A prospective randomized double-blind study comparing dexmedetomidine vs. combination of midazolam-fentanyl for tympanoplasty surgery under monitored anesthesia care

Comparison of labetalol and lidocaine in induction of controlled hypotension in tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of labetalol and lidocaine in tympanoplasty surgery, specifically evaluating their impact on hemodynamic changes and perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 64 patients scheduled for tympanoplasty. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 0.5-2 mg/min labetalol or 1.5 mg/kg/h lidocaine 1% to achieve controlled hypotension during surgery. The efficacy of the drugs was assessed by comparing the Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), surgeon's satisfaction, time to target MAP, bleeding volume, postoperative pain scores, the need for analgesic medication in recovery, sedation, and other additional parameters.

RESULTS

The hemodynamic parameters showed a similar trend over time in both the labetalol and lidocaine groups. The median bleeding volume in the labetalol group (10 cc) was lower than that in the lidocaine group (30 cc), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.11). Similarly, surgeon's satisfaction level, pain intensity, and sedation level in the recovery room did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). The duration of surgery, recovery stay, and extubation time also did not significantly differ between the groups. Both medications took approximately the same time (20 min) to reach the target MAP and exhibited comparable hemodynamic responses (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both labetalol and lidocaine effectively achieved controlled hypotension during tympanoplasty surgery, thereby improving surgical conditions. The choice of medication should be based on individual patient characteristics and the anesthesiologist's judgment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Dexmedetomidine vs. Fentanyl-Midazolam Combination to Mitigate the Stress Response in Microlaryngoscopy: A Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial

Background

Laryngoscopy is the most painful noxious stimulus during anesthesia and surgery. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used as a sedative in surgeries involving microlaryngoscopy.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine and a combination of fentanyl and midazolam on mitigating the stress response in patients scheduled for microlaryngoscopy.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind clinical trial enrolled 60 patients (28 males and 32 females) aged 18 - 65 years with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I - III. The patients were scheduled for microlaryngoscopy and equally divided into 2 groups. Group D received 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine and saline bolus dose over 10 minutes before general anesthesia (GA) induction, followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine and saline infusions after GA induction. Group MF received 0.8 μg/kg of fentanyl plus 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam over 10 minutes before GA induction, followed by 1 μg/kg/h of fentanyl plus 0.05 mg/kg/h of midazolam as an infusion. The heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) pressure were recorded from baseline until the end of surgery. Infusions were stopped at the end of the surgery.

Results

The number of patients requiring propofol and intraoperative supplemental propofol was significantly lower in group D than in group MF. The heart rate was significantly lower in group D than in group MF (P = 0.022, 0.048, 0.032, 0.045, 0.041, 0.026, 0.030, and 0.036) from induction until the end of surgery; in addition, it was comparable between both groups at baseline and before induction. MAP was comparable between both groups for all measurements.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine mitigates the hemodynamic changes related to microlaryngoscopy more effectively than the fentanyl-midazolam combination.

Use of dexmedetomidine for controlled hypotension in middle ear surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Microsurgical operations such as middle ear surgery rely heavily on visibility of the surgical field. Anesthetic techniques such as controlled hypotension have been developed to improve surgical field visibility by attempting to decrease bleeding. Many agents have been utilized to achieve controlled hypotension intraoperatively. Dexmedetomidine is a relatively newer agent which works on alpha-2 receptors to decrease sympathetic tone. This paper sought to determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for optimizing surgical field visibility in MES.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was used in PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and CENTRAL through August 9, 2022 for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

adult patients undergoing middle ear surgery with dexmedetomidine used for controlled hypotension to improve surgical field visibility. Risk of bias was assessed via Cochrane RoB 2. Meta-analysis of mean difference for surgical field scores and risk ratios for positive surgical field scores were used to compare dexmedetomidine with placebo or other agents.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in this review. Statistically significant mean difference was found to favor dexmedetomidine over placebo for Fromme-Boezaart surgical field scores. Statistically significant results were also demonstrated favoring dexmedetomidine over other agents in risk ratio for receiving positive surgical field scores, as well as surgeon and patient satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Controlled hypotension is an invaluable tool for surgical field visibility. Improved surgical field visibility was observed with dexmedetomidine compared with placebo and various other agents. Risk of sub-optimal bleeding scores was significantly lower with dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine is effective at improving surgical field visibility in middle ear surgery.

Comparison of Ropivacaine Plus Dexmedetomidine and Ropivacaine Plus Magnesium Sulfate Infiltration for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgeries

BACKGROUND

 Acute pain after lumbar spine surgery is due to soft tissue and muscle separation at the operation site. Local anesthetic wound infiltration is a safe and effective method for postoperative analgesia following lumbar spine surgery. In this study, we aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy of ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine plus magnesium sulfate for postoperative analgesia in lumbar spine surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This prospective randomized study was conducted on 60 patients, aged between 18 and 65 years, either sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I and II patients scheduled for single-level lumbar laminectomy. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups 30 patients each. Twenty to 30 minutes before skin closure and after hemostasis was achieved, the surgeon infiltrated 10 mL of study drugs into paravertebral muscles on each side. Group A received 20 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine and group B received 20 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine plus magnesium sulfate. Postoperative pain was assessed by the visual analog scale at 0 minute (immediately after extubation), 30 minutes, 1st hour, 2nd hour, and thereafter at 4th hour, 6th hour, 12th hour, and 24th hour. Time to rescue analgesia, total analgesic consumption, hemodynamic variables, and complications if any were recorded. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 20.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).

RESULTS

The time to first requirement of analgesia in postoperative period was significantly longer in group A (10.05 ± 1.62 hours) than in group B (8.07 ± 1.83 hours) (p < 0.001). Total analgesic consumption was significantly higher in group B (197.50 ± 36.76 mL) compared to group A (142.50 ± 22.88 mL) (p < 0.001). Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were significantly lower in group A compared to group B (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Local infiltration of surgical site with ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine provided better pain control than ropivacaine plus magnesium sulphate infiltration and is safe and effective analgesia for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries in postoperative period.

Comparison of vital sign stability and cost effectiveness between midazolam and dexmedetomidine during third molar extraction under intravenous sedation

Objectives

To compare the vital sign stability and cost of two commonly used sedatives, midazolam (MDZ) and dexmedetomidine (DEX). Patients and.

Methods

This retrospective study targeted patients who underwent mandibular third molar extractions under intravenous sedation using MDZ or DEX. The predictor variable was the type of sedative used. The primary outcome variables were vital signs (heart rate and blood pressure), vital sign outliers, and cost of the sedatives. A vital sign outlier was defined as a 30% or more change in vital signs during sedation; the fewer changes, the higher the vital sign stability. The secondary outcome variables included the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale, level of amnesia, patient satisfaction, and bispectral index score. Covariates were sex, age, body mass index, sleeping time, dental anxiety score, and Pederson scale. Descriptive statistics were computed including propensity score matching (PSM). The P-value was set at 0.05.

Results

The study enrolled 185 patients, 103 in the MDZ group and 82 in the DEX group. Based on the data after PSM, the two samples had similar baseline covariates. The sedative effect of both agents was satisfactory. Heart rate outliers were more common with MDZ than with DEX (49.3% vs 22.7%, P=0.001). Heart rate was higher with MDZ (P=0.000). The cost was higher for DEX than for MDZ (29.27±0.00 USD vs 0.37±0.04 USD, P=0.000).

Conclusion

DEX showed more vital sign stability, while MDZ was more economical. These results could be used as a reference to guide clinicians during sedative selection.

A Randomized Control Trial of Three Intravenous Dexmedetomidine Doses for Procedural Sedation in Patients Undergoing Minor Gynaecological Surgery

Background: Minor gynaecological procedures are usually done in outpatient settings. Early discharge with minimal haemodynamic compromise is an essential requirement of these procedures. Many sedative drugs are being used for outpatient surgeries. Of the sedative agents available, dexmedetomidine, which has sedative and analgesic sparing effects, has the best safety profile in the cardiorespiratory system. Therefore, we evaluated the optimum dexmedetomidine dose for providing better procedural sedation.

Methodology: This randomized, double-blinded study included 120 ASA grade I and II patients aged 18-45 years who were undergoing short gynaecological procedures in a tertiary care hospital. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups of 40 each. After a loading dose of 1 µg/kg over 10 min, group A received dexmedetomidine infusion at a rate of 0.2 µg/kg/hr, group B at a rate of 0.4 µg/kg/hr, and group C at a rate of 0.6 µg/kg/hr. Perioperative hemodynamic changes, intraoperative adjuvant drug requirements, and postoperative recovery were also compared in the three different dexmedetomidine groups.

Results: Heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate remained within the normal physiological range in all three groups at most perioperative time points. The time to achieve the Modified Aldrete Score and the post-anesthetic discharge scoring system was maximum in group C and minimum in group A. Ketamine had to be supplemented in almost half of the patients in group A and less than a quarter of the patients in group B. In group C, surgery was completed without any drug supplementation. Two patients in group B and four patients in group C had an episode of bradycardia. Oxygen saturation decreased in one patient in group C, necessitating oxygen supplementation.

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine, at a dose of 0.4 µg/kg/hr with ketamine supplementation, provides the most appropriate procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) without any significant hemodynamic compromise.

Perioperative Analgesia in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Otolaryngologic Surgery

This article reviews the evidence regarding current perioperative pain management strategies in pediatric patients undergoing otolaryngologic surgery. Pediatric otolaryngology is a broad field with a wide variety of surgical procedures that each requires careful consideration for optimal perioperative pain management. Adequate pain control is vital to ensuring patient safety and achieving successful postoperative care, but many young children are limited in their capacity to communicate their pain experience. Current literature holds a disproportionate amount of focus on pain management for certain procedures, whereas there is a paucity of evidence-based literature informing most other procedures within the field.

A Historical Review of Indian Perspectives on Techniques of Tympanoplasty

Reconstructive surgery of the conductive hearing mechanism is collectively called as tympanoplasty, which has gradually evolved over time with the contributions from all over the word. The aim of the present historical review is to summarize the Indian contributions in the development of the technique of tympanoplasty. The literature review was conducted using only the “Medline” search using keywords “tympanoplasty” and “ossiculoplasty” in “India” on 15^th June 2016. A total of 195 articles and abstracts were found dated from the year 1998 onwards. Articles describing work on technique were included, and those describing only experimentation with graft material were excluded. All articles were fully read and analysed. It was found that there had been experiments regarding the choice of anaesthesia and the use of combinations of different chemical agents for this purpose. There were suggestions in favour of monitored anaesthesia care for the surgery in select patients. Surgeons expressed their perspectives on the time and conditions for the surgery, laterality of surgery, different types of incisions, use of endoscopes, graft placement techniques, ossicular replacements with autologous or allogenic grafts, and the timing of prophylactic antibiotic therapy given after or during the surgery. The range of work is wide and covers most of the aspects of surgery; however, the incorporation of a uniform methodology and standards reporting results were lacking in the articles reviewed.

The Importance of Conscious Sedation for Life-Saving Valve Procedures in Patients With Rheumatic Heart Disease From Low- to Middle-Income Countries

BACKGROUND

Severe valve disease, which requires intervention, remains strongly associated with mortality in patients with rheumatic heart disease. Percutaneous mitral commissurotomy (PMC) is the procedure of choice for the treatment of patients with isolated or predominantly rheumatic mitral stenosis. This procedure has been performed under sedation to avoid the potential effects of general anesthesia on intracardiac pressure measurements. However, there are limited data on sedation during PMC, especially using easily available medications in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and hemodynamic effects of conscious sedation during PMC in patients with significant mitral stenosis.

METHODS

This study prospectively enrolled 23 patients who underwent PMC with the Inoue balloon technique for hemodynamically significant mitral stenosis. For conscious sedation, midazolam 25 μg/kg and fentanyl 1 μg/kg were administered, and 5 min after the infusion, the level of sedation was evaluated by Ramsay sedation scale. A range of invasive hemodynamic measurements, including cardiac output and pulmonary artery pressures, were recorded before and immediately after sedation.

RESULTS

The mean age was 44.9 ± 10.8 years, and 19 patients (83%) were women. After sedation, the majority of patients were in categories 2 and 3 of the Ramsay sedation scale (cooperative, orientated, tranquil, and responding to commands). Oxygen saturation dropped from an average of 98.5% to 96.0% without supplementary oxygen. Left ventricular systolic pressure and central aortic pressures decreased after sedation. However, none of the other parameters changed significantly after sedation, including pulmonary artery pressures, pulmonary vascular resistance, and cardiac index.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple model of conscious sedation was able to promote anxiolysis, analgesia, and comfort for the procedure without serious hemodynamic effects, which can be a reasonable choice in developing countries.

Perioperative analgesia for patients undergoing otologic surgery: An evidence-based review

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Opioid misuse and diversion is a major concern, with a negative impact on both the individual and society. The objective of this study was to perform an evidence-based systematic review of the efficacy of perioperative analgesic regimens following otologic surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases (January 1, 1947 to June 30, 2018) were searched for studies investigating pain management in otologic surgeries. All studies were assessed for quality and bias using the Cochrane bias tool. Patient demographics, type of surgery, medication class, dose, administration characteristics, pain scores, and adverse events were reported.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies encompassing 1,842 patients met inclusion criteria. In 21.4% of studies, an overall reduction in pain scores was reported when the treatment group included more than one analgesic. Nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events across all medication types (10.2%), with local anesthetic patients experiencing these side effects most frequently (38.0%). Perioperative acetaminophen was reported to have the fewest adverse drug reactions overall (6.1%), but did not reduce pain scores as much as other modalities, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or combination analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that combination analgesics, such as acetaminophen plus codeine, provide superior pain relief to monotherapy analgesics in the perioperative pain management of otologic surgeries. NSAIDs, α-agonists, and nerve blocks may also be viable single-therapy options. Further prospective randomized controlled trials into perioperative analgesia for patients undergoing otologic surgery may be helpful in establishing a definitive consensus. Laryngoscope, 130:190-199, 2020.

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.

The Effectiveness of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine on Perioperative Hemodynamics, Analgesic Requirement, and Side Effects Profile in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery Under General Anesthesia

Background:

There is an upward surge in the use of laparoscopic surgeries due to various advantages when compared to open surgeries. Major advantages are, due to small incisions which are cosmetically acceptable and most of them are now daycare procedures. Problem of economic burden and hospital bed occupancy has been overcome with laparoscopic surgeries. All these advantages are not free from disadvantages, as hemodynamic changes such as hypertension; tachycardia and other surgical-related complications are commonly observed intraoperatively. Dexmedetomidine is one of the α₂ agonist drugs which acts at both supraspinal and spinal level and modulate the transmission of nociceptive signals in the central nervous system. The basic effect of dexmedetomidine on the cardiovascular system is to decrease the heart rate and systemic vascular resistance with additional feature of opioid sparing effect. This drug has become an ideal adjuvant during general anesthesia, especially when stress is expected. Hence, the drug was studied in laparoscopic surgeries.

Aims and Objectives:

(a) To study the effect of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic parameters during perioperative period in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. (b) To study the postoperative sedation score and analgesic requirement. (c) To study the side effect profile of dexmedetomidine.

Settings and Design:

Randomized double blind controlled trial.

Subjects and Methods:

After obtaining the Institutional Ethical Clearance, the study was conducted. Forty patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I and II were enrolled in this randomized study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups; group normal saline (NS) and group dexmedetomidine. Patient received either NS or dexmedetomidine in group NS and group dexmedetomidine, respectively, depending upon the allocation. The infusion rate was adjusted according to; loading dose (1 μg/kg) over 10 min and maintenance dose (0.5 μg/kg/h) and perioperative hemodynamics was recorded. Routine general anesthesia was administered in all the patients with conventional technique without deviating from institutional protocols. Postoperatively, Rasmsay sedation score, time taken for request of first analgesic dose, and side effects if any were recorded.

Statistical Analysis Used:

The categorical factors are represented by the number and frequency (%) of cases. The continuous variables are represented by measures of central frequency and standard deviation. The statistical analysis was done by using unpaired t-test and Chi-square. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Significant hemodynamic changes are observed in NS group during laryngoscopy, intubation, during pneumoperitoneum formation, and during extubation. Hemodynamic stress response in dexmedetomidine group was significantly attenuated. Analgesic requirement during postoperative 24 h were much less in dexmedetomidine group when compared to NS group. No significant side effects were noted except for bradycardia; which was observed in two cases of dexmedetomidine group.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine infusion in the dose of 1 μg/kg body weight as bolus over 10 min and 0.5 μg/kg/h intraoperatively as maintenance dose controlled the hemodynamic stress response in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Use of dexmedetomidine extends the pain free period postoperatively and thereby reducing total analgesic requirement. Thus, dexmedetomidine can be utilized as an ideal anesthetic adjuvant during laparoscopic surgeries.

Monitored anaesthesia care - Comparison of nalbuphine/dexmedetomidine versus nalbuphine/propofol for middle ear surgeries: A double-blind randomised trial

Background and Aims:

Middle ear surgeries (MESs) are usually performed under sedation with local anaesthesia and can be well tolerated by the patient with minimal discomfort. In the present study, we compare the effect of nalbuphine/dexmedetomidine combination with nalbuphine/propofol on sedation and analgesia in monitored anaesthesia care.

Methods:

One hundred adult patients undergoing MESs under monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) were randomly allocated into two groups. All patients in both groups received injection nalbuphine 50 μg/kg intravenously (IV). Group D received a bolus dose of injection dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg IV over 10 min followed by an infusion started at 0.4 μg/kg/h IV. Group P received a bolus dose of injection propofol 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion started at 0.025 mg/kg/min IV. Sedation was titrated to Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) of 3. Patient's mean arterial pressure, heart rate, saturation peripheral pulse and need for intraoperative rescue sedation/analgesia were recorded and compared. The data analysis was carried out with Z test and Chi-square test.

Results:

Mean RSS was significantly more in Group D (4.24 ± 1.54) as compared to Group P (2.58 ± 0.95). Overall VAS score was also significantly less in Group D (3.5 ± 1.7) than in Group P (5.4 ± 1.8). In total, 16 patients (32%) in Group D had hypotension whereas 7 patients (14%) only in Group P had hypotension.

Conclusion:

Nalbuphine/dexmedetomidine combination is superior to nalbuphine/propofol in producing sedation and decreasing VAS in patients undergoing MESs under MAC. Better surgeon and patient satisfaction were observed with nalbuphine/dexmedetomidine. Haemodynamics need to be closely monitored.

The Effect of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine Compared to Propofol on Patients Hemodynamics as a Sedative in Brachial Plexus Block: A Comparative Study

Background:

The quest for an ideal sedative during regional anesthesia is on. Although propofol has been accepted as a sedative intraoperatively, it can be associated with troublesome hemodynamic changes. Dexmedetomidine is a new alpha 2 agonist used widely for sedation.

Aims:

In this study, we tried to compare equivalent doses of dexmedetomidine infusion with propofol with emphasis on their effect on the hemodynamics.

Settings and Design:

Prospective, single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Materials and Methods:

In a single blinded study, 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients scheduled for forearm surgeries under brachial plexus block were randomized to receive either propofol (Group I) or dexmedetomidine (Group II) infusion. Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block was given in all the patients. After confirming adequate motor and sensory blockade, they were administered an initial loading dose of the drug over 10 min followed by a maintenance dose till the end of the surgery. The rate of infusion was titrated to maintain Ramsay sedation score of 2–4. Intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory effects were documented along with surgeon and patient satisfaction. Any adverse effect such as hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, and vomiting was also noted.

Statistical Analysis Used:

The data collected were evaluated using Stata version 10. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Heart rate decreased significantly in Group II (dexmedetomidine) while mean arterial pressure decreased significantly in Group I (propofol). There was no increase in the incidence of bradycardia or hypotension in either groups. Patient satisfaction score was significantly greater in Group II (dexmedetomidine) while surgeon satisfaction score was similar in both the groups.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine at equivalent doses of propofol has a similar hemodynamic and respiratory effect, similar surgeon's satisfaction score, higher patient's satisfaction score, and no significant side effects in ASA I/II patients. Thus, dexmedetomidine may prove to be a valuable alternative to propofol for sedation in patients undergoing upper limb surgeries in brachial plexus block.

Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine as a Sole Sedative Agent in Small Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: A Systematic Review

Dexmedetomidine is an upcoming agent with sedative, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties. This review summarizes empirical evidence for the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative agent, and its effectiveness for small diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, in comparison with other frequently used sedatives. All randomized controlled trials on the effect of dexmedetomidine were reviewed. Pain level, patient satisfaction, operator satisfaction, procedure duration, recovery time, and hemodynamic and respiratory characteristics were examined. A total of 1993 patients (1,621 adults; 372 children) from 35 studies were included. In the adult studies, dexmedetomidine yielded significantly lower pain levels compared to the other sedatives (in 31.25% of the included studies) and significantly more patient satisfaction (68.2%). In studies on children, more favorable results concerning respiratory safety and the level of adequate sedation were found compared to the control sedatives. Implications for future studies are discussed.

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam-Fentanyl Combination for Monitored Anesthesia Care During Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative movements are marker of inadequate level of sedation and are undesirable during burr-hole surgery under monitored anesthesia care (MAC). It distracts surgeon, hinders surgical procedure, and may lead to iatrogenic complication. Dexmedetomidine has shown to provide excellent analgesia, cooperative sedation with fewer fluctuations in sedation level during MAC. We compared the effect of dexmedetomidine on intraoperative patient movement, postoperative recovery time, and the surgeon and patient satisfaction scores with commonly used midazolam-fentanyl combination.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients undergoing burr-hole surgery for chronic subdural hematoma under MAC were randomly assigned to receive either IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg over 10 minutes followed by continuous infusion 0.03 to 0.07 μg/kg/h (group D) or IV fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg and midazolam 0.03 mg/kg over 10 minutes followed by continuous infusion of 0.5 to 1.16 μg/kg/h fentanyl and 0.03 to 0.07 mg/kg/h midazolam (group M/F) titrated to maintain Ramsay sedation scale 3. Total number of intraoperative patient movements, postoperative recovery time, and patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were recorded.

RESULTS

Demographic and baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. Intraoperative patient movements were significantly less in group D than group M/F (median interquartile range, 1.00 [0.00 to 2.00] vs. 3.00 [1.00 to 3.25], P=0.007). Group D patients showed faster postoperative recovery (mean ± SD, 7.00 ± 6.96 vs. 13.69 ± 6.18 min, P=0.000). Surgeon satisfaction scores were better in group D compared with group M/F (median interquartile range, 1.00 [1.00 to 1.25] vs. 2.00 [1.00 to 2.00], P=0.014). However, patient satisfaction score and hemodynamic parameters were comparable (P>0.05) between both the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of dexmedetomidine for MAC is associated with lesser number of intraoperative patient movements, faster postoperative recovery, better surgeon satisfaction score, and comparable patient's satisfaction compared with midazolam-fentanyl combination.

The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial

Background: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a very common clinical emergency encountered in neurosurgery. While both general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) can be used during CSDH surgery, MAC is the preferred choice among surgeons. Further, while dexmedetomidine (DEX) is reportedly a safe and effective agent for many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, there have been no trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in CSDH surgery.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH.

Methods: In all, 215 fifteen patients underwent burr-hole surgery for CSDH with MAC and were divided into three groups: Group D1 (n = 67, DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min), Group D2 (n = 75, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min), and Group S (n = 73, sufentanil infusion 0.3 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min). Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of all three groups was maintained at 3. Anesthesia onset time, total number of intraoperative patient movements, hemodynamics, total cumulative dose of DEX, time to first dose and amount of rescue midazolam or fentanyl, percentage of patients converted to alternative sedative or anesthetic therapy, postoperative recovery time, adverse events, and patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were recorded.

Results: The anesthesia onset time was significantly less in group D2 (17.36 ± 4.23 vs. 13.42 ± 2.12 vs. 15.98 ± 4.58 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). More patients in groups D1 and S required rescue midazolam to achieve RSS = 3 (74.63 vs. 42.67 vs. 71.23%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). However, the total dose of rescue midazolam was significantly higher in group D1 (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 2.0 ± 0.4 mg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). The time to first dose of rescue midazolam was significantly longer in group D2 (17.32 ± 4.47 vs. 23.56 ± 5.36 vs. 16.55 ± 4.91 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Significantly fewer patients in groups S and D2 required rescue fentanyl to relieve pain (62.69 vs. 21.33 vs. 27.40%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Additionally, total dose of rescue fentanyl in group D1 group was significantly higher (212.5 ± 43.6 vs. 107.2 ± 35.9 vs. 98.6 ± 32.2 μg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Total number of patient movements during the burr-hole surgery was higher in groups D1 and S (47.76 vs. 20.00 vs. 47.95%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Four patients in D1 and five in S converted to propofol. The time to recovery for discharge from the PACU was significantly shorter in group D2 (16.24 ± 4.15 vs. 12.48 ± 3.29 vs. 15.91 ± 3.66 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Results from the patient and surgeon satisfaction scores showed significant differences favoring group D2 (P < 0.05). More patients in groups D1 and S showed higher levels of the overall incidence of tachycardia and hypertension, and required higher doses of urapidil and esmolol (P < 0.05). Six patients experienced respiratory depression in group S.

Conclusion: Compared with sufentanil, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg⁻¹ was associated with fewer intraoperative patient movements, fewer rescue interventions, faster postoperative recovery, and better patient and surgeon satisfaction scores and could be safely and effectively used for MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH.

Monitored anesthesia care in and outside the operating room

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is an anesthesia technique combining local anesthesia with parenteral drugs for sedation and analgesia. The use of MAC is increasing for a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in and outside of the operating room due to the rapid postoperative recovery with the use of relatively small amounts of sedatives and analgesics compared to general anesthesia. The purposes of MAC are providing patients with safe sedation, comfort, pain control and satisfaction. Preoperative evaluation for patients with MAC is similar to those of general or regional anesthesia in that patients should be comprehensively assessed. Additionally, patient cooperation with comprehension of the procedure is an essential component during MAC. In addition to local anesthesia by operators or anesthesiologists, systemic sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide patients with comfort during procedures performed with MAC. The discretion and judgment of an experienced anesthesiologist are required for the safety and efficacy profiles because the airway of the patients is not secured. The infusion of sedatives and analgesics should be individualized during MAC. Many procedures in and outside of the operating room, including eye surgery, otolaryngologic surgery, cardiovascular procedures, pain procedures, and endoscopy are performed with MAC to increase patient and operator satisfaction.

The effect of dexmedetomidine added to preemptive (2% lignocaine with adrenaline) infiltration on intraoperative hemodynamics and postoperative pain after ambulatory maxillofacial surgeries under general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Lignocaine + adrenaline; a local anesthetic agent; frequently used for perilesional infiltration, maintains the stable hemodynamics and decreases the postoperative pain after maxillofacial surgery. α2 agonists have peripheral analgesic effects. This prospective study was to evaluate the effectiveness of perilesional dexmedetomidine administered preincisionally in addition to conventional lignocaine adrenaline combinations for reconstructive maxillofacial surgery in an ambulatory care setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

76, American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II patients scheduled for unilateral traumatic maxillofacial surgeries were randomly allocated into group DL (n = 38) receiving 15 cc of 2% lignocaine + adrenaline (1:200,000) mixed with 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine and group PL receiving 15 cc of 2% lignocaine + adrenaline with normal saline (placebo) via local wound infiltration 5 min prior to skin incision. Perioperative hemodynamics, time to first analgesic use, total analgesic need, bleeding, and side effects were recorded for each patient.

RESULTS

Dosage of supplemental propofol; total perioperative, postoperative, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) fentanyl consumption was significantly lower (P = 0.0001, P= 0.0001, P= 0.0001, P= 0.004, respectively) in dexmedetomine treated group than placebo. Rescue analgesic requirement was significantly earlier in group PL than group DL. Group DL patients suffered from significantly less (P = 0.02) bleeding and surgeon's satisfaction score was also high in this group. Discharge from PACU was significantly earlier in group DL. Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters were significantly lower in group DL (P < 0.05) without any appreciable side effects.

CONCLUSION

Thus, prior dexmedetomidine local infiltration at the site of maxillofacial trauma has significantly reduced bleeding from wound site; perioperative fentanyl, propofol consumption, and subsequently ensured earlier discharge from PACU, better surgeon's satisfaction score with better hemodynamic control and lesser side effects.

Comparative evaluation of two different loading doses of dexmedetomidine with midazolam-fentanyl for sedation in vitreoretinal surgery under peribulbar anaesthesia

Background and Aims:

Midazolam-fentanyl (MDZ:FEN) combination has been routinely used for intravenous sedation in ophthalmic surgeries. Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a recent α₂ adrenoreceptor agonist indicated for sedation for ophthalmic use at a loading dose of 0.5 μg/kg over 10 min, can cause deeper plane of sedation and surgeon dissatisfaction. Therefore, we proposed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two different loading doses of DEX.

Methods:

In a prospective study, 60 patients aged 50-70 years, scheduled for retinal surgery under peribulbar block were divided equally to receive either MDZ:FEN or DEX 0.5 μg/kg (DEX full) or DEX 0.25 μg/kg (DEX half) loading dose over 10 min followed by titrated maintenance dose of DEX 0.25-0.4 μg/kg/h. Vital parameters, level of sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale 1–6), effect on respiration and surgeon satisfaction were assessed at regular intervals. Surgeon satisfaction score (0–3) was noted.

Results:

‘DEX half’ group patients had predominantly stable haemodynamics, level 3 sedation and surgeon satisfaction score of 2–3 (good to excellent operating conditions). This group had no vomiting and no respiratory depression. ‘DEX full’ group had a higher incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, level 4 sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale) and lower surgeon satisfaction. Incidence of nausea and vomiting was higher in MDZ:FEN group compared to other two groups.

Conclusion:

DEX 0.25 μg/kg loading dose over 10 min followed by titrated maintenance dose is an effective alternative to MDZ:FEN and provides controlled (level 3) sedation and stable haemodynamics maximising surgeon satisfaction. Avoiding narcotic analgesics with its associated post-operative nausea and vomiting is an additional benefit.

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.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine on Stress Hormones, Inflammatory Markers, and Postoperative Analgesia after Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery

Background. A strong ongoing intraoperative stress response can cause serious adverse reactions and affect the postoperative outcome. This study evaluated the effect of intranasally administered dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with local anesthesia (LA) on the relief of stress and the inflammatory response during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Methods. Sixty patients undergoing FESS were randomly allocated to receive either intranasal DEX (DEX group) or intranasal saline (Placebo group) 1 h before surgery. Stress hormones, inflammatory markers, postoperative pain relief, hemodynamic variables, blood loss, surgical field quality, body movements, and satisfaction were assessed. Results. Plasma epinephrine, norepinephrine, and blood glucose levels were significantly lower in DEX group as were the plasma IL-6 and TNF-α levels (P < 0.05). The weighted areas under the curve (AUCw) of the VAS scores were also significantly lower in DEX group at 2–12 h after surgery (P < 0.001). Furthermore, hemodynamic variables, blood loss, body movements, discomfort with hemostatic stuffing, surgical field quality, and satisfaction scores of patients and surgeons were significantly better (P < 0.05) in DEX group. Conclusions. Patients receiving intranasal DEX with LA for FESS exhibited less perioperative stress and inflammatory response as well as better postoperative comfort with hemostatic stuffing and analgesia.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol versus fentanyl-propofol for insertion of laryngeal mask airway

Background and aims:

Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion requires anesthesia and suppression of airway reflexes. In search of an optimal drug, we compared dexmedetomidine and fentanyl, in combination with propofol for insertion of LMA.

Material and Methods:

This study was a prospective double blind randomized study. Eighty patients of ASA class 1&2 were randomly divided into two groups of 40 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg and group F received fentanyl 1 mcg/kg intravenously (IV) over 2 minutes. For induction, propofol 2mg/kg was given IV and 90 seconds later LMA was inserted. We observed apnea time, heart rate, respiratory rate, non invasive blood pressure and oxygen saturation before induction, 30 seconds after induction, 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 minutes after insertion of LMA. Patient's response to LMA insertion like coughing, gagging or any movement were noted and scored. Statistical analysis of data was done using student t test for parametric data, Chi-square test for non parametric data and SPSS 15.0 for windows software.

Results:

37 (92.5%) patients of group D and 35 (87.5%) patients of group F had LMA insertion score of <2 and 5 (12.5%) patients of group F had score >2. Adverse events to insertion of LMA and hemodynamic variables were comparable in both the groups. Number of patients developing apnoea was larger and apnoea times were longer in group F compared to group D. When compared to group F, group D showed an increased respiratory rate.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine can be a comparable alternative to fentanyl as an adjuvant to propofol for providing optimum insertion conditions for LMA and preservation of respiration.

A comparative study on monitored anesthesia care

Aim:

The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness, hemodynamic changes and duration of sedation and analgesia between combinations of fortwin-phenergan-midazolam (FPM) and ketamine - midazolam (KM) along with local anesthesia for the surgeries done under the umbrella of monitored anesthesia care.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 50 patients undergoing surgeries as tympanoplasty, septoplasty, lip repair, dacrocystectomy and cataract under local anesthesia, randomly received either intravenous (IV) fortwin 0.3 mg/kg over 1 min followed by IV midazolam 0.04 mg/kg plus IV phenergan 12.5 mg (Group FPM) or IV ketamine 0.3 mg/kg over 1 min plus IV midazolam 0.04 mg/kg (Group KM). Sedation was titrated to Ramsay sedation score (RSS) of 3. Patients’ mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), saturation peripheral pulse, duration of sedation and need for intraoperative rescue sedation/analgesic were recorded and compared. Satisfaction of patients (using a 1-7 point Likert verbal rating scale) and readiness for discharge towards (time to Aldrete score of 10) were also determined.

Result:

Group KM had significant rise in HR (20-25%) and MAP (25-30%) from 30 min after the bolus dose given until the end of the surgery in contrast to Group FPM. The target sedation level (RSS ≥ 3) was higher in Group FPM (n = 23 [92%]) as compared with Group KM (n = 12 [48%]). Time until need for rescue sedation was 66.96 ± 17.19 min in FPM and 32.80 ± 8.90 min in KM group. The patient satisfaction (Likert scale) is more with the FPM group (6.12 ± 0.83 vs. 4.40 ± 1.20).

Conclusion:

We found that the combination of FPM is superior to the KM combination as per the hemodynamic changes, duration of analgesia, patients’ satisfaction and efficacy of the drugs are concerned.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine/fentanyl with midazolam/fentanyl combination for sedation and analgesia during tooth extraction

Dexmedetomidine is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist that causes minimal respiratory depression compared with alternative drugs. This study investigated whether combined dexmedetomidine/fentanyl offered better sedation and analgesia than midazolam/fentanyl in dental surgery. Sixty patients scheduled for unilateral impacted tooth extraction were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine and fentanyl (D/F) or midazolam and fentanyl (M/F). Recorded variables were patient preoperative anxiety scores, vital signs, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAAS) scores after drug administration, surgeon and patient degree of satisfaction, and the duration of analgesia after surgery. The OAAS scores were significantly lower for patients administered D/F compared to those who received M/F. The duration of analgesia after the surgical procedure was significantly longer in patients who received D/F (5.3 h) than in those who received M/F (4.1 h; P=0.017). The number of surgeons satisfied with the level of sedation/analgesia provided by D/F was significantly higher than for M/F (P=0.001). Therefore, dexmedetomidine/fentanyl appears to provide better sedation, stable haemodynamics, surgeon satisfaction, and postoperative analgesia than midazolam/fentanyl during office-based unilateral impacted tooth extraction.