Comparison between dexmedetomidine and propofol on outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a retrospective study

Beneficial Effects of Low-Dose Intravenous Dexmedetomidine Premedication in Patient Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under General Anesthesia: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Dexmedetomidine (Dex) is a potent and highly selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist. Within an appropriate dose range, Dex can effectively attenuate the surgical stress response, provide intraoperative hemodynamic stability, and improve the patient recovery quality. High-dose Dex can delay patient awakening from anesthesia and increase the incidence of bradycardia. This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effects of low-dose intravenous Dex premedication in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Material and Methods

In total, 100 patients undergoing LC were equally randomized into Group C (premedication with saline) and Group D (premedication with 0.5 µg/kg Dex). The patients were premedicated with saline or Dex, depending on the group, before anesthesia induction. Following this, anesthesia induction and endotracheal intubation was performed, and anesthesia was maintained during surgery. Following the completion of the surgery, the patients were transferred the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and stayed there until they met the PACU discharge criteria. The hemodynamic parameters, consumption of anesthetics, surgical duration, postoperative awakening time, extubation time, postoperative pain, and complications were recorded.

Results

No significant differences were observed in the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) between the two groups before premedication (P>0.05). The MAP and HR immediately after endotracheal intubation and immediately after extubation were significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05 for both). The incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05), while atropine was used in neither group. Propofol and remifentanil consumption was significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05). The postoperative awakening and extubation times were significantly shorter in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05). The postoperative visual analog scale scores for pain and incidence of nausea, vomiting, and cough were significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05 for all).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that premedication with dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg) before general anesthesia induction can effectively attenuate intraoperative stress response and postoperative pain, maintain perioperative hemodynamic stability, and decrease the incidence of adverse events, which might be an effective and safe anesthetic protocol during LC worthy of further clinical application.

Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation on Outcomes After Cardiac Surgery in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Control Trials

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. This meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Online databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, were comprehensively searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and requiring mechanical ventilation. The examined outcomes included the mean length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in hours, duration of mechanical ventilation in hours, length of hospital stay in days, and number of patients diagnosed with delirium. A total of 14 studies were included in the present meta-analysis while 1360 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were involved in these studies. Pooled results showed that the duration of mechanical ventilation was lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol group (mean difference (MD): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06-1.44, p-value: 0.03). We also found a significantly low length of stay in ICU in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol (MD: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.04-1.74, p-value: 0.04). The length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as compared to the propofol group (MD: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.70, p-value<0.001). Risk of delirium was significantly higher in patients receiving propofol compared to patients receiving dexmedetomidine (RR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.48-2.74, p-value<0.001). In conclusion, our meta-analysis provides evidence of the beneficial impacts of dexmedetomidine on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital, and the risk of delirium.

Scaled up and telescoped synthesis of propofol under continuous-flow conditions

Herein we report a machine-assisted and scaled-up synthesis of propofol, a short-acting drug used in procedural sedation, which is extensively in demand during this COVID-19 pandemic. The continuous-flow protocol proved to be efficient, with great potential for industrial translation, reaching a production up to 71.6 g per day with process intensification (24 h-continuous experiments). We have successfully telescoped a continuous flow approach obtaining 5.74 g of propofol with productivity of 23.0 g/day (6 h-continuous experiment), proving the robustness of the method in both separated and telescoped modes. Substantial progress was also achieved for the in-line workup, which provides greater safety and less waste, also relevant for industrial application. Overall, the synthetic strategy is based on the Friedel-Crafts di-isopropylation of low-cost p-hydroxybenzoic acid, followed by a decarboxylation reaction, giving propofol in up to 84% overall yield and very low by-product formation. The continuous flow synthesis of propofol 3 is presented as a two-step protocol. The isopropylated intermediate 2 was obtained from 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (1) in up 43.8 g, 85% yield and 30 min residence time. Propofol 3 was then obtained in 71.6 g, 87% yield, and 16 min residence time. A safe and cost-competitive machine-assisted protocol is described with a process intensification demonstration (24 h experiments) and a telescoped process intensification (6 h).