Observation of the clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine in flexible bronchoscopy under general anesthesia: clinical case experience exchange

Unveiling the impact of airways: A comparative analysis of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal airways in painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy

Background

This study compared the efficacy of oropharyngeal airways (OA) and nasopharyngeal airways (NA) in maintaining oxygenation during painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy (PFB) in patients sedated with remimazolam besylate.

Methods

Two hundred and fifty-two patients were randomized to the OA or NA group. Remimazolam besylate was used for anesthesia induction and maintenance in both groups. We measured and recorded several physiological parameters, including mean arterial pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation (SpO2), at various time points: before anesthesia (T1), after anesthesia induction (T2), immediately after the bronchoscope reached the trachea (T3), during the procedure (T4), and 5 min after transfer to the post-anesthesia care unit (T5). The incidence and frequency of hypoxemia, minimum SpO2 during the procedure and patient awakening time after flumazenil administration were also recorded. Additionally, the relationship between minimum SpO2 and body mass index (BMI) was investigated.

Results

Patients in the NA group experienced a higher incidence of hypoxemia compared to the OA group. Patients in the OA group maintained higher SpO2 levels at T3 and had a higher minimum SpO2 during the procedure than the NA group. Furthermore, a significant negative correlation was observed between minimum SpO2 and BMI. Following flumazenil anesthesia reversal, nearly 97 % of patients awakened within 1 min.

Conclusions

This study suggests that OA may provide a better safety profile than NA by preserving respiratory function during PFB.

A study of hemodynamic effects, postoperative recovery, and safety of esketamine (right handed) during flexible bronchoscopy under general anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

Flexible bronchoscopy during general anesthesia has become an indispensable tool. Anesthetics are widely utilized in flexible bronchoscopy (FB). This study delved into the application value of a subanesthetic dose of esketamine (ES) (right handed) in flexible bronchoscopy during general anesthesia.

METHODS

A sample of 160 patients who underwent flexible bronchoscopy during general anesthesia were selected as study subjects and were equally divided into the control and ES groups, with clinical baseline data (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grading) collected. Hemodynamic parameters (mean artery pressure, heart rate, pulse blood oxygen saturation) at different time points, the onset time of anesthesia, surgery time, analgesia maintenance time, anesthesia awakening time, and perioperative adverse reactions were recorded. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and quality of recovery-40 (QoR-40) scales were utilized for assessing post-surgery satisfaction, cognitive function, and post-surgery early recovery quality.

RESULTS

The hemodynamics were stable at each time point, but patients in the ES group were more stable than those in the control group. Patients in the ES group exhibited faster onset and awakening time of anesthesia, longer duration of analgesia, and lower total incidence of adverse reactions versus the control group. The patients' QoR-40 total scores in the ES group were improved versus the control group at 1 day after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Compared with fentanyl, the use of ES (right handed) in flexible bronchoscopy during general anesthesia produces more stable hemodynamics, faster onset and recovery time of anesthesia, longer duration of analgesia, lower incidence of adverse reactions, and improved early postoperative recovery quality in patients.

Clinical effects of remimazolam alone or in combination with dexmedetomidine in patients receiving bronchoscopy and influences on postoperative cognitive function: a randomized-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam and dexmedetomidine are commonly used as sedatives. However, the effects and safety of remimazolam alone or in combination with dexmedetomidine have not been investigated.

AIM

We sought to investigate the clinical effects of remimazolam alone or in combination with dexmedetomidine in bronchoscopy, and their influence on cognitive function.

METHOD

Ninety eligible patients who underwent bronchoscopy under intravenous anesthesia were randomly divided into three groups: propofol control, remimazolam, and remimazolam plus dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was the incidence of perioperative hypoxemia. Secondary outcomes included induction and maintenance doses of remimazolam, hemodynamic variables, scores for modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S), coughing, limb movement, incidence of adverse events, patient satisfaction, bronchoscopist satisfaction, incidence of post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), time to loss of consciousness (LoC), and time to awake.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension, and bronchoscopist satisfaction score were significantly decreased, and time to LoC and time to awake were markedly longer in the remimazolam and remimazolam plus dexmedetomidine groups than in the propofol control group (p < 0.05). The remimazolam group had significantly decreased induction and maintenance doses of remimazolam and a shorter time to LoC than the remimazolam plus dexmedetomidine group (p < 0.05). Scores for coughing, limb movement, MOAA/S, and post-operative patient satisfaction were comparable among the three groups. POCD was not induced in any of the groups.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam is safe and effective for painless bronchoscopy, with a low incidence of adverse reactions, and exhibits a good synergistic effect with dexmedetomidine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial protocol had been registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000041435, date: 2020 12 26.

Effects of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on Postoperative Analgesia and the Cellular Immune Function of Patients Undergoing Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

In order to optimize the anesthesia scheme and improve the effect of surgical treatment, the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on postoperative analgesia and cellular immune function of patients undergoing radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer have been analyzed. A total of 86 patients admitted to our hospital from March 2021 to March 2022 who received laparoscopic radical gastritis were selected. The combined dexmedetomidine group (n = 43) and the control group (n = 43) are grouped by the random number table method, respectively. Anesthesia induction regimens of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol and conventional propofol are treated, and the changes in serum stress index, immune function index, analgesia score, and pain score are observed. The results show that the postoperative stress response, analgesic effect, and immune function of patients receiving dexmedetomidine combined with propofol anesthesia are significantly better than those receiving conventional anesthesia, and the incidence of postoperative complications in the dexmedetomidine combined group is significantly lower than that in the control group. The results demonstrate that dexmedetomidine combined with propofol anesthesia intervention has high security in undergoing radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), is a highly selective alpha2 adrenoceptor (α2-AR) agonist, successfully used in various procedures including flexible bronchoscopy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DEX sedation during bronchoscopy report equivocal results regarding respiratory and hemodynamic outcomes.

Methods

We conducted an RCT to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine compared to propofol for sedation during bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was the number of desaturation events, secondary outcomes were transcutaneous Pco2 level, hemodynamic adverse events and physician and patient satisfaction.

Results

Overall, 63 patients were included, 30 and 33 in the DEX and propofol groups, respectively. The number of desaturation events was similar between groups, median (IQR) 1 (0–1) and 1 (0–2) in the DEX and control groups, respectively (P = 0.29). Median desaturation time was 1 (0–2) and 1 (0–3) minutes in the DEX and control groups, respectively (P = 0.48). Adverse events included hypotension, 33% vs 21.1% in intervention and control groups, respectively (P = 0.04), bradycardia, cough, and delayed recovery from sedation. Total adverse events were 22 and 7 in DEX and propofol groups, respectively (P = 0.009).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine sedation during bronchoscopy did not show differences in oxygen saturation and transcutaneous CO2 level in comparison to propofol. Moreover, DEX sedation required a significantly higher number of rescue boluses, due to inadequate sedation and was associated with a higher rate of adverse events.

Trial registration NCT04211298, registration date: 26.12.2019.

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Postanesthesia Care Unit Discharge and Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on the effect of dexmedetomidine in early postoperative recovery is limited. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine on the length of stay (LOS) and recovery profile in postanesthesia care unit (PACU) patients.

METHODS

The study protocol is registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021240559). No specific funding or support was received. We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library to March 31, 2021 for peer-reviewed randomized controlled studies comparing adult patients who received intravenous dexmedetomidine and placebo undergoing noncardiac, nonneurosurgical procedures under general anesthesia. All studies reporting statistics relating to the duration of stay in the recovery ward or PACU, the primary outcome, were included. We performed individual random-effect meta-analysis on the primary and secondary outcomes (time to extubation, emergence agitation, cough, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, shivering, residual sedation, bradycardia, and hypotension) using Stata version 17.0. Evidence was synthesized as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. The quality of evidence was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies including 2676 patients were eligible for analysis. All studies had low risk or some concerns of overall bias and provided low-to-high certainty evidence for all studied outcomes. Dexmedetomidine was not associated with a significantly increased PACU LOS (MD, 0.69 minute; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.42 to 2.81 minutes). It was associated with a statistically but not clinically significant prolonged time to extubation (MD, 1 minute; 95% CI, 0.32-1.68 minutes). Dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly reduced incidence of emergence agitation (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.29-0.52), cough (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79), pain (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.86), and shivering (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49) in PACU. There was an increased incidence of hypotension (RR, 5.39; 95% CI, 1.12-5.89) but not residual sedation (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.20-7.56) or bradycardia (RR, 5.13; 95% CI, 0.96-27.47) in the dexmedetomidine group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dexmedetomidine did not increase the duration of PACU LOS but was associated with reduced emergence agitation, cough, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and shivering in PACU. There was an increased incidence of hypotension but not residual sedation or bradycardia in PACU.

Clinical usefulness of intermediate-dose dexmedetomidine (0.75 μg/kg) in flexible bronchoscopy - A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND:

Dexmedetomidine, although an effective drug for conscious sedation during flexible bronchoscopy, has occasional side effects on the cardiovascular system which need to be addressed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Patients between 18 and 65 years, requiring diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy, found eligible, after screening, were randomized to either receive 0.75 μg/kg intravenous dexmedetomidine over 10 min or intravenous midazolam 0.035 mg/kg over 1 min. Composite score was used as the primary outcome measure. Additional parameters recorded were: Hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, Ramsay sedation score, for pain intensity and distress Numerical Rating Scale, number of rescue medication doses, ease of doing bronchoscopy, Visual Analog Scale score for cough and response of the patient 24 h after bronchoscopy.

RESULTS:

In each group, 24 patients were enrolled. The composite score was in the ideal category in 24 patients in dexmedetomidine group and 21 in midazolam group, at nasopharynx (P = 0.234). The corresponding values at the level of trachea were 23 and 16 (P = 0.023). In dexmedetomidine group, patient response after 24 h of bronchoscopy showed quality of sedation to be excellent in 0 subjects, good in 13, fair in 9 and poor in 2 and discomfort to be nil in 7, mild 10, moderate in 7 and severe in 0. The corresponding values in midazolam group for quality of sedation were 0, 4, 14, 6, and for discomfort 0, 10, 14, 0. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for cough revealed a mean score of 0.800 and 1.812 (P = 0.011) during and 2.092 and 3.542 (P = 0.016) 24 h after bronchoscopy in the respective study groups.

CONCLUSION:

Low-dose dexmedetomidine (0.75 μg/kg single dose) appears to provide better patient comfort and equivalent safety profile when compared with midazolam.

Fixed dexmedetomidine infusion versus fixed-dose midazolam bolus as primary sedative for maintaining intra-procedural sedation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a double blind randomized controlled trial

Objective: The utility and safety of fixed dexmedetomidine infusion was compared to fixed-dose midazolam bolus among patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA.Methods: In this randomized double-blind study, 197 patients were assigned to receive dexmedetomidine (Group D, 1 μg/kg before, and 0.6 μg/kg/hour during, procedure) or midazolam (Group M, 2 mg before procedure) sedation. The primary outcome was number of rescue midazolam boluses administered to achieve Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of two or more. We also studied sedation depth during procedure, adverse hemodynamic and hypoxemic events, bronchoscopist and patient satisfaction, and time-to-discharge from recovery room.Results: Rescue midazolam requirement was significantly lesser in 99 Group D (0.9 ± 1.2 boluses) than in 98 Group M (2.0 ± 2.4 boluses), subjects. Mean RSS score was significantly higher in Group D subjects (2.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.7). Significantly more subjects in Group D developed hypotension (46 vs. 27) or bradycardia (37 vs. 5), but none required specific intervention. Bronchoscopists reported significantly greater overall procedure satisfaction in Group D subjects.Conclusion: Fixed dexmedetomidine infusion reduced need for rescue sedation during EBUS-TBNA, and allowed slightly faster post-procedure recovery, as compared to fixed-dose midazolam bolus. However, it caused hypotension and bradycardia more frequently.Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT02713191.

Dexmedetomidine sedation for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration, a randomised controlled trial

Background and aim

Appropriate sedation is important to the success of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Dexmedetomidine is a sedative agent that operates via the α2 adrenergic agonist, which provides sleep-like sedation with little respiratory suppression. This study compared the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine sedation with propofol in cases of EBUS-TBNA.

Methods

Patients requiring EBUS-TBNA were randomly assigned dexmedetomidine sedation (D, n=25) or propofol sedation (P, n=25). Vital signs, diagnostic yield and the bispectral index (BIS) were recorded throughout the bronchoscopic procedure and recovery period. The tolerance and cooperation of the patients were evaluated using questionnaires.

Measurements and results

The lowest mean arterial blood pressure in group D (79.2±9.9 versus 72.5±12.9 mmHg, p=0.049) exceeded that in group P, the lowest heart rate was lower (60.9±10.2 versus 71.4±11.8 beats·min⁻¹, p=0.006) and the mean BIS during sedation was significantly higher (84.1±8.3 versus 73.6±5.7, p<0.001). Patients in group D were more likely to report perceiving procedure-related symptoms and express an unwillingness to undergo the bronchoscopy again, if indicated (41.1 versus 83.3%, p=0.007). One subject in group D aborted EBUS-TBNA due to intolerance. Many of the variables in the two groups were similar, including the proportion of hypoxaemic events, recovery times, patient cooperation and diagnostic yield.

Conclusions

The effects of dexmedetomidine on haemodynamics were in line with its pharmacodynamic features. Patients who received dexmedetomidine were more likely than those who received propofol to perceive the procedures. Overall, dexmedetomidine did not prove inferior to propofol sedation in terms of patient cooperation or diagnostic yield.

Compared to propofol sedation for EBUS-TBNA, dexmedetomidine provided patients lighter sedation with lower heart rates and less decrease in blood pressure. The recovery times, hypoxaemia, cooperation and diagnostic yield in the two groups were similar.https://bit.ly/33qgEj3

The Effectiveness of Low-dose Dexmedetomidine Infusion in Sedative Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Retrospective Analysis

Background and objectives: Flexible bronchoscopy has been widely used for diagnosis and intervention, while various drugs are used for sedation during bronchoscopy. We examined two regular standardized sedation options (with or without dexmedetomidine) regularly used in our regional hospital. The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine on conscious sedation under bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from April 2017 to March 2018. All patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation were enrolled. Patients having received dexmedetomidine-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group D, and those having received midazolam-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group M. The primary outcome was a safety profile during the procedure, including the incidence of procedural interference by patient cough or movement, transient hypoxemia, and hypotension. The secondary outcome was measured by the recovery profile (awake and ambulation time). Results: Thirty-five patients in group D and thirty-three in group M were collected in this retrospective study. All patients underwent the procedure successfully. Group D showed higher safety with fewer procedural interference incidences by cough or body movement than Group M (3.3% versus 36.3%, p < 0.001) and minor respiratory adverse effects. Patients in group D showed faster recovery in a shorter ambulation time than group M (24.9 ± 9.7 versus 31.5 ± 11.9, p = 0.02). In group D, bronchoscopist satisfaction to sedation was higher than group M (p = 0.01). More transient bradycardia episodes were noted in patients receiving dexmedetomidine (p < 0.05), but all recovered without atropine intervention. Overall post-procedural adverse events and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions: The co-administration of dexmedetomidine met the safety and recovery demands of flexible bronchoscopy. Compared to the conventional midazolam-propofol-fentanyl regimen, the application of dexmedetomidine improved sedative effectiveness with less procedural interruptions, shorter time to ambulation and higher bronchoscopist satisfaction.