Comparison of Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol for Sedation after Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty

Dexmedetomidine Utilization During Air Medical Transport for Agitated Patients

Fixed Wing Air Ambulance providers routinely transport patients agitated from traumatic brain injury sequelae across long distances in a unique environment. The current paradigm limits options available to air medical clinicians to those routinely found on ground based, short distance vehicles, plus whatever a sending facility might be willing to provide. We postulate that dexmedetomidine offers a safe, effective alternative to improve patient care and enhance the safe operation of aircraft.

Opioid-sparing anesthesia with dexmedetomidine provides stable hemodynamic and short hospital stay in non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a propensity score matching cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 agonist with anti-anxiety, sedative, and analgesic effects and causes a lesser degree of respiratory depression. We hypothesized that the use of dexmedetomidine in non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) may reduce opioid-related complications such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), dyspnea, constipation, dizziness, skin itching, and cause minimal respiratory depression, and stable hemodynamic status.

METHODS

Patients who underwent non-intubated VATS lung wedge resection with propofol combined with dexmedetomidine (group D) or alfentanil (group O) between December 2016 and May 2022 were enrolled in this retrospective propensity score matching cohort study. Intraoperative vital signs, arterial blood gas data, perioperative results and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Of 100 patients included in the study (group D, 50 and group O, 50 patients), group D had a significantly lower degree of decrement in the heart rate and the blood pressure than group O. Intraoperative one-lung arterial blood gas revealed lower pH and significant ETCO₂. The common opioid-related side effects, including PONV, dyspnea, constipation, dizziness, and skin itching, all of which occurred more frequently in group O than in group D. Patients in group O had significantly longer postoperative hospital stay and total hospital stay than group D, which might be due to opioid-related side effects postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of dexmedetomidine in non-intubated VATS resulted in a significant reduction in perioperative opioid-related complications and maintenance with acceptable hemodynamic performance. These clinical outcomes found in our retrospective study may enhance patient satisfaction and shorten the hospital stay.

Comparing Efficacy of Propofol and Dexmedetomidine in Conscious Sedation During Stapedotomy Surgery

Introduction

We decided to compare dexmedetomidine with propofol regarding several anesthetic and surgical aspects, during stapedotomy done under conscious sedation.

Materials and Method

Thirty patients aged 20-50 years with (American Society of Anesthesiology) ASA class I-II, were assigned to two groups of propofol and dexmedetomidine using a random number table. In dexmedetomidine group, patients received dexmedetomidine infusion (0.5 µg/kg/h) and in the control group, propofol was administered (3 mg/kg/h).Time to reach the desired Ramsey Sedation Score (RSS) and time to reach Aldrete score ≥ 9; incidence of inadvertent movement and amnesia; as well as patients' and surgeons' level of satisfaction and degree of bleeding was recorded. Data on hemodynamic variables were monitored and recorded at several intervals.

Results

The mean time taken to reach the RSS (2-4) was 10.3 ± 2.1 min in dexmedetomidine group and 3.1 ± 1.2 min in propofol group. Time to reach Aldrete score ≥ 9 for patients sedated with dexmedetomidine was 8.6 ± 2.1 min and for propofol group was 4.6 ± 1.4 min (p value < 0.05).There were also significant differences between two groups in terms of surgeon's satisfaction with sedation, and the amount of intra operative bleeding.

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that dexmedetomidine is a better choice for conscious sedation than propofol. However, the time to reach the required sedation in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly longer.

Outcomes of dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Guidelines have recommended the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery, and propofol monotherapy for other patients. Further outcome data are required for these drugs.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU delirium, all-cause mortality, and haemodynamic effects. Intensive care patients were analysed separately as cardiac surgical, medical/noncardiac surgical, those with sepsis, and patients in neurocritical care. Subgroup analyses based on age and dosage were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-one trials (N=3948) were included. Dexmedetomidine did not significantly affect ICU length of stay across any ICU patient subtype when compared with propofol, but it reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -0.67 h; 95% confidence interval: -1.31 to -0.03 h; P=0.041; low certainty) and the risk of ICU delirium (risk ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.87; P=0.019; high certainty) across cardiac surgical patients. Dexmedetomidine was also associated with a greater risk of bradycardia across a variety of ICU patients. Subgroup analyses revealed that age might affect the incidence of haemodynamic side-effects and mortality among cardiac surgical and medical/other surgical patients.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine did not significantly impact ICU length of stay compared with propofol, but it significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and the risk of delirium in cardiac surgical patients. It also significantly increased the risk of bradycardia across ICU patient subsets.

Analgesia and patient comfort after enhanced recovery after surgery in uvulopalatopharyngoplasty: a randomised controlled pilot study

Background

Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty(UPPP) is the most prevalent surgical treatment of obstructive sleep apnea, but postoperative pharyngeal pain may affect patient comfort. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathway has been proved beneficial to many types of surgery but not to UPPP yet. The aim of this pilot study was to preliminarily standrize an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for UPPP, to assess whether it has positive effects on reducing postoperative pharyngeal pain and improving patient comfort, and to test its feasibility for an international multicentre study.

Methods

This randomised controlled study analysed 116 patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) who were undergoing UPPP in a single tertiary care hospital. They were randomly divided according to treatment: the ERAS group (those who received ERAS treatment) and the control group (those who received traditional treatment). Ninety-five patients completed the assessment (ERAS group, 59 patients; control group, 36 patients). Pharyngeal pain and patient comfort were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 30 min and at 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after UPPP. Complications, hospitalisation duration, and hospital cost were recorded.

Results

The VAS scores for resting pain and swallowing pain were significantly lower in the ERAS group than those in the control group at 30 min and at 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. Patient comfort was improved in the ERAS group. The hospitalisation duration and cost were comparable between the groups. The incidence of complications showed an increasing trend in the ERAS group.

Conclusion

The ERAS protocol significantly relieved pharyngeal pain after UPPP and improved comfort in patients with OSA, which showed the prospect for an larger study. Meanwhile a potential increase of post-operative complications in the ERAS group should be noticed.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (23/09/2018, ChiCTR1800018537)

Evaluating sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and morphine in the patients with opioid use disorder undergoing cataract surgery

BACKGROUND

Considering that patients with opioid dependence are at higher risk of inadequate sedation during operations, and the rescue analgesia in these patients are usually greater than the general population; the aim of this study was comparison of sedation quality of dexmedetomidine and morphine in patients with opioid use disorder undergoing cataract surgery.

METHODS

This clinical trial was conducted on 60 patients with opioid use disorder underwent cataract surgery that were referred to Feiz Hospital, Isfahan, Iran in 2018. Patients were randomly divided into two groups as the dexmedetomidine group started 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine in 10 minutes before surgery and then continued with 0.5 μg/kg/h while the morphine group received 0.1 mg/kg of morphine before surgery. Sedation score, pain intensity, hemodynamic parameters, analgesic request and side effects were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant differences between groups based on Ramsay score before, during and after surgery (P > 0.05), the pain intensity in the morphine group was significantly lower during the recovery period than dexmedetomidine group, the duration of recovery and sedation in the morphine group was significantly more than the dexmedetomidine group, and nausea and vomiting and eye pain in the morphine group were significantly higher than dexmedetomidine (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Morphine usage was more effective in pain relief than dexmedetomidine in patients with opioid use disorder undergoing cataract surgery, but the complications and recovery time were higher in morphine usage. Also the sedation was similar in both groups.

Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on current scientific evidence. This guideline seeks to address questions regarding the intraoperative care of patients with OSA, including airway management, anesthetic drug and agent effects, and choice of anesthesia type. Given the paucity of high-quality studies with regard to study design and execution in this perioperative field, recommendations were to a large part developed by subject-matter experts through consensus processes, taking into account the current scientific knowledge base and quality of evidence. This guideline may not be suitable for all clinical settings and patients and is not intended to define standards of care or absolute requirements for patient care; thus, assessment of appropriateness should be made on an individualized basis. Adherence to this guideline cannot guarantee successful outcomes, but recommendations should rather aid health care professionals and institutions to formulate plans and develop protocols for the improvement of the perioperative care of patients with OSA, considering patient-related factors, interventions, and resource availability. Given the groundwork of a comprehensive systematic literature review, these recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts at the time of publication. While periodic reevaluations of literature are needed, novel scientific evidence between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from the guideline may be justifiable and should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine versus Ketofol for Sedation of Postoperative Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Patients with sleep apnea are prone to postoperative respiratory complications, requiring restriction of sedatives during perioperative care. We performed a prospective randomized study on 24 patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who underwent elective surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were equally divided into two groups: Group Dex: received dexmedetomidine loading dose 1 mcg/kg IV over 10 min followed by infusion of 0.2–0.7 mcg/kg/hr; Group KFL: received ketofol as an initial bolus dose 500 mcg/kg IV (ketamine/propofol 1 : 1) and maintenance dose of 5–10 mcg/kg/min. Sedation level (Ramsay sedation score), bispectral index (BIS), duration of mechanical ventilation, surgical intensive care unit (SICU) stay, and mean time to extubation were evaluated. Complications (hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, postextubation apnea, respiratory depression, and desaturation) and number of patients requiring reintubation were recorded. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in BIS at the third hour only (Group DEX 63.00 ± 3.542 and Group KFL 66.42 ± 4.010, p value = 0.036). Duration of mechanical ventilation, SICU stay, and extubation time showed no statistically significant differences. No complications were recorded in both groups. Thus, dexmedetomidine was associated with lesser duration of mechanical ventilation and time to extubation than ketofol, but these differences were not statistically significant.

Bispectral Index Can Reliably Detect Deep Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Prospective Multicenter Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Excessively deep sedation is prevalent in mechanically ventilated patients and often considered suboptimal. We hypothesized that the bispectral index (BIS), a quantified electroencephalogram instrument, would accurately detect deep levels of sedation.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 90 critically ill mechanically ventilated patients who were receiving sedation. The BIS was monitored for 24 hours and compared with the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) evaluated every 4 hours. Deep sedation was defined as a RASS of -3 to -5. Threshold values of baseline BIS (the lowest value before RASS assessment) and stimulated BIS (the highest value after standardized assessment) for detecting deep sedation were determined in a training set (45 patients, 262 RASS assessments). Diagnostic accuracy was then analyzed in a validation set (45 patients, 264 RASS assessments).

RESULTS

Deep sedation was only prescribed in 6 (6.7%) patients, but 76 patients (84.4%) had at least 1 episode of deep sedation. Thresholds for detecting deep sedation of 50 for baseline and 80 for stimulated BIS were identified, with respective areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.771 (95% confidence interval, 0.714-0.828) and 0.805 (0.752-0.857). The sensitivity and specificity of baseline BIS were 94.0% and 66.5% and of stimulated BIS were 91.0% and 66.5%. When baseline and stimulated BIS were combined, the sensitivity, specificity, and clinical utility index were 85.0% (76.1%-91.1%), 85.9% (79.5%-90.7%), and 66.9% (57.8%-76.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining baseline and stimulated BIS may help detect deep sedation in mechanically ventilated patients.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Short-Course Deep Sedation Therapy for the Treatment of Intracerebral Hemorrhage After Surgery: A Non-Randomized Control Study

Background

While mild and moderate sedation have been widely used to reduce sudden agitation in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients after surgery, agitation is still a frequent problem, which may cause postoperative blood pressure fluctuation. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-course deep sedation for the treatment of ICH after surgery.

Material/Methods

A total of 41 ICH patients who received surgery, including traditional craniotomy hematoma removal and decompressive craniectomy, were including in this non-randomized control study. Patients in the deep sedation group received continuous postoperative sedation with a target course for ≤12 hours and reached SAS scores of 1~2. Patients in the traditional sedition group received continuous light sedation and reached SAS scores of 3~4. Additional therapeutic interventions included antihypertensive treatment, mechanical ventilation, tracheotomy, and re-operation.

Results

Patients in the deep sedation group had deeper sedation degree, and lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Residual hematoma after surgery in patients in the deep sedation group were smaller on the second, seventh, and fourteenth day after surgery (p=0.023, 0.003, 0.004, respectively). The 3-month mortality and quality of life of patients in the deep sedation group were lower and better than that of patients in the traditional sedation group, respectively (p=0.044, p<0.01). No significant difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and ICU days were observed between the two groups.

Conclusions

Short-course deep sedation therapy in ICH patients after surgery is efficient in controlling postoperative blood pressure, reducing re-bleeding, and improving clinical prognosis.