Comparing Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation in the ICU as Regards Hemodynamics, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and Motor Activity Assessment Scale (MAAS) and Total ICU Stay | ||||
| The Medical Journal of Cairo University | ||||
| Volume 93, Issue 06, June 2025, Page 905-912 PDF (127.66 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjcu.2025.445371 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
| MOHAMED K.O. SHAWKY, M.Sc.*; AHMED ABDELHADY, M.D.*; AHMED M. EL-HADDAD, M.D.* and SHIRIN F. ABDELAZIM, M.D.** | ||||
| The Departments of Anesthesia & Intensive Care* and Biochemistry**, Faculty of Medicine, MUST University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: The choice of sedative agents in intensive care units (ICU) can significantly impact patient outcomes. Aim of Study: This study aimed to compared the effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on hemodynamic param-eters, sedation levels, and ICU length of stay. Patients and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 30 ICU patients divided into two equal groups (n=15 each): Dexmedetomidine group and propofol group. He-modynamic parameters, sedation scores using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and Motor Activity Assess-ment Scale (MAAS), and ICU length of stay were measured and compared between groups. Results: The dexmedetomidine group showed significant-ly lower heart rates (62.60 vs 76.07 bpm, p<0.05) and higher blood pressure values (systolic: 110.00 vs 93.33mmHg; dias-tolic: 72.00 vs 62.00mmHg, p<0.05) compared to the propo-fol group. CVP was significantly higher in the dexmedeto-midine group (13.67 vs 3.47, p<0.05), while blood oxygen saturation remained comparable between groups (97.20% vs 97.40%, p=0.742). RASS scores indicated deeper sedation in the dexmedetomidine group (p<0.001), while MAAS scores showed higher motor activity compared to the propofol group (p<0.001). Notably, the dexmedetomidine group demonstrated significantly shorter ICU length of stay compared to the propo-fol group (p<0.001). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine demonstrated more stable hemodynamicparameters, effective sedation, and shorter ICU stays compared to propofol. These findings suggest that dexme-detomidine may be a preferable sedative agent for ICU patients, potentially leading to improved clinical outcomes and resource utilization. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Dexmedetomidine; Propofol; ICU sedation; He-modynamics; Length of stay; RASS; MAAS | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 63 PDF Download: 37 |
||||
