A comparative study of dexmedetomidine with midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation during elective awake fiberoptic intubation

Bergese, Sergio D.; Patrick Bender, Stephen; McSweeney, Thomas D.; Fernandez, Soledad; Dzwonczyk, Roger; Sage, Kevin

doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2009.02.016

« Previous Next »Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
Volume 22, Issue 1 , Pages 35-40, February 2010

A comparative study of dexmedetomidine with midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation during elective awake fiberoptic intubation☆

Sergio D. Bergese, MD (Assistant Professor, Director)
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Stephen Patrick Bender, MD (Resident)
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Thomas D. McSweeney, BS, CLT (Clinical Research Coordinator)
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Soledad Fernandez, PhD (Assistant Senior Consulting Research Statistician)
- Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Roger Dzwonczyk, MS (Clinical Associate Professor)
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
- Corresponding author.
Kevin Sage, DO (Resident)
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

Received 29 January 2008; received in revised form 17 February 2009; accepted 26 February 2009.

Abstract

Study Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine with midazolam (DEX-MDZ) versus midazolam only (MDZ) for sedation during awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI).

Design

Randomized, double-blinded study.

Setting

Academic medical center.

Subjects

55 ASA physical status I, II, III, and IV patients, aged 18-85 years, scheduled for non-emergency surgery with AFOI.

Interventions

All patients received intravenous (IV) glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg premedication, oxygen by nasal cannula, and topical local anesthetics to the airway. MDZ subjects received IV midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with additional doses to achieve a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of ≥ 2. DEX-MDZ patients received midazolam 0.02 mg/kg followed by dexmedetomidine one μg/kg, then an infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.1 μg/kg/hr and titrated to 0.7 μg/kg/hr to achieve RSS≥2.

Measurements

Observers' Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) and RSS were evaluated. The anesthesiologist rated AFOI ease of placement. Two observers rated patients' comfort and reaction to placement at three time points: preoxygenation, at introduction of the fiberoptic laryngoscope, and at introduction of the endotracheal tube (ET) before surgery. Following surgery, patients were asked if they recalled the AFOI and also to rate their satisfaction with the intubation.

Results

DEX-MDZ patients were significantly calmer and more cooperative during AFOI and had fewer adverse reactions to AFOI than did the MDZ patients. They also were more satisfied with the AFOI (P < 0.001) than were the midazolam-only patients. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the two subject groups.