Efficacy of different dose of dexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical application of dexmedetomidine combined with dezocine in local anesthesia for endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effect of dexmedetomidine combined with dezocine in local anesthesia for endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR).

METHODS

Ninety patients undergoing elective endoscopic DCR were randomly divided into two groups, local anesthesia group (LA group n = 45) and general anesthesia group (GA group, n = 45). These subjects were all American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status I-II patients. The changes of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were observed and recorded before anesthesia (T0), after anesthesia (T1), at the beginning of surgery (T2), and at the end of surgery (T3). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was observed and recorded immediately after awakening from anesthesia and at 1, 2, 6, and 12 h after surgery. Additionally, the occurrence of adverse reactions after surgery and the sedation-agitation scale (SAS) score after awakening were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with the LA group, the MAP and HR of the GA group were significantly lower at T1 and T2, but significantly higher at T3. Local anesthesia was associated with lower VAS score immediately after awakening and at 1, 2, 6, and 12 h after surgery. Also, local anesthesia caused a lower incidence of postoperative agitation, nausea, and vomiting. The SAS score in the LA group was markedly higher than that in the GA group.

CONCLUSION

Local anesthesia with dexmedetomidine and dezocine as adjuvants in endoscopic DCR has more stable hemodynamics and reduces the stress response during perioperative period. Also, this anesthesia achieves better postoperative sedation and analgesia effects, reduces postoperative complications, and improves the quality of awakening from anesthesia. Collectively, local anesthesia is a comfortable and safe option for patients with high risks of general anesthesia and those unwilling to receive general anesthesia.

Effect of remifentanil combined with sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia on coagulation function and postoperative recovery of patients undergoing endoscopic selective varices devascularization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of remifentanil combined with sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia on coagulation function and postoperative recovery of patients undergoing endoscopic selective varices devascularization (ESVD).

METHODS

Altogether 116 patients undergoing ESVD in our hospital were randomly divided into two groups. The control group received propofol combined with remifentanil anesthesia, while the observation group received remifentanil combined with sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in coagulation function indexes between the control group and the observation group (P>0.05), and the clinical anesthesia effect of the observation group was better (P<0.001). Five minutes after intubation, compared with the control group, the clinical stress response index was better (all P<0.001), the quality of anesthesia recovery was higher (all P<0.001), the heart rate was better after anesthesia (P<0.001), and the incidence of adverse reactions was higher (P<0.01) in the observation group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with remifentanil combined with propofol anesthesia, remifentanil combined with sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia for ESVD can effectively improve the clinical anesthesia effect, improve the quality of anesthesia recovery, and reduce stress reactions, but the incidence of adverse reactions is increased. Therefore the clinical application still needs to be strengthened.

Remifentanil provides an increased proportion of time under light sedation than fentanyl when combined with dexmedetomidine for mechanical ventilation

Objective

To compare the effects of remifentanil versus fentanyl during light sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the use of remifentanil versus fentanyl in adults receiving MV with dexmedetomidine sedation. The primary outcome was the proportion of time under light sedation (Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale score between −1 and 0) during MV.

Results

We included 94 patients and classified 58 into the remifentanil group and 36 into the fentanyl group. The mean proportion of time under light sedation during MV was 66.6% ± 18.5% in the remifentanil group and 39.9% ± 27.3% in the fentanyl group. In the multivariate analysis with control for confounding factors, patients in the remifentanil group showed a significantly higher proportion of time under light sedation than patients in the fentanyl group (mean difference: 24.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval: 12.9–35.8).

Conclusions

Remifentanil use might increase the proportion of time under light sedation in patients receiving MV compared with fentanyl administration.