The Comparative Study of Efficacy in using Midazolam and Propofol in the case of Radiology Examinations for Emergency Patients

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the usefulness of propofol in radiology studies by comparing propofol sedation with midazolam for patients who do not comply with their doctor's requests and need an injection of a sedative to be treated for a safe and quick recovery without complications. METHODS: Among adult patients who were admitted and checked using CT and MRI in our emergency medical center from February 2001 to August 2001, the patients who required sedation because of the lack of cooperation with ER doctors were studied. Of 49 patients, 23 patients (Group M) were injected with midazolam, and 26 patients (Group P) were injected with propofol. RESULTS: In both groups, the systolic BP and the diastolic BP decreased, but group P's BP decreased more than group M's (p<0.05). In group M, the decrease of SPO2 w a s statistically significant, but neither of the groups required emergency care. Although, Group M didn't require emergency care for SpO2, they did require more emergency care for apnea than Group P did. Group P's time required for an examination to be performed was shorter than group M's. Group P's duration for occurrence of movement was shorter than Group M's, but this difference was not statistically significant. Regardless of which sedative was used, there was no difference in the satisfaction of the radiology technician with regards to group M and group P. CONCLUSION: When the patients were injected with a lowdosage of propofol, they showed effects similar to those observed in patients in injected with midazolam, and there were no complications that required emergency care. The usage of propofol is thought to be a good choice, except for contraindications, for short-time radiology examinations.