Long-Term Effects of Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol During the Implantation of a Neurostimulator—A Post-Trial Follow-Up Analysis
Feline FJA ter Bruggen,W Ken Redekop,Dirk L Stronks,Frank JPM Huygen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S323961
IF: 2.8319
2021-11-30
Journal of Pain Research
Abstract:Feline FJA ter Bruggen, 1 W Ken Redekop, 2 Dirk L Stronks, 1 Frank JPM Huygen 1 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Center for Pain Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 2 Department of Health Technology Assessment, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Correspondence: Feline FJA ter Bruggen Tel +31 6 40962334 Email ; Objective: The success of neurostimulation depends partly on the amount of coverage of the neurostimulation-induced paresthesia of the painful area. This is often achieved by asking feedback from patients intraoperatively. If sedation analgesia is used, it is important that the patient is comfortable during sedation and easily arousable. If the patient is not well sedated or experiences residual effects of the sedation during testing, this can directly influence the ideal placement of the leads and indirectly the long-term effect of the treatment. It is our hypothesis that the quality of the sedation is directly coupled to the adequacy of lead placement and in this way in the result of the treatment. Dexmedetomidine is known for its easy production of arousable sedation. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term effect of using dexmedetomidine versus propofol during the implantation of a neurostimulator. Materials and Methods: This is a post-trial follow-up analysis of the DexMedPro cohort. The primary outcome was global perceived effect (GPE). The secondary outcomes were the course of pain intensity, the emotional and physical functioning at the time of follow-up, and the course of neurostimulation treatment. In this study, we used the patient satisfaction with sedation as a measure for sedation quality. Results: Regarding the GPE, no statistically significant differences were found between the experimental groups in either subscale (ie, recovery (p=0.82) and satisfaction with the neurostimulation treatment at follow-up (p=0.06)). The same was found regarding the secondary parameters. A correlation was found between patient satisfaction with sedation during the lead implantation (side effects and procedural recall) and satisfaction at follow-up. Conclusion: Regarding the long-term efficacy of neurostimulation treatment, no statistically significant differences were found between the dexmedetomidine and the propofol group. We observed a trend towards greater satisfaction with the neurostimulation treatment at follow-up in the dexmedetomidine group, compared to the propofol group. Keywords: dexmedetomidine, propofol, chronic pain, neurostimulation, follow-up, retrospective studies Spinal cord neurostimulation is a proven cost-effective treatment of chronic pain. 1–3 The success of this intervention partially relies on stimulation-induced paresthesia and the extent of its coverage of the painful area(s). 4 Although, more recently, anatomical lead placement, which does not rely on paresthesia, has received increasing attention with comparable outcomes, optimal paresthesia coverage is still often achieved by seeking feedback from patients intraoperatively. 5 In our center, and elsewhere across Europe, the most common method of implantation is to apply sedation analgesia and wake up the patient during a test stimulation. Optimal paresthesia coverage depends on the combination of stimulation parameters and the location of the lead(s) and it is achieved by using patients' feedback. Placement of the leads is easier with an adequate sedation. However, reliable feedback can be obtained if the patient is arousable – preferably easily. Different sedation analgesia strategies can facilitate this in varying degrees. The most commonly used sedation-analgesia regimen during a neurostimulation procedure in the Netherlands is the combination of propofol-remifentanil. 6 Propofol is frequently used partly because anesthesiologists have much experience with it. It provides a smooth and rapid induction and easily controllable and stable continuation of sedation, and its cost is relatively low. 7 However, because propofol acts on the GABA receptors, difficulties may arise with regard to obtaining reliable feedback immediately after waking, due to the drowsiness of the patient. Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 agonist with sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic properties, known for its ability to produce arousable sedation in a moderately sedated patient, with spontaneous ventilation. 8 Previous studies have reported promising results regarding the use of dexmedetomidine in awake procedures, such as during an awake craniotomy and during the surgical implantation of paddle lead electrodes for neurostimulation through a lami -Abstract Truncated-
clinical neurology