Introduction: Propofol is commonly used in procedural sedation in oncology due to its rapid sedative effect and favorable recovery profile. However, several preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated a dose-dependent neurotoxic effect of this drug. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are potential adjuvants that, if used as premedication, could reduce the required dose of propofol. This study compares the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in terms of propofol dose reduction during procedural sedation in oncology patients. Methods: This one-year retrospective study compared the outcomes of procedural sedation, in terms of propofol-sparing, in 24 pediatric oncology patients who received midazolam (MP group, 52 procedures) or dexmedetomidine (DP group, 51 procedures) as premedication combined with propofol during bone marrow aspiration and/or lumbar puncture procedures. Data on propofol dosage, awakening time, vital parameters, and adverse events were examined. Results: Premedication with dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower dose of propofol than midazolam (2.51 vs. 4.00 mg/kg, p < 0.001). Wake-up times were longer in the DP group (92 vs. 65 min; p = 0.045). Adverse events were very rare in both groups. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine demonstrates superior propofol-sparing effects compared to midazolam, although it requires longer recovery times. These results support dexmedetomidine as a promising alternative in sedation protocols in pediatric oncology. Editorial Comment: This retrospectively analysis of a single center series compared procedural sedation strategies for children involving propofol after standardized intravenous premedication with dexmedetomidine or midazolam. The findings demonstrated that dexmedetomidine in those doses and in combination with propofol confirmed sedative potency and duration more than that of the chosen midazolam premedication dosing.
