Sedation with propofol/remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine / remifentanil for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implant: A retrospective study between 2012 and 2019

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis is a therapeutic alternative for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The procedure is traditionally performed under general anaesthesia; however, sedation is now gaining in popularity because it reduces the need for vasoactive drugs and shortens the patient's stay in the critical care unit and on the ward. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety and potential benefits of sedation with dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis in terms of haemodynamic and respiratory complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 222 patients that had undergone percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis between 2012 and 2019 under sedation with either dexmedetomidine plus remifentanil (DEX-RMF) or propofol plus remifentanil (PROPO-RMF). We collected data on complications, mainly haemodynamic and respiratory, during and after the procedure.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol (in combination with remifentanil) in terms of haemodynamic stability and intraprocedural cerebral blood oxygen. In the DEX-RMF group, however, mean blood pressure, midazolam dose, and duration of anaesthesia were lower compared with the PROPO-RMF group, but the incidence of haemodynamic and respiratory complications did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that sedation, particularly with adjuvant dexmedetomidine, is a valid anaesthetic techniques in percutaneous aortic valve prosthesis implantation.

Diaphragmatic paralysis, respiratory function, and postoperative pain after interscalene brachial plexus block with a reduced dose of 10 ml levobupivacaine 0.25% versus a 20 ml dose in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery: study protocol for the randomized controlled double-blind REDOLEV study

Background

Arthroscopic shoulder surgery causes severe postoperative pain. An interscalene brachial plexus block provides adequate analgesia, but unintended spread of the local anesthetic administered may result in a phrenic nerve block, usually associated with a nonnegligible incidence of acute hemidiaphragmatic paralysis.

The main purpose of this trial will be to analyze the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis ensuing after interscalene brachial plexus block in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery administered a standard volume (20 ml) vs. a low volume (10 ml) of levobupivacaine 0.25%.

Methods

This will be a prospective double-blind randomized controlled single-center two-arm comparative trial. Forty-eight patients will be included. The primary goal will be to ultrasonographically determine the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis by calculating the diaphragmatic thickness ratio in each group. The secondary goals will be to compare the two arms in terms of (1) decrease in forced vital capacity and (2) in forced expiratory volume at 1 s by spirometry; (3) decrease in diaphragmatic excursion by ultrasound; (4) 24-h total intravenous morphine consumption; (5) time to first opioid request of a patient-controlled analgesia pump; and (6) postoperative complications.

Discussion

This trial will demonstrate that a low-volume interscalene brachial plexus block decreases hemidiaphragmatic paralysis following arthroscopic shoulder surgery according to spirometry and ultrasound measurements and does not provide inferior postoperative analgesia to the standard volume, as measured by opioid requirements.

Trial registration

EudraCT and Spanish Trial Register (REec) registration number: 2019-003855-12 (registered on 7 January 2020). ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT04385966 (retrospectively registered on 8 May 2020). Ethics Committee approval: EC19/093 (18 December 2019).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05216-6.