Impact of dexmedetomidine on analgesic requirements in patients after cardiac surgery in a fast-track recovery room setting

Practice Advisory for Preoperative and Intraoperative Pain Management of Cardiac Surgical Patients: Part 2

Pain after cardiac surgery is of moderate to severe intensity, which increases postoperative distress and health care costs, and affects functional recovery. Opioids have been central agents in treating pain after cardiac surgery for decades. The use of multimodal analgesic strategies can promote effective postoperative pain control and help mitigate opioid exposure. This Practice Advisory is part of a series developed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Quality, Safety, and Leadership (QSL) Committee's Opioid Working Group. It is a systematic review of existing literature for various interventions related to the preoperative and intraoperative pain management of cardiac surgical patients. This Practice Advisory provides recommendations for providers caring for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This entails developing customized pain management strategies for patients, including preoperative patient evaluation, pain management, and opioid use-focused education as well as perioperative use of multimodal analgesics and regional techniques for various cardiac surgical procedures. The literature related to this field is emerging, and future studies will provide additional guidance on ways to improve clinically meaningful patient outcomes.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Cardiac Surgery Patients

ABSTRACT

Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 adrenoreceptor agonist that is widely used as a sedative medication, is becoming more and more attractive in clinical application on cardiac surgery patients. In this review, we aim to summarize and discuss both retrospective studies and clinical trials regarding the effect of dexmedetomidine on patients who underwent cardiac surgery (including coronary artery bypass grafting, valve surgery, aortic surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, and so on), which illustrates that the clinical effects of dexmedetomidine could effectively reduce mortality, major complications, and the intensive care unit and hospital length of stay without comprising safety. In addition, inconsistent results from both retrospective studies and clinical trials have also been demonstrated. Although the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine on cardiac surgery patients is suggested, high-quality clinical trials are needed for further verification.

Postoperative Sedation Duration as an Independent Risk Factor for Postoperative Pneumonia in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing Free Flap Reconstruction

OBJECTIVE

Patients who had reconstruction for head and neck cancer usually have long duration of postoperative sedation and intensive care. This is due to the complex nature of large-area soft tissue defect surgeries and upper respiratory tract infections associated with them. Postoperative pulmonary complications are common in these patients. In this study, we analyzed the risk factors and the relationship between postoperative complications and the duration of sedation to improve the patients' recovery process after free flap reconstruction for head and neck surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study that included 188 patients who had head and neck surgery with free flap reconstruction in 2011 (traditional recovery group) and 2018 (early recovery group). Postoperative recovery events were compared between the 2 groups. Complications such as pneumonia, wound infection, vascular thrombosis, and bleeding were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The results showed that the early recovery group had a shorter duration of sedation (P < 0.001), shorter duration of intensive care unit stay (P = 0.05), more rapid ventilator weaning (P < 0.001), and fewer pneumonia events (8.8% vs 39.1%) than the traditional recovery group. Wound- and vessel-related complications were not affected by the duration of sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that shortening the duration of postoperative sedation can effectively decrease the length of intensive care unit stay and reduce postoperative incidence of pneumonia without increasing wound- and vessel-related complications.

Pain Management Considerations in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder Requiring Critical Care

The opioid epidemic has resulted in increased opioid-related critical care admissions, presenting challenges in acute pain management. Limited guidance exists in the management of critically ill patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). This narrative review provides the intensive care unit (ICU) clinician with guidance and treatment options, including non-opioid analgesia, for patients receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and for patients actively misusing opioids. Verification and continuation of the patient's outpatient MOUD regimen, specifically buprenorphine and methadone formulations, assessment of pain and opioid withdrawal, and treatment of acute pain with non-opioid analgesia, nonpharmacologic strategies, and short-acting opioids as needed, are all essential to adequate management of acute pain in patients with OUD. A multidisciplinary approach to treatment and discharge planning in patients with OUD may be beneficial to engage patients with OUD early in their hospital stay to prevent withdrawal, stabilize their OUD, and to reduce the risk of unplanned discharge and other associated morbidity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Early Red Flags Associated with Delayed Discharge in Patients Undergoing Gastrectomy: Analysis of Perioperative Variables and ERAS Protocol Items

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) perioperative pathways are safe and effective for patients undergoing gastrectomy. However, adherence to these protocols varies and is generally underreported. This retrospective study aimed to assess whether perioperative variables or deviation from ERAS items is associated with delayed discharge after gastrectomy.

METHODS

All patients undergoing gastrectomy at our institution were managed with a standardised perioperative pathway according to ERAS principles. The target length of stay was set as the ninth post-operative day (POD). All significant variables were derived from a bivariate analysis and were entered into a logistic regression to confirm their statistical value.

RESULTS

The study included 180 patients. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that incomplete immunonutrition, failure to extubate the patient at the end of surgery, intraoperative crystalloids >2150 ml and blood transfusion >268 ml, surgery duration >195 min, and failure to mobilise patients within 24 h from surgery were associated with delayed discharge. The logistic regression model was statistically significant (p < 0.001) and correctly classified 73.6% of cases. Sensitivity and specificity were 74.1% and 73.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results seem clinically significant and consistent with those of previous studies. The reported perioperative variables showed a strong relationship with the length of hospital stay.

Reducing Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery - Preoperative, Intraoperative, and Critical Care Strategies

Patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery are exposed to opioids in the operating room and intensive care unit and after hospital discharge. Opportunities exist to reduce perioperative opioid use at all stages of care and include alternative oral and intravenous medications, novel intraoperative regional anesthetic techniques, and postoperative opioid-sparing sedative and analgesic strategies. In this review, currently used and investigational strategies to reduce the opioid burden for cardiothoracic surgical patients are explored.

Role of dexmedetomidine infusion after coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

Postoperative pain has negative consequences on patients' outcomes after cardiac surgery. Routine management with opioid and or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications has several disadvantages. Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 agonist used for sedation and analgesia. The use of dexmedetomidine for postoperative pain management and decreasing delirium and agitation in cardiac surgery patients is a matter of debate. Our objective was to determine the role of an early administration of dexmedetomidine in decreasing opioid use post-cardiac surgery and its effects on the quality of postoperative recovery.

Results

Medical records of 120 patients admitted to the cardiac surgery intensive care unit (CSICU) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in two cardiac centers between December 2015 and December 2016 were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups. Group A included 55 patients who received dexmedetomidine in a dose of 0.2-0.4 mcg/kg/h on admission to CSICU, and group B included 65 patients who did not receive dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was the pain score immediately after extubation, and the secondary outcomes included post-extubation sedation and pain scores for 12 h.There were significant decrease of the pain scores in dexmedetomidine group that continues through the 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 12th hour readings after surgery with mean modified Ramsay scores 0.1 ± 0.0, 0.89 ± 2.05, 0.35 ± 0.1, and 0.12 ± 1.1 respectively compared to 0.46 ± 1.15, 3.46 ± 2.93, 0.98 ± 1.90, and 0.12 ± 1.1 in group B (p < 0.001), significant decrease in cumulative morphine received (p < 0.001, OR = 909, 95% CI 0.05-0.19), favorable reduction in heart rate in dexmedetomidine group (80 ± 1.9 b/min) compared to 96 ± 8.8 b/min in the other group (p = 0.017), and smoother recovery from general anesthesia.

Conclusion

Administration of dexmedetomidine in the early postoperative period can be safe. It may reduce the use of opioids, has sedative, analgesic, and sympatholytic effects that could play a useful role during the management of coronary artery bypass patients, and may improve postoperative recovery.

Dexmedetomidine Use in a Case of Severe Cancer Pain

A 58-year-old male with chronic pancreatitis was seen by the palliative care service for pain and agitation related to a recent diagnosis of disseminated abdominal cancer. Increasing symptom burden, including pain and nausea, in the face of escalating doses of multiple opioid and sedative medications resulted in the addition of dexmedetomidine to successfully control his symptoms. Visceral sensitization related to his chronic pancreatitis likely increased his pain perception and required a multimodal approach to control his symptoms.

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.

Dexmedetomidine vs morphine and midazolam in the prevention and treatment of delirium after adult cardiac surgery; a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial

Background:

The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the efficacy of neurobehavioral, hemodynamics and sedative characteristics of dexmedetomidine compared with morphine and midazolam-based regimen after cardiac surgery at equivalent levels of sedation and analgesia in improving clinically relevant outcomes such as delirium.

Methods:

Sixty patients were randomly allocated into one of two equal groups: group A = 30 patients received dexmedetomidine infusion (0.4–0.7 μg/kg/h) and Group B = 30 patients received morphine in a dose of 10–50 μg/kg/h as an analgesic with midazolam in a dose of 0.05 mg/kg up to 0.2 mg/kg as a sedative repeated as needed. Titration of the study medication infusions was conducted to maintain light sedation (Richmond agitation-sedation scale) (−2 to +1). Primary outcome was the prevalence of delirium measured daily through confusion assessment method for intensive care.

Results:

Group A was associated with shorter length of mechanical ventilation, significant shorter duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (P = 0.038), and lower risk of delirium following cardiac surgery compared to Group B. Group A showed statistically significant decrease in heart rate values 4 h after ICU admission (P = 0.015) without significant bradycardia. Group A had lower fentanyl consumption following cardiac surgery compared to Group B.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the length of stay in ICU in adult cardiac surgery with no significant reduction in the incidence of postoperative delirium compared to morphine and midazolam.

Propofol or benzodiazepines for short- and long-term sedation in intensive care units? An economic evaluation based on meta-analytic results

Purpose

This evaluation compares propofol and benzodiazepine sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in order to identify the potential economic benefits from different payers' perspectives.

Methods

The patient-level simulation model incorporated efficacy estimates from a structured meta-analysis and ICU-related costs from Italy, Germany, France, UK, and the USA. Efficacy outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation duration, and weaning time. We calculated ICU costs from mechanical ventilation duration and ICU LOS based on national average ICU costs with and without mechanical ventilation. Three scenarios were investigated: 1) long-term sedation >24 hours based on results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 2) long-term sedation based on RCT plus non-RCT results; and 3) short-term sedation <24 hours based on RCT results. We tested the model's robustness for input uncertainties by deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

Results

In the base case, mean savings with propofol versus benzodiazepines in long-term sedation ranged from €406 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 646 to 164) in Italy to 1,632 € (95% CI: 2,362 to 880) in the USA. Inclusion of non-RCT data corroborated these results. Savings in short-term sedation ranged from €148 (95% CI: 291 to 2) in Italy to €502 (95% CI: 936 to 57) in the USA. Parameters related to ICU and mechanical ventilation had a stronger influence in the DSA than drug-related parameters. In PSA, propofol reduced costs and ICU LOS compared to benzodiazepines in 94%-100% of simulations. The largest savings may be possible in the UK and the USA due to higher ICU costs.

Conclusion

Current ICU sedation guidelines recommend propofol rather than midazolam for mechanically ventilated patients. This evaluation endorses the recommendation as it may lead to better outcomes and savings for health care systems, especially in countries with higher ICU-related costs.

Safety and efficacy of ketamine-dexmedetomidine versus ketamine-propofol combinations for sedation in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Background and Aims:

Prolonged mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery is associated with serious complications that increase morbidity and mortality. The present study was designed to compare ketamine-propofol (KP) and ketamine-dexmedetomidine (KD) combinations for sedation and analgesia in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery as regards hemodynamics, total fentanyl dose, time of weaning from mechanical ventilation, time of extubation, and any adverse outcome.

Materials and Methods:

Seventy post-CABG patients were sedated using ketamine 1 mg/kg IV then 0.25 mg/kg/h infusion combined with either dexmedetomidine or propofol to maintain Ramsay sedation score ≥4 during assisted ventilation. Group KP received ketamine + propofol 1 mg/kg bolus followed by 25–50 μg/kg/min. Group KD received ketamine + dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg/kg over 20 min and then 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h. Total dose of fentanyl in the first 24 h, time of weaning, time of extubation, mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay time were recorded.

Statistics:

Sample size of 35 patients was calculated for 90% power, α = 0.05, β = 0.1, and anticipated effect size = 0.40 using sample size software (G*Power version 3.00.10, Germany). Analytic statistics was performed on IBM compatible computer using SPSS version 11.5 (IBM, New York, United States) software package under Windows XP operating system. All results presented in the form of mean ± standard deviation. Data compared using unpaired Student's t-test, P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results:

Group KD showed a significant decrease in mean time of weaning and extubation in group KD in comparison with group KP (374.05 ± 20.25 min vs. 445.23 ± 21.7 min, respectively, P < 0.001) (432.4 ± 19.4 min and 504 ± 28.7 min, respectively, P < 0.0001). Fentanyl consumption showed a significant decrease in group KD in comparison with group KP (41.94 ± 20.43 μg and 152.8 ± 51.2 μg, respectively, with P < 0.0001). There were insignificant difference between both groups as regards hemodynamic stability and length of ICU stay.

Conclusion:

Using KD combination for sedation, post-CABG surgery provided short duration of mechanical ventilation with less fentanyl dose requirement in comparison with KP with insignificant difference in both groups as regards hemodynamic stability and length of the ICU stay.

Sedation After Cardiac Surgery: Is One Drug Better Than Another?

The classic high-dose narcotic-based cardiac anesthetic has been modified to facilitate a fast-track, rapid recovery in the intensive care unit (ICU). Postoperative sedation is consequently now an essential component in recovery of the patient undergoing cardiac surgery. It must facilitate the patient's unawareness of the environment as well as reduce the discomfort and anxiety caused by surgery, intubation, mechanical ventilation, suction, and physiotherapy. Benzodiazepines seem well suited for this role, but propofol, opioids, and dexmedetomidine are among other agents commonly used for sedation in the ICU. However, what is an ideal sedative for this application? When compared with benzodiazepine-based sedation regimens, nonbenzodiazepines have been associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Current sedation guidelines recommend avoiding benzodiazepine use in the ICU. However, there are no recommendations on which alternatives should be used. In postcardiac surgery patients, inotropes and vasoactive medications are often required because of the poor cardiac function. This makes sedation after cardiac surgery unique in comparison with the requirements for most other ICU patient populations. We reviewed the current literature to try to determine if 1 sedative regimen might be better than others; in particular, we compare outcomes of propofol and dexmedetomidine in postoperative sedation in the cardiac surgical ICU.

A Review of Agents for Palliative Sedation/Continuous Deep Sedation: Pharmacology and Practical Applications

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a specific form of palliative sedation requiring a care plan that essentially places and maintains the patient in an unresponsive state because their symptoms are refractory to any other interventions. Because this application is uncommon, many providers may lack practical experience in this specialized area and resources they can access are outdated, nonspecific, and/or not comprehensive. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence- and experience-based reference that specifically addresses those medications and regimens and their practical applications for this very narrow, but vital, aspect of hospice care. Patient goals in a hospital and hospice environments are different, so the manner in which widely used sedatives are dosed and applied can differ greatly as well. Parameters applied in end-of-life care that are based on experience and a thorough understanding of the pharmacology of those medications will differ from those applied in an intensive care unit or other medical environments. By recognizing these different goals and applying well-founded regimens geared specifically for end-of-life sedation, we can address our patients' symptoms in a more timely and efficacious manner.

Effect of Continuous Paravertebral Dexmedetomidine Administration on Intraoperative Anesthetic Drug Requirement and Post-Thoracotomy Pain Syndrome After Thoracotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of paravertebral administration of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetic on the intraoperative anesthetic drug requirement and incidence of post-thoracotomy pain syndrome.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial.

SETTING

Single university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 30 patients who underwent elective thoracotomy and were assigned randomly to either the Ropin or Dexem group (n = 15 each).

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received the study medications through paravertebral catheter. Patients in the Ropin group received a bolus of 15 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine over 3-to-5 minutes followed by an infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine at 0.1 mL/kg/hour. Patients in the Dexem group received 15 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine, 1 µg/kg bolus over 3-to-5 minutes followed by an infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine plus 0.2 µg/kg/hour of dexmedetomidine at 0.1 mL/kg/hour.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome of the study was intraoperative anesthetic drug requirement. The secondary outcome was the incidence of post-thoracotomy pain syndrome 2 months after surgery. The amount of propofol required for induction of anesthesia was significantly less in the Dexem group (Dexem 49.33±20.51 v 74.33±18.40 in the Ropin group, p = 0.002). End-tidal isoflurane needed to maintain target entropy was significantly less in the Dexem group at all time points. Intraoperative fentanyl requirement was lower in the Dexem group (Dexem 115.33±33.77 v 178.67±32.48 in the Ropin group, p = 0.002). Postoperative pain scores and morphine consumption were significantly less in the Dexem group (p<0.001). The incidence of post-thoracotomy pain syndrome was comparable between the 2 groups (69.23% v 50%, p = 0.496).

CONCLUSIONS

Paravertebral dexmedetomidine administration resulted in decreased intraoperative anesthetic drug requirement, less pain, and lower requirements of supplemental opioid in the postoperative period. However, it had no effect on the incidence of post-thoracotomy pain syndrome.

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

Many cardiovascular surgeries are fast-tracked to extubation and require short-term sedation. Dexmedetomidine and propofol have very different mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic profiles that make them attractive sedative agents in this patient population. Recently, there has been increased use of dexmedetomidine in the intensive care unit (ICU), but few studies exist or have been published directly comparing both agents in this setting. We conducted a retrospective cohort study with patients admitted to the ICU after cardiovascular surgery from January through June 2011. Adult patients who underwent coronary artery bypass and/or cardiac valve surgery received either dexmedetomidine or propofol continuous infusion for short-term sedation after cardiovascular surgery. The primary end point was time (hours) on mechanical ventilation after surgery. Secondary end points included ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, incidence of delirium, and requirement of a second sedative agent. A total of 352 patients met study inclusion criteria, with 33 enrolled in the dexmedetomidine group and 319 in the propofol group. Time on mechanical ventilation was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (7.4 hours vs. 12.9 hours, P = .042). No difference was seen in ICU or hospital LOS. The need for a second sedative agent to achieve optimal sedation (24% vs. 27%, P = .737) and incidence of delirium (9% vs. 7.5%, P = .747) were similar between both groups. Sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in a significant reduction in time on mechanical ventilation. However, no difference was seen in ICU or hospital LOS, incidence of delirium, or mortality.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine in combination with patient-controlled sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Sedation using intranasal dexmedetomidine is a convenient and well-tolerated technique. This study evaluated the sedative efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine in combination with patient-controlled sedation (PCS) for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomised, controlled trial, 50 patients received either intranasal dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg (dexmedetomidine group) or intranasal saline (placebo group) 1 h before the procedure. PCS with propofol and alfentanil was provided for rescue sedation. Additional sedative consumption, perioperative sedation scores using Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale, recovery, vital signs, adverse events and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

Total consumption of PCS propofol and alfentanil was significantly less in the dexmedetomidine than placebo group with a mean difference of -13.8 mg propofol (95% confidence interval -27.3 to -0.3) and -34.5 μg alfentanil (95% confidence interval -68.2 to -0.7) at the completion of the procedure (P = 0.044). Weighted areas under the curve (AUCw ) of OAA/S scores were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group before, during and after procedures (P < 0.001, P = 0.024 and P = 0.041 respectively). AUCw of heart rate and systolic blood pressure were also significantly lower during the procedure (P = 0.007 and P = 0.022 respectively) with dexmedetomidine. There was no difference in recovery, side effects or satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal dexmedetomidine with PCS propofol and alfentanil confers deeper perioperative clinical sedation with significantly less use of additional sedatives during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Dexmedetomidine: a review of applications for cardiac surgery during perioperative period

Cardiac surgery is associated with a high incidence of cardiovascular and other complications during the perioperative period that translate into increased mortality and prolonged hospital stays. Safe comprehensive perioperative management is required to eliminate these adverse events. Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2-adrenoreceptor agonist that has been described as an ideal medication in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. The major clinical effects of dexmedetomidine in this perioperative period can be summarized as attenuating the hemodynamic response, cardioprotective effects, antiarrhythmic effects, sedation in the ICU setting, treatment of delirium, and procedural sedation. Although there are some side effects of dexmedetomidine, it is emerging as an effective therapeutic agent in the management of a wide range of clinical conditions with an efficacious, safe profile. The present review serves as an overview update in the diverse applications of dexmedetomidine for cardiac surgery during the perioperative period.

Dexmedetomidine: a review of applications for cardiac surgery during perioperative period

Cardiac surgery is associated with a high incidence of cardiovascular and other complications during the perioperative period that translate into increased mortality and prolonged hospital stays. Safe comprehensive perioperative management is required to eliminate these adverse events. Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2-adrenoreceptor agonist that has been described as an ideal medication in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. The major clinical effects of dexmedetomidine in this perioperative period can be summarized as attenuating the hemodynamic response, cardioprotective effects, antiarrhythmic effects, sedation in the ICU setting, treatment of delirium, and procedural sedation. Although there are some side effects of dexmedetomidine, it is emerging as an effective therapeutic agent in the management of a wide range of clinical conditions with an efficacious, safe profile. The present review serves as an overview update in the diverse applications of dexmedetomidine for cardiac surgery during the perioperative period.

Use of a fast-track surgery protocol on patients undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy: preliminary results

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a fast-track surgery (FTS) protocol on patients undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the clinical data of 80 eligible patients who underwent elective minimally invasive oesophagectomy in our department from January 2012 to April 2013 by the same surgical team. Two groups of these patients were compared. The control group comprised patients treated with traditional methods. Clinical parameters were compared. The study group was formed by patients treated with the fast-track concept, such as (i) a semi-liquid meal was administered up to 6 h before surgery and the patients were made to drink 200 ml of 10% glucose solution 3 h before surgery; (ii) no nasogastric tube, no abdominal drainage tube and no draining sinus in the neck; (iii) the chest tube and catheter were removed as early as possible; (iv) prevention of hypothermia therapy; (v) an attempt at bedside rehabilitation on postoperative day (POD) 2; and (vi) early postoperative enteral nutrition, restrictive intravenous fluids intraoperatively and postoperatively, and oral feeding initiated 48 h after surgery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, sex, pathologic tumor-node-metastasis stage, tumour location, pathology, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative albumin level, 30-day readmission or complications (P >0.05). Compared with the conventional group, the FTS group had earlier first flatus [(3 (3-4) vs 6 (6-7) days], less fluid transfusion [2.1 (2.06-2.2) vs 2.8 (2.7-2.9) l] and shorter postoperative hospital stay [7 (6-9) days vs 12 (10-16.5) days] (P <0.05). There was no difference between the two groups with regard to vomiting, but patients in the conventional group suffered from/experienced pharyngitis considerably more than the FTS group (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

FTS on patients with oesophageal cancer receiving minimally invasive oesophagectomy is safe, feasible and efficient, and can accelerate postoperative rehabilitation. Compared with the conventional protocol, its advantages were limited to short-term follow-up.

Clinical and economic impact of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol due to a US drug shortage: examination of coronary artery bypass graft patients at an urban medical centre

BACKGROUND

Propofol has reduced healthcare costs in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery patients by decreasing post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation. However, the US shortage of propofol necessitated the use of alternative agents.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate clinical and economic implications of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol in patients undergoing CABG surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing isolated, elective CABG surgery and sedated with either propofol or dexmedetomidine during the study period were included. The cohorts were matched 1:1 based on important characteristics. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving a post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation ≤6 h. Secondary outcomes were post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) ≤48 h, total post-operative LOS ≤5 days, the need for adjunctive opioid therapy and associated cost savings. Variables recorded included patient demographics, co-morbid medical conditions, health risks, sedation drug doses, post-operative medical complications and sedation-related adverse events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed to examine the relationship between these covariates and post-operative LOS. The cost analysis consisted of examination of the net financial benefit (or cost) of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol in the study population, with utilisation observed in the study converted to costs using institutional data from the Premier database.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included, with 42 patients per cohort. Mechanical ventilation duration ≤6 h was achieved in 24 (57.1 %) versus 7 (16.7 %) in the dexmedetomidine and propofol cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). More patients treated with dexmedetomidine achieved ICU LOS ≤48 h (p < 0.05) and total hospital LOS ≤5 days (p < 0.05), as compared with the propofol group. Multivariate analysis revealed that having one or more post-operative medical complication was the most significant predictor of increased post-operative LOS, whereas choosing dexmedetomidine was also significant in terms of reduced post-operative LOS. The estimated net financial benefit of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol was US$2,613 per patient (year 2012 value).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that use of dexmedetomidine as an alternative to propofol for sedation of CABG patients post-operatively contributes to reduced mechanical ventilation time, ICU LOS and post-operative LOS. Higher drug costs resulting from the propofol shortage were offset by savings in post-operative room and board costs. Additional savings may be possible by preventing medical complications to the extent possible.

Role of dexmedetomidine in adults in the intensive care unit: an update

PURPOSE

The role of dexmedetomidine for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is reviewed and updated.

SUMMARY

Searches of MEDLINE (July 2006-March 2012) and an extensive manual review of journals were performed. Relevant literature with a focus on data published since our last review in 2007 was evaluated for topic relevance and clinical applicability. Optimal management of pain, agitation, and delirium in ICUs requires a systematic and multimodal approach aimed at providing comfort while maximizing outcomes. Dexmedetomidine is among multiple agents, including opioids, propofol, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics, used to facilitate and increase patients' tolerability of mechanical ventilation. This article reviews the newest evidence available for dexmedetomidine use for sedation and analgesia in medical-surgical ICUs. Adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were similar among the studies examined herein. The most common adverse effects with dexmedetomidine were bradycardia and hypotension, in some cases severe enough to warrant the use of vasoactive support. Due to the adverse events associated with rapid dosage adjustment and bolus therapy, dexmedetomidine may not be the best agent for treating acute agitation.

CONCLUSION

In medical-surgical ICUs, dexmedetomidine may be a viable non-benzodiazepine option for patients with a need for light sedation. In cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine appears to offer no advantage over propofol as the initial sedative. The role of dexmedetomidine in unique patient populations such as neurosurgical, trauma, and obstetrics is yet to be established.

Fast-track program vs traditional care in surgery for gastric cancer

AIM: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of fast-track program vs traditional care in laparoscopic or open surgery for gastric cancer.

METHODS: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases were electronically searched for published studies between January 1995 and April 2013, and only randomized trials were included. The references of relevant studies were manually searched for further studies that may have been missed. Search terms included “gastric cancer”, “fast track” and “enhanced recovery”. Five outcome variables were considered most suitable for analysis: postoperative hospital stay, medical cost, duration to first flatus, C-reactive protein (CRP) level and complications. Postoperative hospital stay was calculated from the date of operation to the date of discharge. Fixed effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Compared with traditional care, fast-track program could significantly decrease the postoperative hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -1.19, 95%CI: -1.79--0.60, P = 0.0001, fixed model], duration to first flatus (WMD = -6.82, 95%CI: -11.51--2.13, P = 0.004), medical costs (WMD = -2590, 95%CI: -4054--1126, P = 0.001), and the level of CRP (WMD = -17.78, 95%CI: -32.22--3.35, P = 0.0001) in laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. In open surgery for gastric cancer, fast-track program could also significantly decrease the postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -1.99, 95%CI: -2.09--1.89, P = 0.0001), duration to first flatus (WMD = -12.0, 95%CI: -18.89--5.11, P = 0.001), medical cost (WMD = -3674, 95%CI: -5025--2323, P = 0.0001), and the level of CRP (WMD = -27.34, 95%CI: -35.42--19.26, P = 0.0001). Furthermore, fast-track program did not significantly increase the incidence of complication (RR = 1.39, 95%CI: 0.77-2.51, P = 0.27, for laparoscopic surgery; and RR = 1.52, 95%CI: 0.90-2.56, P = 0.12, for open surgery).

CONCLUSION: Our overall results suggested that compared with traditional care, fast-track program could result in shorter postoperative hospital stay, less medical costs, and lower level of CRP, with no more complications occurring in both laparoscopic and open surgery for gastric cancer.

Impact of a Protocol Advocating Dexmedetomidine Over Propofol Sedation After Robotic-Assisted Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery on Duration of Mechanical Ventilation and Patient Safety

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains whether propofol or dexmedetomidine is the preferred sedative following cardiac surgery. Dexmedetomidine may offer advantages over propofol among patients undergoing robotic-assisted, minimally invasive, direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery given the rapidity with which this population is usually extubated after surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the impact of a surgery protocol advocating use of dexmedetomidine rather than propofol after MIDCAB surgery on discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and patient safety.

METHODS

The records on consecutive adults undergoing MIDCAB surgery who received postoperative sedation with propofol or dexmedetomidine at a 508-bed academic medical center were analyzed before and after implementation of a post-MIDCAB surgery protocol advocating dexmedetomidine use.

RESULTS

Seventy-three propofol patients were compared with 53 dexmedetomidine patients. The groups were similar, except propofol patients were older (p = 0.002) and more likely to have underlying heart failure that was either moderate or severe (New York Heart Association class III or IV) (p = 0.0001). Time (median [interquartile range]) to extubation (hours) was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (5.0 [3.6–7.0] vs 9.8 [5.0–16.3]; p = 0.0001). A Cox proportional hazards model revealed that patient age (p = 0.001) and duration of surgery (p = 0.003) influenced time to extubation between the dexmedetomidine and propofol groups but the presence of moderate or severe heart failure (p = 0.438), the number of coronary vessels operated on (p = 0.130), use of an opioid (p = 0.791), or the total dose of morphine administered (p = 0.215) did not. During sedation administration, more propofol-treated patients experienced 1 or more episodes of hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤80 mm Hg, 11.6% vs 0%; p = 0.02), tachycardia (heart rate ≥120 beats/min, 8.6% vs 0%; p = 0.04), and unarousability (Sedation Agitation Scale score ≤2, 30.0% vs 9.4%; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a protocol promoting dexmedetomidine, rather than propofol sedation, after MIDCAB surgery facilitates faster discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and is associated with greater hemodynamic stability and arousability.

Preliminary experience of fast-track surgery combined with laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fast-track surgery combined with laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Eighty-eight eligible patients were randomly assigned into four groups: (1) fast-track surgery (FTS) + laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy (LADG), treated with LADG and FTS treatment; (2) LADG, treated with LADG and traditional treatment; (3) FTS + open distal grastectomy (ODG), treated with ODG and FTS treatment; and (4) ODG, treated with ODG and traditional treatment. The clinical parameters and serum indicators were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with the ODG group, the other three groups had earlier first flatus and shorter postoperative hospital stay (all P <0.01; all P <0.05), especially in the FTS + LADG group. The level of ALB was higher in the FTS + LADG group than in the LADG group at 4 and 7 days after surgery (P <0.05, P <0.01). The level of CRP in the FTS + LADG group was lower than in the FTS+ODG group at 4 and 7 days after surgery (P <0.05, P <0.05). The FTS + ODG group had lowest medical costs.

CONCLUSION

Combination of FTS and LADG in gastric cancer is safe, feasible, and efficient and can improve nutritional status, lessen postoperative stress, and accelerate postoperative rehabilitation. Compared with FTS + ODG and LADG, its advantages were limited in short-term follow-up.

Can dexmedetomidine be a safe and efficacious sedative agent in post-cardiac surgery patients? a meta-analysis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to explore the use of dexmedetomidine as a safe and efficacious sedative agent in post-cardiac surgery patients.

Methods

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index until January 2012 and review of studies was conducted. Eligible studies were of randomized controlled trials or cohort studies, comparing dexmedetomidine with a placebo or an alternative sedative agent in elective cardiac surgery, using dexmedetomidine for postoperative sedation and available in full text. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction.

Results

The search identified 530 potentially relevant publications; 11 met selection criteria in this meta-analysis. Our results revealed that dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter length of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -2.70 [-5.05, -0.35]), a lower risk of delirium (risk ratio 0.36 [0.21, 0.64]), ventricular tachycardia (risk ratio 0.27 [0.08, 0.97]) and hyperglycemia (risk ratio 0.78 [0.61, 0.99]), but may increase the risk of bradycardia (risk ratio 2.08 [1.16, 3.74]). But there was no significant difference in ICU stay, hospital stay, and morphine equivalents between the included studies. Dexmedetomidine may not increase the risk of hypotension, atrial fibrillation, postoperative nausea and vomiting, reintubation within 5 days, cardiovascular complications, postoperative infection or hospital mortality.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine was associated with shorter length of mechanical ventilation and lower risk of delirium following cardiac surgery. Although the risk of bradycardia was significantly higher compared with traditional sedatives, it may not increase length of hospital stay and hospital mortality. Moreover, dexmedetomidine may decrease the risk of ventricular tachycardia and hyperglycemia. Thus, dexmedetomidine could be a safe and efficacious sedative agent in cardiac surgical patients.

Effect of a dexmedetomidine substitution during a nationwide propofol shortage in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol during a nationwide propofol shortage on postoperative time to extubation and opioid requirements in patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

SETTING

Single-center cardiothoracic intensive care unit (ICU) in a tertiary academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Seventy adults undergoing isolated, primary, elective CABG who received dexmedetomidine between April 1 and June 30, 2010, during the propofol shortage (35 patients [cases]) or who received propofol between January 1 and March 31, 2010, or between July 1 and September 30, 2010 (35 patients [controls]) for postoperative sedation were included. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group were matched 1:1 to patients in the propofol group based on age, sex, weight, number of vessels bypassed, preoperative ejection fraction, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and aortic cross-clamp time.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome consisted of opioid requirements in the first 12 hours after arrival to the ICU in the dexmedetomidine- and propofol-treated patients. Secondary outcomes included the time to extubation (from ICU admission until extubation) and opioid requirements in the first 24 hours. No significant demographic differences were noted between treatment groups. Median opioid requirements in the first 12 hours, as measured by morphine equivalents, were 8.0 mg in the propofol group and 7.0 mg in the dexmedetomidine group (p=0.1). Similarly, at 24 hours, opioid requirements were 16.7 and 17.3 mg in the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively (p=0.4). The time to extubation demonstrated that patients in the propofol group were extubated at a median of 300 minutes and patients in the dexmedetomidine group were extubated at a median of 318 minutes after ICU arrival (p=0.5).

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant differences were noted between the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups when assessing the outcomes of opioid requirements and the time to extubation. A multicenter, prospective, randomized, blinded study is needed to determine the optimal sedative after CABG surgery.

Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant analgesic for intractable cancer pain

Abstract Dexmedetomidine (Precedex®) is an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist that can produce sedation and analgesia without causing respiratory depression. Its use has been described in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, sedation for surgical and nonsurgical procedures, and prevention of withdrawal. We describe its use as an adjuvant analgesic in a patient with cancer pain refractory to multiple treatment modalities.