Comparison of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiovascular surgery

Propofol infusion syndrome & COVID-19 in a victim of multiple gunshot wounds: Diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas

Background

COVID-19 has become a global pandemic. It has affected patients the world over, and when minimally symptomatic, it can be an incidental finding in trauma patients. It may also make the diagnosis of other rare conditions more difficult due to clinical finding superimposition.

Case presentation

A 23-year-old male was transferred to our Trauma Center in hemorrhagic shock after sustaining multiple gunshot wounds in the upper back. Imaging showed a retained projectile in the right pharyngeal area, a right upper lobe contusion, and a right hemopneumothorax; with additional infiltrates on both lungs suggestive of atelectasis. After intubation, a propofol infusion was started for sedation. Shortly thereafter worsening acidosis, refractory hypoxia, and hypotension with additional laboratory anomalies ensued, as the PCR screening for SARS-CoV-2 returned positive. The clinical findings suggested COVID-19 pneumonia with possible superimposed Propofol Infusion Syndrome. The drug was stopped, and the symptoms improved.

Conclusion

A high index of suspicion is necessary to manage unusual pathologies and difficult differential diagnoses, and this is especially true during the ongoing pandemic.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Comparison between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Sedation in Patients with Intubation after Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

The aim of the investigation is to clarify the beneficial sedative effects for patients with postoperative intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) after oral and maxillofacial surgery. Forty patients with postoperative intubation were divided into two groups in method of random number table: midazolam group and dexmedetomidine group. The Ramsay score, the behavioral pain scale (BPS) score, SpO₂, HR, MAP, and RR were recorded before sedation (T0), 30 minutes (T1), 1 hour (T2), 2 hours (T3), 6 hours (T4), and 12 hours (T5) after dexmedetomidine or midazolam initiation in intensive care unit, and 10 minutes after extubation (T6). The rate of incidences of side effects was calculated. Sedation with midazolam was as good as standard sedation with dexmedetomidine in maintaining target sedation level. The BPS score in the midazolam group was higher than that in the dexmedetomidine group. The time of tracheal catheter extraction in the dexmedetomidine group was shorter than that in the midazolam group (p ≤ 0.001). The incidence of bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group was higher than that in the midazolam group (p = 0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (p = 0.732). The incidence of respiratory depression of group midazolam was higher than that of group dexmedetomidine (p = 0.018). The incidence of delirium in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the midazolam group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.003). Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can meet the needs for sedation in ICU patients. And dexmedetomidine can improve patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam.

Dexmedetomidine in Adult Patients in Cardiac Surgery Critical Care: An Evidence-Based Review

Although several options are available for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit, the selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist dexmedetomidine may offer advantages for patients after cardiac surgery. The author conducted a review of the literature on the use of dexmedetomidine in the cardiac surgery population to determine possible advantages and disadvantages in this patient population. Although the use of dexmedetomidine has not been conclusively shown to change overall morbidity and mortality and may be associated with higher drug cost, its other demonstrated effects offer advantages for postoperative cardiac surgery patients that other forms of sedation cannot match.

Sedation selection to reduce delirium risk: Why dexmedetomidine may be a better choice

ABSTRACT

In 2018, the Society of Critical Care Medicine published the Pain Agitation Delirium Immobility and Sleep Disruption guidelines that recommend protocol assessment-based pain and sedation management. Since the publication of these guidelines, multiple studies and meta-analyses have been conducted comparing sedative options in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) setting including dexmedetomidine and propofol. Sedatives are on a continuum when it comes to delirium risk. Propofol, like benzodiazepines, causes changes in sleep patterns by suppressing the rapid eye movement sleep stage not seen with dexmedetomidine, worsening the ICU patient's already poor sleep quality. This reduction in sleep quality increases the risk of delirium. As patient advocates, advanced practice nurses play a vital role in minimizing risk of patient harm. Sedative use and management are areas of opportunity for nurses to minimize this risk. When sedatives are needed, daily sedation vacations should be conducted to re-evaluate the minimum required dose. These practices can reduce sedation risks for delirium and allow for bedside screening and early detection.

Sedation effects by dexmedetomidine versus propofol in decreasing duration of mechanical ventilation after open heart surgery

Objective:

The objective of this study was to compare the suitability (efficacy and safety) of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after the cardiovascular surgery for the postoperative sedation before weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Background:

Sedation is prescribed in patients admitted to the ICU after cardiovascular surgery to reduce the patient discomfort, ventilator asynchrony, to make mechanical ventilation tolerable, prevent accidental device removal, and to reduce metabolic demands during respiratory and hemodynamic instability. Careful drug selection for sedation by the ICU team, postcardiovascular surgery should be done so that patients can be easily weaned from mechanical ventilation after sedation is stopped to achieve a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and decreased the length of stay in ICU.

Methods:

A total of 50 patients admitted to the ICU after cardiovascular surgery, aged from 18 to 55 years and requiring mechanical ventilation on arrival to the ICU were enrolled in a prospective and comparative study. They were randomly divided into two groups as follows: Group D patients (n = 25) received dexmedetomidine in a maintenance infusion dose of 0.8 μg/kg/h and Group P patients (n = 25) received propofol in a maintenance infusion dose of 1.5 mg/kg/h. The patients were assessed for 12 h postoperatively, and dosing of the study drug was adjusted based on sedation assessment performed with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). The patients were required to be within the RASS target range of −2 to +1 at the time of study drug initiation. At every 4 h, the following information was recorded from each patient such as heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), arterial blood gases (ABG), tidal volume (TV), exhaled TV, maximum inspiratory pressure, respiratory rate and the rapid shallow breathing index, duration of mechanical ventilation, midazolam and fentanyl dose requirements, and financial costs.

Results:

The study results showed no statistically significant difference between both groups with regard to age and body mass index. Group P patients were more associated with lower MAP and HR than Group D patients. There was no statistically significant difference between groups with regard to ABG findings, oxygenation, ventilation, and respiratory parameters. There was significant difference between both the groups in midazolam and fentanyl dose requirement and financial costs with a value of P < 0.05.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine is safer and equally effective agent for the sedation of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU after cardiovascular surgery compared to the patients receiving propofol, with good hemodynamic stability, and equally rapid extubation time.

Comparison of Cognitive Impairments After Intensive Care Unit Sedation Using Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Among Older Patients

Despite the high prevalence of cognitive impairment among older adults, little is known about the association of the selection of dexmedetomidine and propofol on cognitive functions of patients after a critical illness. Patients aged ≥70 years who received intensive care unit (ICU) care from Cangzhou Central Hospital between 2013 and 2016 were enrolled and randomized into a dexmedetomidine group and a propofol group with matched demographic and clinical characteristics. At discharge from the ICU and 4 weeks later, the cognitive status of patients was assessed and compared using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment system. There were 164 patients included in the dexmedetomidine group and 159 patients in the propofol group. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in terms of age, female sex, body weight, educational level, ICU and hospital stay, comorbidities, and medications. Further, patients from the 2 groups at ICU discharge did not demonstrate significant difference on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment component scores, which showed significant differences between the 2 groups 4 weeks later (P < .05). Moreover, dexmedetomidine and propofol showed different levels of impacts on the cognitive function of patients discharged from the postanesthesia care unit, neurological ICU, and medical ICU. This study demonstrated that patients discharged from the ICU who received propofol for sedation showed less impairment on the cognitive functions when compared with patients who received dexmedetomidine during ICU care 4 weeks after discharge. Despite some limitations, this study provides insights to the decision-making process in the selection of appropriate sedation strategy, especially for the elderly patients.

Evaluating the use of dexmedetomidine for the reduction of delirium: An integrative review

Delirium, an acute change in cognition and attention not secondary to a pre-existing condition or dementia, affects nearly 40,000 hospitalized older adults in the United States every day. Delirium is associated with increased healthcare costs of $16,303 to $64,421 per patient. To date, no single pharmacological intervention is effective in preventing or treating delirium in critically ill patients. Evidence suggests the alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine, may reduce or prevent delirium. An integrative review examined whether dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower incidence of delirium compared to other analgesic and sedation strategies. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guided this review and 16 publications met quality criteria for inclusion. These studies support that postoperative administration of dexmedetomidine may reduce delirium in patients, particularly following cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to determine the benefits of dexmedetomidine in patients on mechanical ventilation and optimal timing and duration of administration.

Perioperative Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Cardiac Surgery Patients With Dexmedetomidine-Based Versus Propofol-Based Regimens

BACKGROUND

Sedative agents used during cardiac surgery can influence the patient's time to extubation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, and incidence of delirium.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the effects of the intraoperative and postoperative use of dexmedetomidine versus propofol infusions.

METHODS

This 19-month retrospective observational study at an academic medical center included 278 patients 18 years of age or older who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), valve replacement surgery, or combined CABG plus valve surgery, who received either a dexmedetomidine or propofol infusion in addition to general anesthesia intraoperatively. The primary outcome was time to extubation. The secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital length of stay and incidence of delirium.

RESULTS

Use of dexmedetomidine (n = 69) as an intraoperative and postoperative sedative as opposed to propofol (n = 209) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of extubation (ie, shorter time to extubation; hazard ratio = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.21-2.19, P = 0.001). There was no significant association between use of dexmedetomidine and ICU discharge ( P = 0.99), hospital discharge ( P = 0.52), and incidence of delirium ( P = 0.27) after adjusting for other covariates. Conclusion and Relevance: Dexmedetomidine increased the likelihood of extubation when compared with propofol, with no increase in ICU or hospital length of stay or incidence of delirium. Our study is unique in that there was no crossover between patients who received dexmedetomidine and propofol infusions intraoperatively and postoperatively Dexmedetomidine-based regimens could serve as a suitable alternative to propofol-based regimens for fast-track extubation.

A comparison between dexmedetomidine and propofol on extubation times in postoperative adult cardiac surgery patients: a systematic review protocol

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effects of dexmedetomidine compared to propofol on time to extubation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and mortality in postoperative adult cardiac surgery patients.The specific review question is as follows:What is the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared to propofol on times to extubation, ICU LOS, hospital LOS and mortality in postoperative adults undergoing cardiac surgery?

A new approach to the prevention and treatment of delirium in elderly patients in the intensive care unit

The pronounced prevalence of delirium in geriatric patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and its increased morbidity and mortality is a well-established phenomenon. The purpose of this review is to explore the potential use of dexmedetomidine in preventing or managing ICU delirium in older patients. Articles used were identified and selected through multiple search engines, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Keywords such as dexmedetomidine, delirium, geriatric, ICU delirium, delirium in elderly, and palliative were used to obtain the specific articles used for this paper and restricted to articles published in 1990 or later. Articles specifically looking at the use of dexmedetomidine as compared to a study drug and its potential for use in ICU patients, as opposed to overall reviews of dexmedetomidine, were compared. When compared to benzodiazepines for the prevention or treatment of ICU delirium in the elderly, dexmedetomidine was associated with a reduction in delirium, as well as decreased morbidity and mortality. Dexmedetomidine has also been shown to be effective in limiting risk factors associated with ICU delirium such as length and depth of sedation. As opposed to benzodiazepines or opiates, dexmedetomidine provides effective analgesia, sympatholysis, and anxiolysis without causing respiratory depression and allows a patient to more effectively interact with practitioners. The review of these nine articles indicates that these favorable attributes and overall decreased duration and incidence of delirium make dexmedetomidine a viable option in preventing or reducing ICU delirium in high-risk geriatric patients and as a palliative adjunct to help control symptoms and stressors.

Dexmedetomidine attenuates oxidative stress induced lung alveolar epithelial cell apoptosis in vitro

Background. Oxidative stress plays a pivotal role in the lung injuries of critical ill patients. This study investigates the protection conferred by α₂ adrenoceptor agonist dexmedetomidine (Dex) from lung alveolar epithelial cell injury induced by hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) and the underlying mechanisms. Methods. The lung alveolar epithelial cell line, A549, was cultured and then treated with 500 μM H₂O₂ with or without Dex (1 nM) or Dex in combination with atipamezole (10 nM), an antagonist of α₂ receptors. Their effect on mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψ_m), reactive oxygen species (ROS), and the cell cycle was assessed by flow cytometry. Cleaved-caspases 3 and 9, BAX, Bcl-2, phospho-mTOR (p-mTOR), ERK1/2, and E-cadherin expression were also determined with immunocytochemistry. Results. Upregulation of cleaved-caspases 3 and 9 and BAX and downregulation of Bcl-2, p-mTOR, and E-cadherin were found following H₂O₂ treatment, and all of these were reversed by Dex. Dex also prevented the ROS generation, cytochrome C release, and cell cycle arrest induced by H₂O₂. The effects of Dex were partially reversed by atipamezole. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated that Dex protected lung alveolar epithelial cells from apoptotic injury, cell cycle arrest, and loss of cell adhesion induced by H₂O₂ through enhancing the cell survival and proliferation.