الفهرس 
OBJECTIVES AND AIM OF THE WORKOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 169 |  |  |
| | | from | 169 | | |
Abstract
Background: The ideal method for anesthetic management during ERCP varied between deep sedation and general anesthesia with preference for general anesthesia over sedation.
Aim of the study: Primary aim: The aim of this study will to compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine and propofol-ketamine combinations for anesthesia in patients undergoing ERCP regarding the following outcome measures: Hemodynamic changes. Respiratory parameters changes. Propofol requirements. The recovery criteria. Post-operative pain. Secondary aim: To assess the rate of other anesthetic and procedural complications regarding the following outcome measures: Anesthetic complications: Post-procedural nausea and vomiting. Post-procedural cognitive dysfunction or hallucinations. Procedural complications: Bleeding: may occur by sphincterotomy. Duodenal perforation; it is a serious condition but it has a rare incidence and usually requires surgical intervention.
Material and methods: Patients ERCP, aged 20-50ys old, ASA І-II-III, were randomly allocated in two groups each of which was 25 by a probability method in the form of sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE) that will be divided in 2 groups (25 envelopes for each group) with random selection for each patient for an envelope. Group-I received dexmedetomidine loading 1µg/kg slow IV over 15min then infused at a rate of 0.5µg/kg/h by syringe pump. group II received Ketamine 1mg/kg slow IV over 15min then infused at a rate of 0.5mg/kg/h by syringe pump. Both groups received propofol; 1-2mg/kg induction – then 5mg/kg/h IV infusion, 0.5mg/kg boluses guided by hemodynamic parameters, atracurium 0.5mg/kg intubating dose followed by 0.1mg/kg every 20min. Cuffed ETT was inserted and CMV. By the end of the procedure, patients turned supine and reversed by administration of neostigmine (0.05mg/kg) + atropine (0.01mg/kg). Extubation was performed after fulfillment of the criteria of extubation.
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine-propofol combination was better than ketamine-propofol combination as regard; hemodynamic parameters (intra- and post-procedural), PONV, cognitive functions and recovery time. Incidence of pain had no clinical significant value between both groups. Total propofol consumption had no clinical significant difference between both groups.
Recommendation: Dexmedetomidine - propofol combination as TIVA technique for ERCP requires further studies with recommendation to include; different types of patients; geriatric, critically ill and increasing the sample size of patients.