@entity6948 versus XXXX in dilatation and curettage: An open-label pilot randomized controlled trial.

@entity1 @entity1875 @entity6948 @entity551 @entity3575
BACKGROUND: Traditionally @entity1875 has been used for providing sedation in dilatation and curettage (D and C). Recently, @entity6948 has been tried, but very little evidence exists to support its use. AIMS: The aim was to compare hemodynamic and recovery profile of both the drugs along with a degree of comfort experienced by @entity1 and the usefulness of the drug to surgeons. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Tertiary care center and open-label randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: @entity1 posted for D and C were enrolled in two groups (25 each). Both groups received @entity3575 1  g/kg intravenous (IV) at the beginning of the procedure. Group P received IV @entity1875 in dose of 1.5 mg/kg over 10-15 min and Group D received @entity6948 at a loading dose of 1  g/kg over 10 min, followed by 0.5  g/kg/h infusion until Ramsay sedation score reached 3-4. Hemodynamic vitals were compared during and after the procedure. In the recovery room time to reach modified Aldrete score (MAS) of 9-10 and @entity1 's and surgeon's satisfaction scores were also recorded and compared. RESULTS: In Group D, @entity1 had statistically significant lower heart rate at 2, 5, 10 and 15 min as compared to Group P. @entity551 was present in 52% in Group P and 4% in Group D (P < 0.05). MAS of 9-10 was achieved in 4.4 min in subjects in Group D in contrast to 16.2 min in Group P (P < 0.05). Group D showed higher @entity1 and surgeon satisfaction scores (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: @entity6948 provide better hemodynamic and recovery profile than @entity1875 . It can be a superior alternative for short surgical day care procedures.
