Comparison of the sedation quality of etomidate, propofol, and midazolam in combination with fentanyl during phacoemulsification cataract surgery: A double-blind, randomized, controlled, clinical trial

Abstract

Background: According to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during phacoemulsification and lack of any studies investigating the sedative effect of etomidate, propofol, and midazolam in combination with fentanyl during the procedure. Objectives: The current study aimed at comparing the sedative properties of the mentioned three combination therapies in this field. Methods: The current double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted on patients referred for elective phacoemulsification surgery under sedation. They were randomly allocated to the three groups to receive fentanyl plus one of the following medications: Propofol, midazolam, and etomidate. Demographic characteristics, medical condition, and hemodynamic parameters before, during, andafter surgery, sedation level, anesthetic complications, sedation-related adverse events, andpatients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction were evaluated and recorded by the anesthesiologist and compared in the three studied groups. Results: In the current study, out of 150 enrolled patients, 98 completed the study. Frequency of different levels of Ramsay scores was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.41). Frequency of Ramsay scores 3 and 4 was 92, 79.4, and 88.2 in etomidate, midazolam and propofol groups, respectively (P = 0.32). The median recovery time was significantly higher in the midazolam group than the propofol group (P = 0.04); intergroup comparisons indicated that the patients’ mean score of satisfaction in the propofol group was significantly higher than that of the etomidate group (P = 0.006). Conclusions: The current study findings indicated that though the quality of sedation during phacoemulsification cataract surgery was acceptable in the three agents and the results had no significantly differences among the groups, and considering other factors including recovery time, hemodynamic evaluation, sedation-related complications, and patients’ satisfication scores, it is suggested that propofol was superior to the other two agents. © 2019, Author(s).