Comparing Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation in the ICU as Regards Hemodynamics, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and Motor Activity Assessment Scale (MAAS) and Total ICU Stay

SHIRIN F. ABDELAZIM, M.D.**, MOHAMED K.O. SHAWKY, M.Sc.*; AHMED ABDELHADY, M.D.*; AHMED M. EL-HADDAD, M.D.* And

doi:10.21608/mjcu.2025.445371

Comparing Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation in the ICU as Regards Hemodynamics, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and Motor Activity Assessment Scale (MAAS) and Total ICU Stay

Document Type : Original Article

Author

MOHAMED K.O. SHAWKY, M.Sc.*; AHMED ABDELHADY, M.D.*; AHMED M. EL-HADDAD, M.D.* and SHIRIN F. ABDELAZIM, M.D.**

The Departments of Anesthesia & Intensive Care* and Biochemistry**, Faculty of Medicine, MUST University

10.21608/mjcu.2025.445371

Abstract

Background: The choice of sedative agents in intensive care units (ICU) can significantly impact patient outcomes. Aim of Study: This study aimed to compared the effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on hemodynamic param-eters, sedation levels, and ICU length of stay. Patients and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 30 ICU patients divided into two equal groups (n=15 each): Dexmedetomidine group and propofol group. He-modynamic parameters, sedation scores using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and Motor Activity Assess-ment Scale (MAAS), and ICU length of stay were measured and compared between groups. Results: The dexmedetomidine group showed significant-ly lower heart rates (62.60 vs 76.07 bpm, p<0.05) and higher blood pressure values (systolic: 110.00 vs 93.33mmHg; dias-tolic: 72.00 vs 62.00mmHg, p<0.05) compared to the propo-fol group. CVP was significantly higher in the dexmedeto-midine group (13.67 vs 3.47, p<0.05), while blood oxygen saturation remained comparable between groups (97.20% vs 97.40%, p=0.742). RASS scores indicated deeper sedation in the dexmedetomidine group (p<0.001), while MAAS scores showed higher motor activity compared to the propofol group (p<0.001). Notably, the dexmedetomidine group demonstrated significantly shorter ICU length of stay compared to the propo-fol group (p<0.001). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine demonstrated more stable hemodynamicparameters, effective sedation, and shorter ICU stays compared to propofol. These findings suggest that dexme-detomidine may be a preferable sedative agent for ICU patients, potentially leading to improved clinical outcomes and resource utilization.

Keywords