- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,993
- Reaction score
- 2,651
Interesting trial. In my opinion, as long as respiratory depression is not 0, you still need an anesthesiologist administering. Could be a useful drug, but the lack of time difference when compared to propofol means it'll just be an expensive analogue.
Data from 77 patients were analysed. The success rate of sedation in both groups was 100%. The time
to LOC (MOAA/S score ≤ 1) in the RT group was longer than that in the propofol group (20.7 ± 6.1s vs. 13.2 ± 5.2s,
P < 0.001). There were fewer patients in the RT group reporting injection pain than that in the propofol group (0/39 vs. 5/38, P = 0.025). Haemodynamic events and respiratory depression in the RT group were less frequent than those in the propofol group ((6/39 vs. 17/38, P = 0.005), (2/39 vs. 9/38, P = 0.026), respectively). The number of supplemen- tal doses after successful induction in the RT group was greater than that in the propofol group (4/9/11/13/1/1 vs. 8/4/18/6/2/0 requiring 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 supplemental doses, P = 0.014). The characteristics of the patients enrolled,postoperative parameters of the patients, and patients’ and physician’s satisfaction of the procedure were comparable in the two groups.