Comparison of Two Doses of Dexmedetomidine for Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam-Fentanyl Combination in Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blinded Study

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine has acceptable clinical utility for inducing sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. Reducing its dose may not only ameliorate its cardiovascular side effects, but also maintain its clinical usefulness.

METHODS

Patients between 18 and 65 years were randomized to either dexmedetomidine (0.75 µg/kg) or the midazolam-fentanyl group (0.035 mg/kg midazolam and 25 mcg fentanyl). The primary outcome measure was the composite score. Other parameters noted were: oxygen saturation, hemodynamic variables, Modified Ramsay Sedation Score, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity and distress, Visual Analog Scale score for cough, rescue medication doses, ease of doing bronchoscopy, and patient response 24 hours after bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

In each arm, 31 patients were enrolled. The composite score at the nasopharynx was in the ideal category in 26 patients in dexmedetomidine and 21 in the midazolam-fentanyl group (P=0.007). At the tracheal level, the corresponding values were 24 and 16 (P=0.056). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the secondary outcome measures except hemodynamic parameters. The mean heart rate in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively, was as follows: at 10 minutes after start of FB (90.10±14.575, 104.35±18.48; P=0.001), at the end of FB (98.39±18.70, 105.94±17.45; P=0.016), and at 10 minutes after end of FB (89.84±12.02, 93.90±13.74; P=0.022). No patient developed bradycardia. Two patients (P=0.491) in the dexmedetomidine group developed hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose dexmedetomidine (0.75 μg/kg single dose) appears to lead to a better composite score compared with the midazolam-fentanyl combination.

Clinical usefulness of intermediate-dose dexmedetomidine (0.75 μg/kg) in flexible bronchoscopy - A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND:

Dexmedetomidine, although an effective drug for conscious sedation during flexible bronchoscopy, has occasional side effects on the cardiovascular system which need to be addressed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Patients between 18 and 65 years, requiring diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy, found eligible, after screening, were randomized to either receive 0.75 μg/kg intravenous dexmedetomidine over 10 min or intravenous midazolam 0.035 mg/kg over 1 min. Composite score was used as the primary outcome measure. Additional parameters recorded were: Hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, Ramsay sedation score, for pain intensity and distress Numerical Rating Scale, number of rescue medication doses, ease of doing bronchoscopy, Visual Analog Scale score for cough and response of the patient 24 h after bronchoscopy.

RESULTS:

In each group, 24 patients were enrolled. The composite score was in the ideal category in 24 patients in dexmedetomidine group and 21 in midazolam group, at nasopharynx (P = 0.234). The corresponding values at the level of trachea were 23 and 16 (P = 0.023). In dexmedetomidine group, patient response after 24 h of bronchoscopy showed quality of sedation to be excellent in 0 subjects, good in 13, fair in 9 and poor in 2 and discomfort to be nil in 7, mild 10, moderate in 7 and severe in 0. The corresponding values in midazolam group for quality of sedation were 0, 4, 14, 6, and for discomfort 0, 10, 14, 0. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for cough revealed a mean score of 0.800 and 1.812 (P = 0.011) during and 2.092 and 3.542 (P = 0.016) 24 h after bronchoscopy in the respective study groups.

CONCLUSION:

Low-dose dexmedetomidine (0.75 μg/kg single dose) appears to provide better patient comfort and equivalent safety profile when compared with midazolam.

Comparison of postoperative analgesia with two different doses of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine in adductor canal block for unilateral total knee replacement surgery: A randomized double-blinded study

Background and Aims

Multimodal analgesia is used to treat severe postoperative pain (POP) in total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. Adjuvants are used with local anesthetics to improve the quality and duration of pain relief. Studies comparing different doses of dexmedetomidine in adductor canal block (ACB) are sparse to date. This study compares postoperative analgesia with two different doses of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to 0.2% ropivacaine in ACB for unilateral TKR.

Material and Methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded comparative study, sixty patients were divided into two groups: A and B. Postoperatively perineural catheter was inserted and all patients received 0.2% ropivacaine 20 mL bolus followed by an infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/Kg in Group A and 1 µg/Kg in Group B) at 8 mL/h. Postoperative pain, motor blockade, rescue analgesia, hemodynamic parameters, sedation, and adverse effects were recorded. Student t, Chi-square, and Mann-Whitney tests were used.

Results

Most patients were elderly females (M:15, F:45). Postoperatively, from 2^nd to 24^th hour, pain score was less in Group B (P < 0.05). The requirement of rescue analgesic was also less in Group B (A:B 330 µg:60 µg; 23%:6%). Motor blockade assessed using modified Bromage scale and sedation using Richmond agitation sedation scale did not show any statistical difference.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine infusion at 1 µg/Kg is a better adjuvant to 0.2% ropivacaine than 0.5 µg/Kg in ACB. It provides better analgesia without producing sedation, motor blockade, hemodynamic changes, or any adverse effects.

Comparing different doses of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block in upper limb surgeries - A Prospective randomized controlled trial

Background:

Dexmedetomidine is used as an adjuvant to local anesthetic agents to provide prolonged analgesia in peripheral nerve blocks. This study aimed at determining the optimal dose of dexmedetomidine, which when combined with ropivacaine will produce a superior quality block in terms of extended pain-free period and reduced perioperative analgesic/opioid use, which in turn improves patient satisfaction.

Objective:

The objective of the study is to assess the duration of analgesia with two different doses (25 μg and 50 μg) of dexmedetomidine with ropivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block.

Subjects and Methods:

This prospective randomized controlled study included 50 patients undergoing upper limb surgeries under supraclavicular brachial plexus block randomly divided into two groups. Group D25 received 29 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine +25 μg dexmedetomidine diluted in 1 mL of normal saline (total 30 mL); Group D50 received 29 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine +50 μg dexmedetomidine diluted in 1 mL of normal saline (total 30 mL). Onset and duration of sensorimotor block, duration of analgesia, and time interval for the rescue analgesia and hemodynamic stability were observed.

Results:

The mean onset of motor and sensory block was significantly higher in the D25 group (P = 0.001). The Visual Analog Scale pain scores and rescue analgesia consumption were significantly lower in the D50 group (P = 0.013, 0.001). The duration of analgesia was significantly higher in the D50 group (P = 0.001).

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine 50 μg is an effective adjuvant dose to ropivacaine with insignificant hemodynamic changes with better duration of analgesia and lesser pain scores.

Role of dexmedetomidine as adjuvant in postoperative sciatic popliteal and adductor canal analgesia in trauma patients: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The effect of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant in the adductor canal block (ACB) and sciatic popliteal block (SPB) on the postoperative tramadol-sparing effect following spinal anesthesia has not been evaluated.

Methods

In this randomized, placebo-controlled study, ninety patients undergoing below knee trauma surgery were randomized to either the control group, using ropivacaine in the ACB + SPB; the block Dex group, using dexmedetomidine + ropivacaine in the ACB + SPB; or the systemic Dex group, using ropivacaine in the ACB + SPB + intravenous dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was a comparison of postoperative cumulative tramadol patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) consumption at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes included time to first PCA bolus, pain score, neurological assessment, sedation score, and adverse effects at 0, 5, 10, 15, and 60 minutes, as well as 4, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, and 48 hours after the block.

Results

The mean ± standard deviation of cumulative tramadol consumption at 48 hours was 64.83 ± 51.17 mg in the control group and 41.33 ± 38.57 mg in the block Dex group (P = 0.008), using Mann–Whitney U-test. Time to first tramadol PCA bolus was earlier in the control group versus the block Dex group (P = 0.04). Other secondary outcomes were comparable.

Conclusions

Postoperative tramadol consumption was reduced at 48 hours in patients receiving perineural or systemic dexmedetomidine with ACB and SPB in below knee trauma surgery.

Comparison of midazolam and low-dose dexmedetomidine in flexible bronchoscopy: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is a clinically useful drug for providing sedation, but concern regarding its cardiovascular side effect profile can limit its widespread use during routine diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients between 18 and 65 years of age, who required diagnostic FB, were screened. Eligible patients were randomized to either receive 0.5 μg/kg intravenous dexmedetomidine over 10 min or intravenous midazolam 0.035 mg/kg over 1 min. If required, rescue medication (intravenous midazolam 0.5 mg bolus) was administered. The primary outcome measure was the composite score. Other parameters observed were numerical rating scale, hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, number of doses of rescue medication, visual analog scale score for cough, ease of bronchoscopy, Ramsay Sedation Score, and postprocedure patient response after 24 h of bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients were enrolled, 27 in each group. Total composite score (mean ± standard deviation) in dexmedetomidine and midazolam group at nasopharynx was 7.04 ± 2.19 and 6.59 ± 1.55 (P = 0.387), respectively. The corresponding values at the level of trachea were 9.22 ± 3.69 and 8.63 ± 2.13 (P = 0.475). In the dexmedetomidine group, patient response after 24 h of bronchoscopy showed the quality of sedation to be excellent in three patients, good in 10, fair in 11, and poor in 3 and discomfort to be nil in 14, mild 7, moderate in 3, and severe in 3. The corresponding values in the midazolam group for the quality of sedation were 0, 9, 18, 0 and for discomfort 10, 16, 1, 0. Other parameters did not reveal any statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine at a dose of 0.5 μg/kg may provide clinically useful conscious sedation, comparable to midazolam.