Comparing the Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine-Fentanyl and Midazolam-Fentanyl for Sedation during Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL): A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Keywords:
dexmedetomidine, midazolam, fentanyl, ESWL, patient satisfactiionAbstract
Objective : To compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (Dex-Fen) versus midazolam plus fentanyl (MDZ-Fen) for sedation during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in terms of patient satisfaction, pain score, sedation level, additional drug requirement, hemodynamic effects, and adverse events.
Methods : This prospective randomized controlled trial included 90 patients equally allocated into two groups. The Dex-Fen group received dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg over 15 minutes followed by continuous infusion 0.2–0.7 µg/kg/h with fentanyl 1 µg/kg, whereas the MDZ-Fen group received midazolam 0.05 mg/kg plus fentanyl 1 µg/kg. Blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, sedation level, and pain score were recorded during the procedure. Repeated measures were analyzed using mixed-effects models.
Result : High patient satisfaction (VAS ≥ 8) was significantly more frequent in the Dex-Fen group than in the MDZ-Fen group (88.9% vs 60.0%; adjusted OR 6.87, 95% CI 2.06–22.85; p = 0.002). Overall satisfaction score was also significantly higher in the Dex-Fen group (adjusted OR 3.93, 95% CI 1.69–9.59; p = 0.002). Although overall mean pain scores were similar between groups, a significant group-by-time interaction was observed (IRR 0.99 per 15-minute interval, 95% CI 0.98–0.99; p < 0.001), indicating a more favorable pain trajectory in the Dex-Fen group. Sedation level and recovery time were comparable. No hypotension occurred in either group. Desaturation was observed only in the MDZ-Fen group, while bradycardia was more frequent in the Dex-Fen group, but neither reached statistical significance.
Conclusion : Dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl provides higher patient satisfaction and a more favorable longitudinal pain profile than midazolam plus fentanyl, without increasing clinically significant adverse events during ESWL.
References
Cleveland Clinic. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) [Internet]. Cleveland (OH): Cleveland Clinic; 2025 May 5. [cited 2026 Mar 10]. Available from: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/15833-extracorporeal-shock-wave-lithotripsy-eswl
University of Florida, Department of Urology. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) [Internet]. Gainesville (FL): University of Florida; 2025 [cited 2026 Mar 10]. Available from: https://urology.ufl.edu
Manzoor H, Zafar SN, Mirza F, Haider Z. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 [cited 2026 Mar 10]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560887/
Özcan S, Yucel M, Keçeli S, Eryilmaz R, Ali S. Comparison of three analgesics for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2002;36(4):258–63.
Benzoni T, Corso RM, Teoli D. Procedural sedation. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 [cited 2026 Mar 10]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551685/
American Society of Anesthesiologists. Statement on continuum of depth of sedation: definition of general anesthesia and levels of sedation/analgesia [Internet]. Schaumburg (IL): American Society of Anesthesiologists; 2019 [cited 2026 Mar 10]. Available from: https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-practice-parameters/statement-on-continuum-of-depth-of-sedation-definition-of-general-anesthesia-and-levels-of-sedation-analgesia
Ahmed WG. Comparative study of three sedative techniques during shock wave lithotripsy. Egypt J Hosp Med. 2009;37:621–9.
Zeyneloglu P, Pirat A, Tüfek A, Korfali G, Sungur M, Haberal A. Dexmedetomidine causes prolonged recovery compared with midazolam/fentanyl in outpatient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25(12):961–7.
Uppaluri SC, Kumar AK, Kumar GS, Nizami MI, Sharma A. Comparison of fentanyl–dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl–midazolam in procedural sedation for tube thoracostomy. Turk J Emerg Med. 2025;25(2):116–22.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Midazolam [Internet]. Chemical Hazards Emergency Medical Management (CHEMM); [cited 2026 Mar 10]. Available from: https://chemm.hhs.gov
Barends CRM, de Jager L, van Dijk D. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in procedural sedation: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169525.
Demiraran Y, Korkut E, Tamer A, Yorulmaz I, Kocaman B, Sezen G, et al. The comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam used for sedation during upper endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2007;21(1):25–9.
Lobb D, Qureshi F, Hodge J, Green C. Administration order of midazolam and fentanyl for moderate dental sedation. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018;18(1):47–53.
Güldiken B, Demirkan F, Türkyılmaz D. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in dental implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(6):e159–65.
Swarnalatha R, Muralidhar K, Sampath S. Hemodynamic stability with dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam during procedural sedation. Anesth Essays Res. 2019;13(3):548–53.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mahasarakham Hospital Journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
วารสารนี้เป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของโรงพยาบาลมหาสารคาม