, desaturation, and coughing was noted. The time to achieve a Post Anesthesia Discharge Score (PADS) of 10 was also noted.ResultsThere were 68 patients in group 1, 70 in group 2, and 72 in group 3. The amount of propofol consumed was significantly higher in group 1 (9.25 [7.3–13.2]) than in group 2 (8.8 [6.8–12.2]) and group 3 (7.6 [5.7–9.8]). Patient hemodynamics and oxygenation were well maintained and comparable in all groups. The time to achieve a PADS of 10 was significantly higher in group 3 compared to the other two groups.ConclusionsThe use of 50 µg fentanyl or 0.5 mg/kg ketamine in a single dose during EUS reduces the dose of propofol required for sedation. However, unlike the addition of fentanyl, the addition of ketamine increased the time to recovery. Thus, 50 µg fentanyl is a good additive to propofol infusion for sedation during EUS to reduce the requirement for propofol without affecting the time to recovery.

Background: Midazolam reduces post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when compared to a placebo or when used as an adjuvant to other antiemetics. The present study was designed to compare midazolam with a combination of dexamethasoneondansetron in preventing PONV.Methods: One hundred and twenty patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries having 2 or more risk factors for PONV (simplified Apfel score) were randomised into 2 groups of 60 each. Patients in group D received 8-mg dexamethasone and 4-mg ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis while those in group M received 2-mg midazolam towards the end of surgery. The proportion of patients (frequency) who had PONV, post-operative nausea (PON) and post-operative vomiting (POV) was noted over 24 hours over the following intervals: 0-2 hours, 2-24 hours and 0-24 hours. Results:The frequency of PONV at 24 hours in group D and group M was 30% and 33.3% respectively and was not significantly different (P = .70). There was no difference in the time to achieve post-anaesthesia discharge score of ≥9 between the two groups {5 minutes (5, 5) in group D; 5 minutes (1.25, 5) in group M, P = .48}. Ten patients in group D and 11 in group M required a rescue antiemetic over 24 hours (P = .81). The frequency of PON, POV and PONV as well as the median PONV score was similar at all time periods. Conclusion:Midazolam does not result in significantly different frequency of PONV than a combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron. Editorial CommentThe antiemetic properties of midazolam are not always recognised. This RCT allocated 120 patients with 2 or more PONV risk factors undergoing laparoscopic surgery to prophylaxis with either 2-mg midazolam or a combination of 8-mg dexamethasone and 4-mg ondansetron. Follow-up within 24 hours found similar frequency of PONV at all time points. While this small trial was not designed as an equivalence or non-superiority trial, there may be reason to conduct a larger non-inferiority study of this question. | 871 PRAKASH et Al.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract