A comparison of sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol during shockwave lithotripsy: a randomized controlled trial

Comparison of Procedural Sedation With Propofol and Dexmedetomidine During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using the Transfemoral Approach

OBJECTIVES

Although procedural sedation is an established method of anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), reliable evidence to guide the choice of a suitable sedative agent remains scarce. Accordingly, this trial aimed to compare the effect of procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol on postoperative neurocognitive and related clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

SETTING

The study was conducted at the University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia.

PARTICIPANTS

The study enrolled 78 patients who underwent TAVR under procedural sedation between January 2019 and June 2021. Seventy-one patients randomized into the propofol group (n = 34) and dexmedetomidine group (n = 37) were included in the final analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in the propofol group received sedation with propofol (continuous intravenous infusion of 0.5-2.5 mg/kg/h), whereas patients in the dexmedetomidine group received sedation with dexmedetomidine (loading dose of 0.5 µg/kg over 10 minutes followed by continuous intravenous infusion of 0.2-1.0 µg/kg/h).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Minimental state examination (MMSE) was performed before and 48 hours after TAVR. There was no statistically significant difference in MMSE scores between groups before TAVR (p = 0.253), but the MMSE after the procedure revealed a significantly lower incidence of delayed neurocognitive recovery (p = 0.005) and thus better cognitive outcomes in the dexmedetomidine group (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with propofol, procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine in TAVR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of delayed neurocognitive recovery.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Sedation with a 1:1 mixture of etomidate and propofol for gastroscopy in hypertensive elderly patients

We hypothesized that the combined use of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in elderly hypertensive patients could reduce adverse reactions while providing ideal sedation. To validate our hypothesis, we conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. A total of 360 elderly hypertensive patients scheduled for gastroscopy at our hospital were enrolled in the study, of whom 328 completed the trial. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the propofol group (group P), the etomidate group (group E), or the propofol-etomidate combination group (mixed at a ratio of 1:1, group PE). We collected and analyzed the cardiopulmonary effects and side effects in each group. Regardless of the sedation drug used, the systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, and heart rate of involved patients were significantly affected. Oxygen desaturation and injection pain were more common in group P compared to groups E (33.6% vs. 14.8%, 31.8% vs. 2.7%, both P < 0.01) and group PE (33.6% vs. 13.6%, 31.8% vs. 6.4%, both P < 0.01). The incidence of myoclonus in the PE group was lower than that in the E group (10.9% vs. 61.2%, P < 0.01). Our results indeed demonstrated that the combined use of etomidate and propofol appeared to maintain cardiopulmonary stability with minimal side effects in older hypertensive patients scheduled for gastroscopy, which further implied that this sedation strategy could be a safe and pain-free option for managing patients undergoing gastroscopy, particularly those at a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

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.

Effects of Propofol, Dexmedetomidine, or Ketofol on Respiratory and Hemodynamic Profiles in Cardiac Patients Undergoing Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Prospective Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to evaluate sedation characteristics, as well as cardiorespiratory effects, of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and ketofol used for conscious sedation during transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

DESIGN

Prospective double-blind randomized study.

SETTINGS

Tanta University hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-five participants with left-to-right shunt requiring diagnostic TEE interventions. Patients were randomized into three groups-P, Dex, and K-to receive propofol, dexmedetomidine, or ketofol, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Time to reach targeted sedation level, duration of the procedure, recovery time, hemodynamic parameters, incidence of oxygen desaturation <90%, as well as the cardiologist's satisfaction were recorded. The time onset and offset of sedation, duration of TEE procedure, and the need for rescue propofol were significantly less in the P and K groups compared with group Dex (p value 0.000*, 0.003*, 0.000*, and 0.000* and effect size 0.39, 0.15, 0.21, and 0.34, respectively). Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output significantly decreased in groups P and Dex compared with either baseline or group K. Hypoxic events were more manifest in group P; whereas group K had better cardiologist's satisfaction than the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the TEE settings, the three agents were capable of attaining the targeted sedation levels , with propofol and ketofol having a faster onset and recovery times compared with dexmedetomidine. Even though dexmedetomidine and ketofol provided a more stable respiratory profile than propofol, ketofol was favorable in providing fewer hemodynamic alterations with better satisfaction scores than both propofol and dexmedetomidine.

Dexmedetomidine Improves Cardiovascular and Ventilatory Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: Basic and Clinical Approaches

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly selective α2-adrenergic agonist with sedative and analgesic properties, with minimal respiratory effects. It is used as a sedative in the intensive care unit and the operating room. The opioid-sparing effect and the absence of respiratory effects make dexmedetomidine an attractive adjuvant drug for anesthesia in obese patients who are at an increased risk for postoperative respiratory complications. The pharmacodynamic effects on the cardiovascular system are known; however the mechanisms that induce cardioprotection are still under study. Regarding the pharmacokinetics properties, this drug is extensively metabolized in the liver by the uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferases. It has a relatively high hepatic extraction ratio, and therefore, its metabolism is dependent on liver blood flow. This review shows, from a basic clinical approach, the evidence supporting the use of dexmedetomidine in different settings, from its use in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, and cardioprotective signaling pathways. In addition, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies in obese subjects and the management of patients subjected to mechanical ventilation are described. Moreover, the clinical efficacy of delirium incidence in patients with indication of non-invasive ventilation is shown. Finally, the available evidence from DEX is described by a group of Chilean pharmacologists and clinicians who have worked for more than 10 years on DEX.

Comparison of Intraoperative Sedation With Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol on Acute Postoperative Pain in Total Knee Arthroplasty Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia, we compared the postoperative analgesic effect of intraoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol. We hypothesized that sedation with dexmedetomidine would result in lower postoperative opioid analgesic consumption than with propofol.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either a dexmedetomidine group (n = 24), which received a loading dose of 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1-0.5 μg·kg·hour, or a propofol group (n = 24), which received a continuous infusion of propofol via a target-controlled infusion to maintain the effect-site concentration within a range of 0.5-2.0 μg/mL. The drug infusion rate was determined according to the sedation level, targeting a modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 3 or 4. The cumulative amounts of fentanyl administered via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia were recorded at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (primary outcome). The postoperative numerical rating scale for pain was assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours (secondary outcome). The postoperative use of additional rescue analgesic (ketoprofen) and antiemetic drugs was also compared between the 2 groups at 24 and 48 hours.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced postoperative fentanyl consumption (median [interquartile range]) during 0-24 hours (45 [30-71] vs 150 [49-248] μg, P = .004; median difference = -105 μg [99.98% CI, 210-7.5]), 24-48 hours (90 [45-143] vs 188 [75-266] μg, P = .005; median difference = -98 μg [99.98% CI, 195-45]), and 0-48 hours (135 [68-195] vs 360 [146-480] μg, P = .003; median difference = -225 μg [99.98% CI, 405-7.5]). The numerical rating scale (median [interquartile range]) was lower at 6 hours (1 [0-2] vs 2 [1-3], P = .003), 12 hours (1 [1-2] vs 3 [2-3], P < .001), 24 hours (1 [1-2] vs 3 [2-3], P < .001), and 48 hours (2 [2-3] vs 3 [3-4], P < .001) after surgery in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol group. No significant intergroup differences were observed in the amount of rescue analgesics and antiemetics at 24 hours (P = .155 and P = .482) and 48 hours (P = .082 and P = .153) after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative dexmedetomidine sedation was associated with a small but clinically important reduction in postoperative opioid use after total knee arthroplasty.

Dexmedetomidine reduces inflammation in traumatic brain injury by regulating the inflammatory responses of macrophages and splenocytes

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects people in all demographics, since it is associated with a variety of chronic degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. In TBI, the central nervous system elicits an immune response involving various immune cells that is necessary for healing and defending the body against pathogens, but can also cause secondary damage to the brain if the response is prolonged. In our clinical practice, it has been identified that administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced production of inflammatory cytokines in patients with TBI, which led to the hypothesis that dexmedetomidine may regulate certain inflammatory responses. To test this hypothesis, the roles of dexmedetomidine in the immune system of mice were investigated. Different biological assays were used to assess the influence of dexmedetomidine on the production of inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8 and IL-1β. To understand how dexmedetomidine affects different types of immune cells, the influence of dexmedetomidine on splenocytes was also investigated. Finally, the effects of dexmedetomidine on macrophage activation and inflammatory functions were studied. In the present study, clinical observations and in vivo results using a mouse model of TBI revealed the regulatory functions of dexmedetomidine in TBI-associated immune response.

A prospective, randomised double-blind study on the anaesthetic effect of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride in brainstem tumour surgery

Context

Brainstem tumour surgery is difficult, and accidents can easily occur.

Objective

To explore the effect of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride on brainstem tumour surgery.

Design, setting and participants

A total of 60 patients with brainstem tumours successfully operated on by our hospital from March 2016 to March 2018 were selected as subjects.

Interventions

These patients were randomised into two groups: the research group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30). Patients in the control group were given propofol together with a placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) to maintain anaesthesia after general anaesthesia, while patients in the research group were supplemented with dexmedetomidine hydrochloride.

Main outcome measure

Awakening time, overall stability of various indicators in the operation and adverse reactions during the awakening period were observed.

Results

The results revealed that patients in the research group had a longer awakening time, higher mean stability rate, higher effective rate and less incidence of adverse reactions during the awakening period than the control group; the differences were all statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride has a good analgesic effect in intraoperative anaesthesia during brainstem tumour surgery, which significantly reduces the incidence of adverse reactions. Therefore, it can be used to assist anaesthesia during brainstem tumour operations and is worthy of clinical popularisation and application.

Analgesic Effect and Hemodynamic Changes Due to Dexmedetomidine Versus Fentanyl During Elective Colonoscopy: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

There are different methods used for anesthesia during a colonoscopy procedure.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic effect and hemodynamic changes due to dexmedetomidine and fentanyl during elective colonoscopy.

Methods

This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 80 patients aged 20 - 70 years, candidates for elective colonoscopy, who were randomly divided into two equal groups. In the intervention group (group D), dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg was given 10 minutes before starting the colonoscopy and then, 0.5 mcg/kg/hour during colonoscopy was prescribed. In the control group (group F), fentanyl 0.5 mcg/kg was prescribed three minutes before starting the colonoscopy and then, the normal saline infusion was used as maintenance. Propofol 20 mg was prescribed as the rescue dose if needed (pain or severe discomfort during colonoscopy) during the procedure. Demographic and basic clinical data and blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), and pain score (based on the visual analogue scale) were recorded from the start of the colonoscopy (time 0) and every 5 minutes until the recovery.

Results

The two groups had no significant difference in the duration of colonoscopy, colonoscopist's satisfaction, and patients' satisfaction (P > 0.05). The mean pain score during colonoscopy was lower in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.039). Heart rate was less in the dexmedetomidine group than in the fentanyl group and this difference was statistically significant. The mean arterial pressure had no difference between the two groups.

Conclusions

The results of the present study showed pain score was lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the fentanyl group.

Dexmedetomidine versus ketofol sedation for outpatient diagnostic transesophageal echocardiography: A randomized controlled study

Background

Moderate sedation is required for out-patient transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Our objective was to compare the effect of Ketofol and dexmedetomidine for outpatient procedural sedation in diagnostic TEE with a hypothesis that Ketofol would be as effective as dexmedetomidine. Patients and.

Methods

Fifty adult patients of age group 18-60 years with atrial septal defect, rheumatic valvular heart disease undergoing diagnostic TEE in the outpatient echocardiography laboratory were randomized into two groups, group D and group KF. GROUP D: Dexmedetomidine infusion -200 μg in 20 ml normal saline. GROUP KF: Ketofol infusion: (ketamine: propofol, 1mg: 3 mg in 20 ml syringe). Loading dose of drug at 1ml/kg/hour IV till Ramsay sedation score (RSS) ≥ 3 achieved followed by maintenance infusion at 0.05 ml/kg/hour till end of procedure.

Results

The primary outcome - time to achieve Ramsay sedation score ≥ 3 was significantly lesser with Ketofol as compared to Dexmedetomidine 260[69] seconds vs 460 [137], (p value<0.05).

Conclusion

In out-patient setting, ketofol is favourable over dexmedetomidine for sedation regimen for diagnostic TEE as lesser time is taken to achieve optimal sedation with lesser hemodynamic perturbations, post procedure complications and better cardiologist satisfaction.

Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Along With Scalp Block on Haemodynamic and Postoperative Recovery for Chronic Subdural Haematoma Evacuation Under Monitored Anaesthesia Care

Objective

Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is a common neurosurgical problem, and treatment includes evacuation of the haematoma by burr hole drainage. Commonly, these procedures are performed under local anaesthesia, general anaesthesia or, recently, with monitored anaesthesia care (MAC). We compared dexmedetomidine- and propofol-based sedation along with scalp nerve block for burr hole evacuation of CSDH.

Methods

In this prospective randomised study, 62 patients were divided into the following two groups of 31 patients each: Group D and Group P. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg^-1 over 10 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.2-0.7 μg kg^-1 hr^-1. Group P received propofol 1 mg kg^-1 over 10 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 1-3 mg kg^-1 hr^-1. The heart rate (HR) and blood pressure were measured at different intervals. The recovery parameter and satisfaction score were also recorded.

Results

There were no significant differences noted in the demographic profile. A significant decrease in HR compared to preoperative value was seen in Group D compared to Group P. Blood pressure values were statistically significantly lower in both study groups, compared to preoperative values during the whole procedure and after surgery (p<0.05). Time to achieve modified Aldrete score of 9-10 was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.354). Surgeon satisfaction was significantly better in Group D compared to Group P (p<0.05), but patient satisfaction was similar between the groups (p=0.364).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine-based sedation compared to propofol, along with scalp block for MAC in patients undergoing burr hole evacuation of CSDH is associated with haemodynamic stability and greater surgeon satisfaction.

Comparative Study between Propofol and Dexmedetomidine for Conscious Sedation in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a mildly painful procedure requiring conscious sedation. Though propofol is a widely used anesthetic agent in day-care procedures due to its rapid onset and quick recovery has a drawback of requiring resuscitation maneuvers more often than the conventional methods. Dexmedetomidine, a newly introduced, highly selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist possessing hypnotic, sedative, anxiolytic, sympatholytic, and analgesic properties with impressive safety margin, needs to be explored for use in conscious sedation for colonoscopy procedure among South Indian population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized comparative study was conducted on patients aged between 25 and 60 years with the American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classes I and II posted for colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia care. Study group was randomly divided into two groups and administered propofol and dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome variable was assessments of sedation scores between the two groups. Secondary outcome variables were pain score assessments, hemodynamic comparisons, and adverse events among the two groups. Appropriate statistical tests were applied to compare the findings.

RESULTS

After comparisons between the two groups, we found that patients on dexmedetomidine had similar sedation score as that of patients on propofol. However, there was a significantly higher incidence of systemic hypotension. Requirement of rescue analgesia and adverse events and other hemodynamic fluctuation were similar in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that dexmedetomidine has similar efficacy as propofol for conscious sedation required during colonoscopy. Occurrence of systolic hypotension was, however, significantly more among the group receiving dexmedetomidine.

Evaluation of different doses of dexmedetomidine alone versus the combination of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in sedation during awake fiberoptic intubation in oral cancer surgery patients: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) is one of the principal techniques in the management of difficult airway in oral cancer surgery. We hypothesized that the addition of a small dose of fentanyl could improve the sedative criteria of dexmedetomidine during AFOI technique, without the need to increase the dose of dexmedetomidine which may be associated with airway compromise.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 patients planned for AFOI for oral cancer surgery patients were allocated into three groups (fifty patients each). Group D1: Received an infusion of 1 μcg/kg dexmedetomidine diluted in 50 ml saline over 20 min. Group D2: Received an infusion of 2 μcg/kg dexmedetomidine diluted in 50 ml saline over 20 min. Group DF: Received an infusion of 1 μcg/kg dexmedetomidine added to 1 μcg/kg fentanyl diluted in 50 ml saline over 20 min. AFOI was done by topical anesthesia and with the same technique in all patients. All patients were assessed for: airway obstruction, intubation scores (vocal cord movement, coughing, and limb movement), fiberoptic intubation scores, and hemodynamic variables. Any episode of bradycardia or hypoxia was recorded and managed.

RESULTS

Group D2 showed more incidence of airway obstruction than the other two groups. Limb movement scores were more in Group D1 compared to the other two groups. All groups were comparable as regard fiberoptic intubation scores, coughing, and vocal cord opening scores.

CONCLUSION

Adding a low dose of fentanyl (1 μcg/kg) to a low dose of dexmedetomidine can prevent the risk of airway obstruction associated with increasing the dose of dexmedetomidine while achieving the same favorable intubation scores.

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus Dexmedetomidine-midazolam-fentanyl for monitored anesthesia care during chemoport insertion: a Prospective Randomized Study

Background

Dexmedetomidine as a sole agent showed limited use for painful procedures due to its insufficient sedative/analgesic effect, pronounced hemodynamic instability and prolonged recovery. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) versus dexmedetomidine-midazolam-fentanyl (DMF) combination on the quality of sedation/analgesia and recovery profiles for monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

Methods

Fifty six patients undergoing chemoport insertion were randomly assigned to group DK or DMF. All patients received 1 μg.kg⁻¹ dexmedetomidine over 10 min followed by 0.2–1.0 μg.kg⁻¹h⁻¹ in order to maintain 3 or 4 of modified Observer's Assessment of Analgesia and Sedation score checked every 3 min. At the start of dexmedetomidine infusion, patients in group DK or DMF received 0.5 mg.kg⁻¹ ketamine or 0.05 mg.kg⁻¹ midazolam + 0.5 μg.kg⁻¹ fentanyl intravenously, respectively. When required, rescue sedatives (0.5 mg.kg-1 of ketamine or 0.05 mg.kg-1 of midazolam) and analgesics (0.5 mg.kg-1 of ketamine or 0.5 μg.kg-1 of fentanyl) were given to the patients in DK or DMF group, respectively. The primary outcome of this study was the recovery parameters (time to spontaneous eye opening and the length of the recovery room stay). The secondary outcomes were parameters indicating quality of sedation/analgesia, cardiorespiratory variables, and satisfaction scores.

Results

There were no significant differences in the onset time, time to spontaneous eye opening, recovery room stay, the incidences of inadequate analgesia, hypotension and bradycardia between the two groups. Despite lower infusion rate of dexmedetomidine, more patients in the DMF group had bispectral index (BIS) < 60 than in the DK group and vice versa for need of rescue sedatives. The satisfaction scores of patients, surgeon, and anesthesiologist in the DMF group were significantly better than the DK group.

Conclusions

The DK and DMF groups showed comparable recovery time, onset time, cardiorespiratory variables, and analgesia. However, the DMF group showed a better sedation quality and satisfaction scores despite the lower infusion rate of dexmedetomidine, and a higher incidence of BIS < 60 than the DK group.

Trial registration

Clinical Trial Registry of Korea KCT0000951, registered 12/12/2013

Comparison of the effects of patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using dexmedetomidine and propofol during septoplasty operations: a randomized clinical trial

Introduction

Septoplastical surgery to correct septum deviation can be performed under either local or general anesthesia. During local anesthesia, sedation helps to provide minimum anxiety/discomfort. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of patient-controlled analgesia using dexmedetomidine and propofol on sedation level, analgesic requirement, and patient satisfaction.

Study design

A prospective, randomized-parallel clinical study.

Methods

Fifty patients undergoing septoplastical surgery at our university hospital were randomized into two groups. A nasopharyngeal cotton tampon soaked in 0.25 % adrenaline solution was placed, and 1 mg midazolam and 1 mcg/kg fentanyl were applied 5 min before the injections of a surgical local anesthetic. Loading dose was 0.5 mg/kg propofol (Group I) and 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine (Group II). The sedation was sustained by a bolus dose of 0.2 mg/kg and continuous basal infusion dose of 0.5 mg/kg/h propofol in Group I, or by a bolus dose of 0.05 µg/kg and continuous basal infusion dose of 0.4 mcg/kg/h dexmedetomidine in Group II. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction via patient-controlled anesthesia and analgesic demand. Secondary outcomes were sedation level of patients under local anesthesia.

Results

In Group II, SpO₂ levels were significantly higher than in Group I. Intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements were lower in Group II than in Group I. There were no statistically significant differences in patient satisfaction, hemodynamic parameters, nausea and vomiting between the two groups.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine can be used safely as an analgesic and sedation drug in septoplastic surgery.

Comparison of the Effects of Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil on Cognition State After Cataract Surgery

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is a potent and highly specific α2-adrenoreceptor agonist that induces sedative and analgesic effects over a short-term period. As a result of these benefits, dexmedetomidine may be a better alternative than other available drugs for keeping the patient's cognition state in an acceptable condition after outpatient ophthalmic surgeries.

OBJECTIVES

This randomized study was conducted to compare the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on the cognitive state of patients who have undergone cataract surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 100 patients who were candidates for cataract surgery under local anesthesia received either dexmedetomidine (50 patients; D group) or remifentanil (50 patients; R group) in a double-blind, randomized study. The baseline cardiovascular status and mini mental state examination (MMSE) score for each patient were recorded. As a loading dose, dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg) and remifentanil (0.1 µg/kg) were infused at 10 minutes and 5 minutes before topical anesthesia, respectively. Subsequently, the maintenance dose was administered at 0.2 µg/kg/hour and 0.05 µg/kg/minutes in the D and R groups, respectively. The surgical procedure was begun when the bispectral index (BIS) reached 70 - 80. MMSE test was done at a postanesthetic care unit (PACU) 120 minutes after the discontinuation of the drug.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the MMSE scores of the two groups before surgery (P = 0.6), but the MMSE test conducted at the PACU revealed significantly better cognitive outcomes in the D group than in the R group in patients younger and older than 65 years (P = 0.03 and P = 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that dexmedetomidine may be a suitable agent for sedation in cataract surgery because it results in a more favorable postoperative cognitive status than remifentanil. Likewise, dexmedetomidine had no significant adverse effects on cardiovascular or respiratory systems.

Is dexmedetomidine better than propofol and fentanyl combination in minor day care procedures? A prospective randomised double-blind study

Background and Aims:

The growing popularity and trend of day care (ambulatory) anaesthesia has led to the development of newer and efficient drug regimen. We decided to evaluate the efficacy of two drug regimens namely dexmedetomidine and propofol with midazolam and fentanyl for moderate sedation characteristics in minor surgical procedures in terms of analgesia, intra-operative sedation, haemodynamic stability and side effects related.

Methods:

Totally, 60 adult American Society of Anaesthesiologists class I-II patients posted for day care surgeries of duration <45 min divided into two groups; Group D, where dexmedetomidine loading dose at 1 μg/kg was administered over 10 min followed by maintenance infusion initiated at 0.6 μg/kg/h and titrated to achieve desired clinical effect with dose ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 μg/kg, Group P, where midazolam at 0.02 mg/kg and fentanyl at 2 μg/kg IV boluses were given followed by propofol infusion. Statistical analysis was done using student t-test, analysis of variance and Chi-square analysis. P < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results:

Degree of sedation (Observer's Assessment of Activity and Sedation Scale ≤3) was comparable in both groups (P > 0.05). Rescue analgesia with fentanyl was needed in 30% patients of Group D compared to 17.63% patients of Group P (P < 0.05). The level of arousal was faster and better in Group D at 5 min after the procedure (P < 0.05). Haemodynamics were stable in Group D as with Group P patients (P < 0.005). Dry mouth reported by 16.67% patients.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine can be a useful adjuvant rather than the sole sedative-analgesic agent during minor surgeries and be a valuable alternative to propofol in terms of moderate sedation, haemodynamic stability with minimal transient side effects.

Pain control using pethidine in combination with diazepam compared to diclofenac in combination with hyoscine-n-butyl bromide: in patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Introduction

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) remains the preferred least invasive treatment for urinary tract stones. The main purpose of this study was to compare two treatment modalities for pain control during the ESWL procedure.

Material and methods

From 2013 to 2014, 220 patients received ESWL for kidney stones. Before the procedure, the weight and height were measured to determine the body mass index (BMI); in addition, oxygen saturation and the pulse of the patients, as well as pain level were determined. The pain control provided included two different methods: diclofenac sodium plus hyoscine-N-butyl bromide in the first group and pethidine plus diazepam in the second group. The pain level of the patients was determined using two different scales: the Wong-Baker and the Visual Analogue scales (VAS). At the end of three sessions, all patients were evaluated for the stone fragmentation rate by plain abdominal X-ray, and the findings were recorded and analyzed.

Results

A total of 220 patients were enrolled in this study. There were 91 patients in the first group (diclofenac sodium + hyoscine-N-butyl bromide) (male/female: 63/28) and 129 (male/female: 83/46) patients in the second group (pethidine HCL +diazepam). The mean age with SD according to each group was 42.03 (±16.43) and 42.56 (±14.23), respectively (p = 0.8). With regard to pain scores (using the Wong-Baker and VAS scales), the responses were significantly lower in the second group (p <0.001).

Conclusions

Pethidine in combination with diazepam was superior to diclofenac and Hyoscine-N-butyl bromide for pain in patients undergoing ESWL.

Current role of dexmedetomidine in clinical anesthesia and intensive care

Dexmedetomidine is a new generation highly selective α2-adrenergic receptor (α2-AR) agonist that is associated with sedative and analgesic sparing effects, reduced delirium and agitation, perioperative sympatholysis, cardiovascular stabilizing effects, and preservation of respiratory function. The aim of this review is to present the most recent topics regarding the advantages in using dexmedetomidine in clinical anesthesia and intensive care, while discussing the controversial issues of its harmful effects.

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine-Propofol Combination for Sedation in Cataract Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the sedative properties and haemodynamic and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and a ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol), which are expected to have minimal effects on spontaneous breathing.

METHODS

Sixty patients were enrolled in this prospective randomised study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the administration of dexmedetomidine (Group D) and ketofol (Group K). Target sedation level was determined as a Ramsay Sedation Score of 3. In Group D, 0.5 mcg kg(-1) dexmedetomidine was administered via intravenous route in 10 minutes versus 0.125 mL kg(-1) of a solution containing 200 mg propofol and 100 mg ketamine in Group K. Haemodynamic and respiratory effects, postoperative awakening time, analgesic properties and satisfaction levels of the patients and surgeon were assessed.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant decrease in mean arterial pressures following drug administration compared to initial measurements in both groups. However, there was a statistically significant decrease in heart rate only in Group D. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding respiratory rate and protection of spontaneous respiration. Although the time for Aldrete score to be 9 was 16.1 minutes for Group K, it was 24.9 minutes for Group D, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding adverse effects, pain scores and satisfaction levels of the patients and surgeon.

CONCLUSION

Compared to dexmedetomidine, at similar sedation levels, sedation provided by ketofol enables satisfactory analgesia. Moreover, ketofol has a more rapid onset of action and a shorter recovery period from anaesthesia without causing significant haemodynamic or respiratory adverse effects.

The effects of dexmedetomidine on ischemia reperfusion injury in patients undergoing arthroscopy under spinal anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

Ischemia and reperfusion injury due to tourniquet application during arthroscopy is a well known problem. This study aimed to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and ketamine on hemodynamic and respiratory variables and on total anti-oxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS) and malondialdehyde (MDA) as markers of ischemia-reperfusion injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by a local ethics committee. The study was performed on patients undergoing arthroscopic operation under spinal anesthesia. Thirty patients were randomized into two groups: Group D (dexmedetomidine; n=15) and Group K (Ketamine; n=15). Spinal anesthesia at the L2-4 level was achieved using a 25G spinal needle with hyperbaric bupivacaine at a dose of 12-15 mg in all patients. In Group D, patients were sedated with dexmedetomidine at a dose of 0.3-0.5 μg/kg/h, while Group K received ketamine at a dose of 1-1.5 mg/kg/h. Hemodynamic parameters, oxygen saturation, Ramsey sedation scale (RSS), and TAS, TOS, and MDA levels were recorded.

RESULTS

Demographic parameters, TAS, TOS and MDA levels were similar between groups. In Group K, the TOS levels after tourniquet removal were significantly lower than at baseline and during the use of the tourniquet. Preoperative hemodynamic and respiratory variables were similar in both groups. Blood pressure values were decreased compared to baseline but these decreases were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing arthroscopy under spinal anesthesia, dexmedetomidine had effects similar to ketamine, led to insignificant alterations in hemodynamic and respiratory variables during surgery and had comparable effects on ischemia-reperfusion injury. Thus, we think that dexmedetomidine can be a safe alternative to ketamine as an intraoperative sedative.

A comparison of dexmedetomidine plus ketamine combination with dexmedetomidine alone for awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation: A randomized controlled study

Background and Aims:

We designed a study to compare the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine plus ketamine combination with dexmedetomidine alone in search of an ideal sedation regime, which would achieve better intubating conditions, hemodynamic stability, and sedation for awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 60 adult patients of age group 18-60 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II posted for elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each in this prospective randomized controlled double-blinded study. Groups I and II patients received a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine at 1 mcg/kg over 10 min followed by a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine at 0.5 mcg/kg/h. Upon completion of the dexmedetomidine bolus, Group I patients received 15 mg of ketamine and an infusion of ketamine at 20 mg/h followed by awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation, while Group II patients upon completion of dexmedetomidine bolus received plain normal saline instead of ketamine. Hemodynamic variables like heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation, electrocardiogram changes, sedation score (modified Observer assessment of alertness/sedation score), intubation score (vocal cord movement and coughing), grimace score, time taken for intubation, amount of lignocaine used were noted during the course of study. Patient satisfaction score and level of recall were assessed during the postoperative visit the next day.

Results:

Group I patients maintained a stable HR and MAP (<10% fall when compared with the baseline value). Sedation score (3.47 vs. 3.93) and patient satisfaction score were better in Group I patients. There was no significant difference in intubation scores, grimace scores, oxygen saturation and level of recall when compared between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

The use of dexmedetomidine plus ketamine combination in awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation provided better hemodynamic stability and sedation than dexmedetomidine alone.

Dexmedetomidine in current anaesthesia practice- a review

Dexmedetomidine is an alpha 2 adrenergic receptor agonist, even ten times more selective than clonidine. It is a very versatile drug in anaesthesia practice, finding place in increasing number of clinical scenarios and is no more limited to intensive care unit (ICU) sedation. It is analgesic, has anaesthetic sparing effect, sympatholytic property, useful in other procedural sedation and also has cardiovascular stabilizing property. It reduces delirium and preserves respiratory function which adds benefits to its uses. The aim of this review is to make awareness of its role in present anaesthesia and discuss its limitations at the same time.

Dexmedetomidine ameliorates monitored anaesthesia care

Background and Aims:

Monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) is meant for procedures under local anaesthesia. Various drugs have been used for this purpose. The recently introduced alpha2 agonist, dexmedetomidine provides “conscious sedation” with adequate analgesia and minimal respiratory depression. Hence, the safety and efficacy of two doses of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia were evaluated.

Methods:

A total of 90 patients were distributed in three groups of 30 each: Dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg (DL), dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg/kg (DH) and normal saline (C). The initial loading dose was followed by maintenance infusion of 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine or equivalent volume of saline. Study drug was started at least 15 min before placement of local anaesthesia. Drugs were titrated to a target level of sedation (=3 on Ramsay sedation scale [RSS]). Midazolam 0.02 mg/kg for RSS < 3 and fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg were supplemented as required. The statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square test and mean and anova analysis.

Results:

In groups DL and DH fewer patients required supplemental midazolam, 56.7% (17/30) and 40% (12/30), compared with control, where 86.7% (26/30)needed midazolam supplements. P = 0.000. Both groups DL and DH required significantly less fentanyl (84.8 and 83.9 μg) versus control (144.2 μg). There was significantly increased ease of achieving and maintaining targeted sedation and analgesia in both dexmedetomidine groups when compared with placebo (P = 0.001). Adverse events observed with dexmedetomidine were bradycardia and hypotension.

Conclusions:

Dexmedetomidine in the doses studied was considered safe and effective sedative and analgesic for patients undergoing procedures under MAC.

Effects of adding dexmedetomidine to levobupivacaine in axillary brachial plexus block

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have described effects of dexmedetomidine on peripheral nerve blocks, to date there is limited knowledge available on the impact of dexmedetomidine adjunct to levobupivacaine in axillary brachial plexus block.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of adding dexmedetomidine to levobupivacaine for an axillary brachial plexus block.

METHODS

A total of 64 patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery, in which an axillary block was used, were enrolled. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: in group L patients (n = 32), an axillary block was performed with 39 mL levobupivacaine 5% plus 1 mL of isotonic sodium chloride. In group D patients (n = 32), an axillary block was performed with 39 mL levobupivacaine 5% and 1 mL dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg(-1) plus isotonic sodium chloride. Demographic data, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation (Spo2), sensory and motor block onset times and block durations, time to first analgesic use, total analgesic need, intraoperative verbal analog scale, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) data, and side effects were recorded for each patient.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient and surgery characteristics between the 2 groups. Sensory block onset time was shorter in group D (P < 0.05). Sensory and motor block duration and time to first analgesic use were significantly longer in group D (P < 0.05), and the total need for analgesics was lower in group D (P < 0.05). Intraoperative 5- and 10-minute verbal analog scale values and postoperative VAS value at 12 hours were significantly lower in group D (P < 0.05). Intraoperative MAP and HR values, except at 5 minutes and postoperatively at 10 and 30 minutes and 1 and 2 hours, were significantly lower in group D (P < 0.01). Bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxemia, nausea, vomiting, and any other side effects were not seen in any patients.

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded in our study that adding dexmedetomidine to axillary brachial plexus block shortens sensory block onset time, increases the sensory and motor block duration and time to first analgesic use, and decreases total analgesic use with no side effects. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier ISRCTN67622282.

Optimal effect-site concentration of remifentanil when combined with dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing cystoscopy

Background

Cystoscopic procedure is a very common practice in the field of urology due to its ability to survey the bladder for a variety of indications. However, patients who undergo cystoscopy feel intense pain and discomfort. This study investigated the half maximal effective concentration (EC₅₀) of remifentanil in preventing cystoscope insertion pain under sedation using dexmedetomidine.

Methods

The study was prospectively conducted on 18 male patients, aged 18 to 65. Remifentail infusion was initiated together with dexmedetomidine, and started at a dose of 2.4 ng/ml on the first patient. The effect-site concentration (C_e) of remifentanil for each subsequent patient was determined by the previous patient's response using Dixon's up-and-down method with an interval of 0.3 ng/ml. Patients received a loading dose of 1.0 µg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.6 µg/kg/hr. After the patient's OAA/S score (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale) reached 3-4, and the C_e of remifentanil reached target concentration, the urologist was allowed to insert the cystoscope and the pain responses were observed.

Results

The effect-site concentration of remifentanil required to prevent cystoscope insertion pain in 50% of patients under sedation using dexmedetomidine was 1.30 ± 0.12 ng/ml by Dixon's up-and-down method. The logistic regression curve of the probability of response showed that the EC₅₀ and EC₉₅ values (95% confidence limits) of remifentanil were 1.33 ng/ml (1.12-1.52 ng/ml) and 1.58 ng/ml (1.44-2.48 ng/ml), respectively.

Conclusions

Cystoscopic procedure can be carried out successfully without any pain or adverse effects by optimal remifentanil effect-site concentration (EC₅₀, 1.33 ng/ml; EC₉₅, 1.58 ng/ ml) combined with sedation using dexmedetomidine.

Comparison of effects of dexmedetomidine-ketamine and dexmedetomidine-midazolam combinations in transurethral procedures

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of dexmedetomidine-ketamine and dexmedetomidine-midazolam combinations on the recovery time, hemodynamic and respiratory variables, and side effects in patients undergoing transurethral procedures.

METHODS

Sixty patients scheduled for elective outpatient transurethral procedure were randomized into 2 groups. In the group K, a ketamine-dexmedetomidine combination was administered, and in the group M, midazolam-dexmedetomidine was administered, to provide sedation/analgesia. Pain and sedation levels were assessed using visual analog score (VAS) and Ramsey Sedation Scale, respectively. The recovery time was assessed with the scale of Aldrete. Time was measured and recorded to the moment at which patient responses brought the Aldrete score to 10 points. Time to eye opening and length of stay in the recovery room were recorded.

RESULTS

Group M showed significantly lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) values at 5 and 10 minutes during the procedure when compared with group K (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively). Visual analogue scale scores were greater in group M than in group K at 5 and 10 minutes for the transurethral procedure (P = .039 and P = .028, respectively). Sedation scores were similar between groups during the procedure. Time to eye opening and length of recovery room stay were shorter (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively), and Aldrete scores were greater in group K than group M.

CONCLUSION

Both combinations provided satisfactory sedation levels, but the dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination provided better analgesia and hemodynamic stability, with less nausea and vomiting and shorter recovery time, than the dexmedetomidine-midazolam combination.

Dexmedetomidine is effective for monitored anesthesia care in outpatients undergoing cataract surgery

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine has a sedative analgesic property without respiratory depression. This study evaluated the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an appropriate sedative drug for monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in outpatients undergoing cataract surgery on both eyes compared with combination of propofol and alfentanil.

METHODS

Thirty-one eligible patients were randomly divided into two groups on the first operation day. Dexmedetomidine was administered in group D at 0.6 µg/kg/h, and propofol and alfentanil was infused concomitantly in group P at a rate of 2 mg/kg/h and 20 µg/kg/h, respectively. Sedation was titrated at Ramsay sedation score 3. Iowa satisfaction with anesthesia scale (ISAS) of the patients was evaluated postoperatively. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) were recorded throughout the surgery. For the second operation, the group assignments were exchanged.

RESULTS

Postoperative ISAS was 50.3 (6.2) in group D and 42.7 (8.7) in group P, which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). SBP was significantly lower in group D compared with group P from the beginning of the operation. HR, RR, and SpO(2) were comparable between the two groups. There were 8 cases (25.8%) of hypertension in group P, and 1 case (3.2%) in group D (P < 0.05). In contrast, 1 case (3.2%) of hypotension and 1 case (3.2%) of bradycardia occurred in group D.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the combined use of propofol and alfentanil, dexmedetomidine could be used appropriately for MAC in cataract surgery with better satisfaction from the patients and a more stable cardiovascular state.

Integrative review utilizing dexmedetomidine as an anesthetic for monitored anesthesia care and regional anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is increasingly being used as a sedative for monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with regional anesthesia. This literature review critiques 12 studies that used dexmedetomidine as the primary anesthetic. Study designs include prospective, retrospective case studies and randomized double-blind and randomized single-blind studies.

METHODS

Twelve studies utilizing dexmedetomidine as the primary anesthetic that were found via electronic databases including CINAHL, Ovid, and MEDLINE. All studies were completed within the past 10 years and met inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The results of dexmedetomidine efficacy as a primary anesthetic agent for MAC procedures varied. There is significant evidence showing that dexmedetomidine is not an appropriate anesthetic for colonoscopies, though there were mixed results showing its efficacy in ENT and dental procedures. Despite that, dexmedetomidine has been shown to be successful in orthopedic, vascular, plastic, lithotripsy, and diagnostic procedures, though patients are at increased risk of recall.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine is an effective MAC anesthetic for specific procedures. Further research is needed to determine which specific procedures are appropriate for dexmedetomidine. Lastly, dexmedetomidine is more costly than current MAC anesthetics, making it difficult to justify its use.

Comparison of three different analgesic protocols during shockwave lithotripsy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is one of the most important treatment modalities for urinary stone disease. The procedure may cause pain, and patient relaxation and cooperation are crucial in maintaining stone localization for optimal fragmentation and patient comfort during the procedure. As yet, there is not a standard analgesic protocol for patients undergoing SWL. We aimed to use three different analgesic agents and compare their efficacy during SWL in this study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Written informed consents were obtained from 95 patients with kidney stones, and they were randomized to receive lornoxicam (group L, n=32 patients), paracetamol (group P, n=31 patients), and tramadol with a patient-controlled analgesia device (group T, n=32 patients). All groups received patient-controlled analgesia with tramadol during the SWL procedure. The intensity of pain was evaluated with a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 41.87 ± 16.53 years, 44.07 ± 11.48 years, and 41.24 ± 14.82 years in group L, group P, and group T, respectively. No significant differences were found between the three groups concerning patient age, stone location, or session duration (P>0.05). The mean VAS scores and analgesic consumption were lower in group L compared with other groups (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that additional administration of analgesics was decreased with intravenous lornoxicam in comparison with paracetamol and only tramadol.

Impact of intraoperative dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia following gynecologic surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion on postoperative analgesia in women undergoing major open and laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent major open and laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia from January 2007 to October 2008. Patients who received intraoperative opioids with a dexmedetomidine infusion were compared to those who received opioids alone. Patients who received regional anesthesia, remifentanil, or other analgesic adjuncts were excluded. Data were collected in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) for all patients, and for 24 hours in the open group.

RESULTS

A total of 580 women were included in the analysis (293 open surgery [103 dexmedetomidine, 190 controls] and 287 laparoscopic surgery [101 dexmedetomidine, 186 controls]). In the open group, patients who received dexmedetomidine required less opioids intraoperatively and in PACU. However, there was no difference in the duration of PACU stay, opioid consumption from PACU discharge to 24 h or in the need for rescue antiemetics. Pain scores were not different in PACU. In the laparoscopic group, there was no difference between the groups in intraoperative or PACU opioids, pain scores, or need for rescue antiemetics. Patients in the dexmedetomidine laparoscopic group needed less inhaled agents intraoperatively, but stayed longer in PACU.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion provided an opioid sparing effect intraoperatively and in PACU in women undergoing open gynecologic surgery but did not reduce the need for rescue antiemetics or the duration of PACU stay and did not provide any benefit beyond PACU discharge. For laparoscopic surgery, dexmedetomidine infusion did not provide any analgesic benefit. Limitations of the study include its retrospective non-randomized nature, absence of strict protocol for dexmedetomidine administration and lack of data beyond PACU discharge in patients having laparoscopic surgery.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery under sub-Tenon's anesthesia

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic, respiratory effects, the recovery profile, surgeons, and patients satisfaction with dexmedetomidine sedation compared with those of propofol sedation in patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery under sub-Tenon’s anesthesia.

Methods:

Sixty patients were enrolled in this prospective, single-blind, randomized study. The patients were divided into two groups to receive either dexmedetomidine (group D) or propofol (group P). Sedation level was titrated to a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of 3. Hemodynamic and respiratory effects, postoperative recovery time, analgesic effects, surgeons and patients satisfaction were assessed.

Results:

Both groups provided a similar significant reduction in heart rate and mean arterial pressure compared with baseline values. The respiratory rate values of the dexmedetomidine group were significantly higher than those in the propofol group. The oxygen saturation values of the dexmedetomidine group were significantly higher than those of the propofol group. The expired CO₂ was similar in both groups. Postoperatively, the time to achieve an Aldrete score of 10 was similar in both groups. Dexmedetomidine patients have significantly lower visual analog scale for pain than propofol patients. The surgeon satisfaction with patients’ sedation was similar for both groups. The patients’ satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine at similar sedation levels with propofol was associated with equivalent hemodynamic effects, maintaining an adequate respiratory function, similar time of discharge from PACU, better analgesic properties, similar surgeon’s satisfaction, and higher patient’s satisfaction. Thus, dexmedetomidine may prove to be a valuable adjuvant for sedation in patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery under sub-Tenon’s anesthesia.

Propofol/dexmedetomidine and propofol/ketamine combinations for anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing transcatheter atrial septal defect closure: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Children undergoing cardiac catheterization usually need general anesthesia or deep sedation.

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to compare the effects of propofol/dexmedetomidine and propofol/ketamine combinations on recovery time and hemodynamic parameters in pediatric patients undergoing transcatheter atrial septal defect (ASD) closure.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized study. Pediatric patients with ASD were randomly assigned into 2 groups to receive propofol/dexmedetomidine or propofol/ketamine. The dexmedetomidine group received an infusion over 10 minutes of dexmedetomidine 1 microg/kg and propofol 2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg bolus for induction, then an infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.5 microg/kg/h and propofol 4 to 6 mg/kg/h for maintenance. In the ketamine group, patients received the same dose of propofol and ketamine 1 mg/kg for induction and 0.5 mg/kg/h by infusion for maintenance. The procedure was performed using both fluoroscopy and transesophageal echocardiography. Hemodynamic data, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded before and after induction, 1 and 5 minutes after intubation, every 10 minutes thereafter during the procedure, and after extubation by researchers blinded to the study drugs. Recovery time, the primary outcome, was evaluated by a modified Steward score; a score of >or=6 means that the patient is awake or responds to verbal stimuli, has purposeful motor activity, and coughs on command. The time to reach a modified Steward score of >or=6 was recorded. The secondary outcome was the effects on the hemodynamic variables. Creatine kinase muscle-brain subunit, myoglobin, cardiac troponin I, and brain natriuretic peptide were the biochemical variables measured. Patients were monitored for respiratory (changes in oxygen status) and hemodynamic adverse effects (heart rate changes, blood pressure changes) until the second hour in the intensive care unit after the operation was concluded.

RESULTS

Nine patients each were randomly assigned to propofol/dexmedetomidine and propofol/ketamine. The demographic and clinical parameters were not significantly different between groups. In the dexmedetomidine group, 5 of the patients were male, mean (SD) age was 12.5 (10.4) years, and mean weight was 40.8 (27.8) kg. In the ketamine group, 3 patients were male, mean age was 10.1 (4.5) years, and mean weight was 30.0 (15.2) kg. The recovery time was significantly longer in the ketamine group than in the dexmedetomidine group (10.5 [3.4] vs 5.7 [0.8] minutes; P = 0.01). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were not significantly different between groups in any study period. Heart rate values were significantly higher in the ketamine group at 5 minutes after intubation (106.6 vs 84.2 beats/min), 10 minutes (111.8 vs 87.4 beats/min) and 30 minutes (110.0 vs 89.6 beats/min) perioperatively, and after extubation (126.8 vs 92.2 beats/min) (all, P < 0.05). In the dexmedetomidine group, one patient experienced shivering and one reported nausea; in the ketamine group, one patient reported nausea. Neither respiratory depression nor severe hypotension (ie, >20% change over baseline or requiring intervention) was observed in any patient. One patient developed agitation in the ketamine group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study, both dexmedetomidine and ketamine in combination with propofol were well tolerated in these pediatric patients who required ASD closure. The recovery period was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group.

Epidural anesthesia is effective for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of pancreatic and biliary calculi

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of thoracic epidural analgesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).

METHODS: ESWL is an effective, non-invasive technique for the treatment of difficult pancreatic and large bile duct calculi. The procedure is often painful and requires large doses of analgesics. Many different anesthetic techniques have been used. Patients with either large bile duct calculi or pancreatic duct calculi which could not be extracted by routine endoscopic methods were selected. Thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) was routinely used in all the subjects unless contraindicated. Bupivacaine 0.25% with or without clonidine was used to block the segments D6 to D12. The dose was calculated depending on the age, height and weight of the patient. It was usually 1-2 mL per segment blocked.

RESULTS: Ninety eight percent of the 1509 patients underwent ESWL under TEA. The subjects selected were within American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I to III. ESWL using EA permitted successful elimination of bile duct or pancreatic calculi with minimal morbidity. The procedure time was shorter in patients with TEA than in those who underwent ESWL under total intravenous anesthesia.

CONCLUSION: Almost all patients undergoing ESWL with EA had effective blocks with a single catheter insertion and local anesthetic injection.

Update on dexmedetomidine: use in nonintubated patients requiring sedation for surgical procedures

Dexmedetomidine was introduced two decades ago as a sedative and supplement to sedation in the intensive care unit for patients whose trachea was intubated. However, since that time dexmedetomidine has been commonly used as a sedative and hypnotic for patients undergoing procedures without the need for tracheal intubation. This review focuses on the application of dexmedetomidine as a sedative and/or total anesthetic in patients undergoing procedures without the need for tracheal intubation. Dexmedetomidine was used for sedation in monitored anesthesia care (MAC), airway procedures including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, dental procedures, ophthalmological procedures, head and neck procedures, neurosurgery, and vascular surgery. Additionally, dexmedetomidine was used for the sedation of pediatric patients undergoing different type of procedures such as cardiac catheterization and magnetic resonance imaging. Dexmedetomidine loading dose ranged from 0.5 to 5 μg kg⁻¹, and infusion dose ranged from 0.2 to 10 μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine was administered in conjunction with local anesthesia and/or other sedatives. Ketamine was administered with dexmedetomidine and opposed its bradycardiac effects. Dexmedetomidine may by useful in patients needing sedation without tracheal intubation. The literature suggests potential use of dexmedetomidine solely or as an adjunctive agent to other sedation agents. Dexmedetomidine was especially useful when spontaneous breathing was essential such as in procedures on the airway, or when sudden awakening from sedation was required such as for cooperative clinical examination during craniotomies.