A Comparative Study of Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol for Procedural Sedation in Minor Surgical Interventions
TL;DR
Both agents are effective for short procedural sedation, whereas propofol ensures faster recovery, and Dexmedetomidine offers superior cardiorespiratory stability, whereas propofol ensures faster recovery.
Abstract
Background: “ Dexmedetomidine and propofol are widely used intravenous sedatives for short procedures requiring rapid onset, adequate sedation depth, hemodynamic stability, and early recovery. Their distinct pharmacological profiles influence clinical outcomes. Aim: To compare the efficacy, hemodynamic effects, recovery characteristics, adverse events, and satisfaction outcomes of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in short procedures. Methodology: This prospective, randomized comparative study included 90 ASA I–II patients (18–60 years) undergoing elective short procedures (≤60 minutes) under monitored anesthesia care. Patients were allocated into Group D (dexmedetomidine, n=45) and Group P (propofol, n=45). Hemodynamic parameters, Ramsay Sedation Score, recovery time (Aldrete score ≥9), adverse events, and satisfaction scores were assessed and analyzed using SPSS v27. Results: Demographic characteristics were comparable between groups. Dexmedetomidine showed better hemodynamic stability with higher minimum MAP (p=0.002) and SpO₂ (p=0.018), and fewer respiratory events (p<0.05), but more bradycardia (p=0.046). Propofol provided faster onset (p=0.001) and shorter recovery time (p=0.001). Sedation depth was comparable. Surgeon satisfaction was significantly higher with dexmedetomidine (p=0.009). Conclusion: Both agents are effective for short procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine offers superior cardiorespiratory stability, whereas propofol ensures faster recovery. Agent selection should be individualized.