Dexmedetomidine and propofol total intravenous anesthesia for airway foreign body removal

Effects of dexmedetomidine on dynamic lung compliance in general anesthesia with desflurane: A randomized controlled study

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine on lung compliance in patients under general anesthesia with desflurane.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial included 51 patients who received general anesthesia undergoing lower limb fracture surgery. Participants were assigned to either the experimental (loading dose of 0.25 μg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.3 μg/kg/h until the end of the surgery) or control (0.9% saline) group. Anesthesia was maintained with desflurane, analgesics and muscle relaxants. The two groups were compared for hemodynamic parameters, dynamic lung compliance, oxygenation index, and postoperative complications.

Results

While dynamic lung compliance showed no significant difference between the two groups at T1 (P = 0.321), it was significantly higher in the experimental group at all other time points (all P < 0.001). In the control group, Cdyn at T4, T5, T6, and T7 were lower than that at T1 (P = 0.032, 0.043, 0.032 and 0.018, respectively). There were no significant between-group differences in the mean arterial pressure and heart rate. Compared to the control group, the experimental group had a higher oxygenation index at T1 (P < 0.001), T2 (P < 0.001), T3 (P < 0.001), T4 (P = 0.02), and T5 (P = 0.016) and significantly lower peak airway pressure at all time points (all P < 0.001). Both groups had comparable postoperative outcomes.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine infusion at a loading dose of 0.25 μg/kg and maintenance dose of 0.3 μg/kg/h improved dynamic lung compliance in patients receiving desflurane during general anesthesia.

Effect of dexmedetomidine and propofol sedation on the prognosis of children with severe respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in children, sedation can reduce pain, improve tolerance, and reduce the incidence of adverse events, so selecting an appropriate sedation strategy is very important for improving prognosis and quality of life. Both dexmedetomidine and propofol have good sedative effects, so we investigated the application of these drugs in critically ill children with ARF by literature search and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched Embase, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, Clinicaltrials.org, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) preferentially but not exclusively, and used RevMan 5.4 to analyze the screened literature.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, with a total of 1,188 patients. There was no significant difference in the effect of dexmedetomidine and propofol on the duration of tracheal intubation in children with ARF [mean difference (MD) =-0.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): (-0.42, 0.32); Z=0.26; P=0.79], but dexmedetomidine sedation could reduce the intensive care unit (ICU) stay in children with ARF [MD =-0.62; 95% CI: (-1.08, -0.16); Z=2.65; P=0.008], and shorten the total hospital stay [MD =-1.94; 95% CI: (-2.63, -1.25); Z=5.48; P<0.00001]. There was no significant effect on mortality between the two groups [odds ratio (OR) =0.48; 95% CI: (0.19, 1.25); Z=1.50; P=0.13]. The incidence rate of bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation was higher than with propofol [OR =12.30; 95% CI: (2.28, 66.47); Z=2.92; P=0.004], and the incidence of hypotension was also higher [OR =6.99, 95% CI: (1.22, 39.86); Z=2.19; P=0.03].

DISCUSSION

Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine can significantly reduce the ICU stay and hospital stay. However, bradycardia and hypotension may occur during the use of dexmedetomidine, which requires close attention and timely intervention.

[Painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy in patients with COVID-19: analysis of 33 cases]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the necessity, safety and feasibility of painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVE

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical characteristics of 33 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who received painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy in Wuhan First Hospital. The general demographic and clinical data of the patients including age, gender, and ASA classification were collected. The patients received intravenous anesthesia with topical airway anesthesia with lidocaine. The changes in the vital signs of the patients were recorded before, during and after the procedure. The cough intensity of the patients during bronchoscopy were evaluated, and the adverse reactions within 24 h after the procedure were observed. The health status of the medical staff carrying out the procedure was also monitored.

OBJECTIVE

The 33 patients with ASA class Ⅱ to Ⅳ included 19 male and 14 female patients with an average age of 63.58±11.85 years. The lowest SpO₂ of the patients during bronchoscopy was (94.8±4.3)%, which was significantly lower than that before the procedure [(99.1±1.3)%, P < 0.05] but was restored to more than 95% after such treatment as holding the jaw to open the airway or face mask positive-pressure ventilation. Bronchoscopy was completed successfully in all the patients, and 28 patients (84.85%) had mild cough during the procedure. None of the patients had obvious complications related to anesthesia. While performing the procedure, all the medical staff used third-level protection and facial protection with powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR), and the patients' face were covered with single-use sterile medical plastic curtains that were originally intended for collecting flushing fluid during arthroscopic procedures. No medical personnel was diagnosed with COVID-19 at the end of the study.

OBJECTIVE

For patients with COVID-19, painless techniques can be valuable during bronchoscopy, and this procedure can be safe and feasible under third-level protection.

Cardioprotective effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine in open-heart surgery: A prospective double-blind study

Background:

Myocardial protection in cardiac surgeries is a must and requires multimodal approaches in perioperative period to decrease and prevent the increase of myocardial oxygen demand and consumption that lead to postoperative cardiac complications including myocardial ischemia, dysfunction, and heart failure.

Study Design:

Prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blinded study.

Aims:

This study aims to study the effect of propofol-dexmedetomidine continuous infusion cardioprotection during open-heart surgery in adult patients.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty adult patients of both sexes aged from 30 to 60 years old belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists III or IV undergoing open-heart surgery were randomly divided into two equal groups: Group P (control group) received continuous infusion of propofol at a rate of 2 mg/kg/h and 50 cc 0.9% sodium chloride solution infused at a rate of 0.4 μg/kg/h (used as a placebo) and Group PD received continuous infusion of propofol at a rate of 2 mg/kg/h and dexmedetomidine 200 μg diluted in 50 cc 0.9% sodium chloride solution infused at a rate of 0.4 μg/kg/h. Infusion for all patients started immediately preoperative till skin closure. Hemodynamic measurements of heart rate (HR), invasive mean arterial pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded at baseline before induction of anesthesia, immediately after intubation, at skin incision, at sternotomy and every 15 min in the 1^st h then every 30 min during the prebypass period then every 15 min in the 1^st h then every 30 min after weaning from CPB till the end of the surgery. Serum biomarkers; cardiac troponin (cTnI) and creatine kinase-myocardial bound (CK-MB) samples were measured basally (T1), 15 min after unclamping of the aorta (T2), immediate postoperative (T3), and 24 h postoperative (T4). Intraoperative data were also recorded including the number of coronary grafts, aortic cross-clamping duration, duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), duration of surgery, and rhythm of reperfusion. Fentanyl requirement, extubation time, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay were also recorded for every case.

Results:

There was no statistically significant differences as regard to demographic data between the studied two groups. HR and blood pressure recorded was lower in the PD group than the control group, and this difference was noted to be statistically significant. Furthermore, the PD group showed lower levels of myocardial enzymes (cTnI and CK-MB), decreased total fentanyl requirement, earlier postoperative extubation, and shorter ICU stay than the P (control) group.

Conclusion:

The use of propofol-dexmedetomidine in CPB surgeries offers more cardioprotective effects than the use of propofol alone.

Nebulized dexmedetomidine improves pulmonary shunt and lung mechanics during one-lung ventilation: a randomized clinical controlled trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine (Dex), a selective a₂-adrenergic receptor agonist, has been previously reported to attenuate intrapulmonary shunt during one-lung ventilation (OLV) and to alleviate bronchoconstriction. However, the therapeutic effects of nebulized Dex on pulmonary shunt and lung mechanics during OLV have not been evaluated. Here we determine whether nebulized dexmedetomidine improved pulmonary shunt and lung mechanics in patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-eight patients undergoing elective thoracoscopic surgery were included in this study and randomly divided into four groups: 0.9% saline (Placebo group), 0.5 µg/kg (Dex_0.5 group), 1 µg/kg (Dex₁ group) and 2 µg/kg (Dex₂group) dexmedetomidine. After bronchial intubation, patients received different nebulized doses of dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg, 1 µg/kg and 2 µg/kg) or 0.9% saline placebo during two-lung ventilation(TLV). OLV was initiated 15 min after bronchial intubation. Anesthesia was maintained with intravenous infusion of cisatracurium and propofol. Bispectral Index values were maintained within 40–50 by adjusting the infusion of propofol in all groups. Arterial blood gas samples and central venous blood gas samples were taken as follows: 15 min after bronchial intubation during two-lung ventilation (TLV₁₅), after 30 and 60 min of OLV (OLV₃₀and OLV₆₀, respectively) and 15 min after reinstitution of TLV (ReTLV). Dynamic compliance was also calculated at TLV₁₅, OLV₃₀, OLV₆₀ and ReTLV.

Results

Dex decreased the requirement of propofol in a dose-dependent manner(P = 0.000). Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) displayed no significant difference among groups (P = 0.397 and 0.863). Compared with the placebo group, Dex administered between 0.5 and 2 µg/kg increased partial pressure of oxygen (P_aO₂) significantly at OLV₃₀ and OLV₆₀(P = 0.000); however, Dex administered between 1 and 2 µg/kg decreased pulmonary shunt fraction (Q_s/Q_t) at OLV₃₀ and OLV₆₀(P = 0.000). Compared with the placebo group, there were significant increases with dynamic compliance (Cdyn) after OLV in Dex_0.5, Dex₁ and Dex₂group(P = 0.000). Conclusions. Nebulized dexmedetomidine improved oxygenation not only by decreasing pulmonary shunt but also by improving lung compliance during OLV, which may be effective in managing OLV.

Anesthesia for interventional pulmonology procedures: a review of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopy

PURPOSE

Interventional pulmonology is a growing subspecialty of pulmonary medicine with flexible and rigid bronchoscopies increasingly used by interventional pulmonologists for advanced diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. This review discusses different technical aspects of anesthesia for interventional pulmonary procedures with an emphasis placed on pharmacologic combinations, airway management, ventilation techniques, and common complications.

SOURCE

Relevant medical literature was identified by searching the PubMed and Google Scholar databases for publications on different anesthesia topics applicable to interventional pulmonary procedures. Cited literature included case reports, original research articles, review articles, meta-analyses, guidelines, and official society statements.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Interventional pulmonology is a rapidly growing area of medicine. Anesthesiologists need to be familiar with different considerations required for every procedure, particularly as airway access is a shared responsibility with pulmonologists. Depending on the individual case characteristics, a different selection of airway method, ventilation mode, and pharmacologic combination may be required. Most commonly, airways are managed with supraglottic devices or endotracheal tubes. Nevertheless, patients with central airway obstruction or tracheal stenosis may require rigid bronchoscopy and jet ventilation. Although anesthetic approaches may vary depending on factors such as the length, complexity, and acuity of the procedure, the majority of patients are anesthetized using a total intravenous anesthetic technique.

CONCLUSIONS

It is fundamental for the anesthesia provider to be updated on interventional pulmonology procedures in this rapidly growing area of medicine.