Public pensions

H. Verbon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00178557

IF: 4.7

Journal of Population Economics

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Effect of intraoperative Dexmedetomidine infusion on Sevoflurane requirement and blood glucose levels during entropy-guided general anesthesia

S S Harsoor,Devika D Rani,S Lathashree,S S Nethra,K Sudheesh,SS Harsoor,DDevika Rani,SS Nethra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.125693

2014-01-01

Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine has been shown to blunt the stress response to surgery. Hence a study was designed to evaluate the effect of intravenous (IV) Dexmedetomidine infusion during general anesthesia for abdominal surgeries on blood glucose levels and on Sevoflurane requirements during anesthesia.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients scheduled for abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were divided into Dexmedetomidine (D) group and Placebo (P) group of 20 each. Group D received a loading dose of Inj. Dexmedetomidine at 1 μg/kg/10 min diluted to 20 mL, followed by maintenance with 0.5 μg/kg/h., till the end of surgery. Group P received similar volume of IV normal saline. Anesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide in oxygen and Sevoflurane keeping entropy between 40 and 60. Data were analyzed using students t test, chi square test and Fisher Exact test as applicable.RESULTS: During the first postoperative hour, Dexmedetomidine group showed blood glucose levels of 118.2 ± 16.24 mg/dL, compared to placebo group which was 136.95 ± 19.76 mg/dL and it was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Mean hourly Sevoflurane requirement in Group D was 11.10 ± 2.17 mL, compared to 15.45 ± 3.97 mL in placebo group. In peri-operative period, the heart rate and MAP were significantly lower in Group D, when compared to placebo. Patients in Group D were better sedated and post-operative pain score was better in Group D compared to Group P.CONCLUSION: IV Dexmedetomidine was effective in blunting stress response to surgical trauma as indicated by lower blood glucose levels, and reduces Sevoflurane requirements during entropy guided general anesthesia without affecting time for extubation.
Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Sedation ocirculation After Cardiac Surgery : A Randomized Controlled Trial

Xu Liu,Kai Zhang,Wei Wang,Guohao Xie,B. Cheng,Yan Wang,Yaoqin Hu,X. Fang

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objectives: To compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on sublingual microcirculation in patients after cardiac surgery. Design: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Setting: University hospital. Participants: Adult patients undergoing elective valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Interventions: On arrival in the intensive care unit (ICU), patients were assigned randomly to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.2-1.5 μg/kg/h) or propofol (5-50 μg/kg/min) with open-label titration to a target Richmond AgitationSedation Scale of 0 to –3. Measurements and Main Results: Sublingual microcirculation was recorded using sidestream dark-field imaging at ICU admission (baseline [T1]) and 4 hours (T2) and 24 hours after ICU admission (T3). At T2, median changes in perfused smallvessel density and the De Backer score from baseline were significantly greater in the dexmedetomidine group (n 1⁄4 29) than in the propofol group (n 1⁄4 32) (1.3 v 0 mm/mm, p 1⁄4
Comparison of the influence of desflurane inhalation versus isoflurane inhalation on the morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery keeping adequate anesthetic depth and recovery

Min LI,Li-ping ZHANG,David BUDREAU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-6821.2007.01.005

2007-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the efficacy and recovery profile of isoflurane and desflurane as the main anesthetics for morbidly obese patients under bispectral index(BIS) monitoring. Methods Forty morbidly obese patients (body mass index ≥35 kg·m -2) were randomly assigned into two groups. After intravenous induction of general anesthesia and tracheal intubation, anesthesia was maintained with either desflurane or isoflurane as the main anesthetics. The concentrations of the volatile drugs were adjusted to maintain BIS between 40 to 50 and hemodynamic stable. When the surgeon started the skin suture, the end-tidal concentration of the inhalational drug was reduced to keep BIS at 60. At the last skin suture,the inhalational drug was discontinued.During the postope- rative period the Adrete test was carried out to evaluate the intermediate recovery. Results No differences in anesthetic exposure and intraoperative adjuvants consumptions were found between the two groups. Eye opening, hand grip, extubation and orientation times of desflurane [(8.1±3.7),(9.8±4.1),(10.6±4.1),(14.1±5.5) min] were shorter than isoflurane[(13.2±4.9) ,(15.6±6.3),(16.9±6.9),(21.9±8.2) min] (P<0.05). The time for Aldrete score reaching 9 was significantly shorter after desfurane than isoflurane(P<0.05).Conclusion Under BIS monitoring,both desflurane and isoflurane can provide a safe and effective intraoperative control of hemodynamic stability and keep adequate anesthetic depth in morbidly obese patients. But desflurane has the advantage of a faster recovery and earlier discharge from the postanesthesia care unit than isoflurane.
Addition of Dexmedetomidine to Propofol Anesthesia for Middle-Ear Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study

Swathi Kumari K,H G Thippeswamy,Shruthi R Nayak,Shrirang V Torgal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.68025

2024-08-28

Cureus

Abstract:Background Middle-ear surgery commonly performed under a microscope requires a bloodless field provided by hypotensive anesthesia. Our objective was to study the effects of dexmedetomidine on propofol consumption and intraoperative hemodynamic stability. Methods One hundred adults undergoing elective middle-ear surgery were randomized into two groups. The propofol+dexmedetomidine group (Group PD) received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1μg/kg in 10ml normal saline over 10min followed by infusion of the same at 0.5μg/kg/h. Propofol-only group (Group P) received 10ml normal saline over 10min followed by an infusion of the same. General anesthesia was induced with intravenous morphine, propofol, and vecuronium, and maintained with propofol, oxygen, and N2O. During microscope use, we aimed to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) within 60-69mmHg. Results There was no significant difference in the mean (SD) consumption of propofol [Group P 8.6 (2.1)mg/kg/h vs Group PD 8.1 (1.5)mg/kg/h, P=0.172]. The induction dose of propofol was significantly less in Group PD [1.8 (0.3) vs 2 (0.4)mg/kg, P<0.001]. Except for the baseline value, the heart rate was significantly lower in Group PD, P<0.001. The time duration during which MAP was within 60-69mmHg was higher in Group P [37.5 (36.8) vs 30.9 (38.3)min] though the difference was not statistically significant. The recovery was delayed in Group PD [25.4 (8.6) vs 17.6 (4.9)min, P<0.001]. Group PD had a significantly better operative field, P=0.0003. Conclusion The addition of dexmedetomidine did not reduce propofol consumption but reduced the induction dose of propofol. Propofol and dexmedetomidine combination provided comparable mean arterial pressure and better operative field but caused delayed recovery.
Comparison of Intraoperative Sedation With Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol on Acute Postoperative Pain in Total Knee Arthroplasty Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Trial

Hyun-Jung Shin,Sang-Hwan Do,Jae-Sung Lee,Tae-Kyun Kim,Hyo-Seok Na

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000003315

Abstract:Background: In patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia, we compared the postoperative analgesic effect of intraoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol. We hypothesized that sedation with dexmedetomidine would result in lower postoperative opioid analgesic consumption than with propofol. Methods: Forty-eight patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either a dexmedetomidine group (n = 24), which received a loading dose of 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1-0.5 μg·kg·hour, or a propofol group (n = 24), which received a continuous infusion of propofol via a target-controlled infusion to maintain the effect-site concentration within a range of 0.5-2.0 μg/mL. The drug infusion rate was determined according to the sedation level, targeting a modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 3 or 4. The cumulative amounts of fentanyl administered via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia were recorded at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (primary outcome). The postoperative numerical rating scale for pain was assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours (secondary outcome). The postoperative use of additional rescue analgesic (ketoprofen) and antiemetic drugs was also compared between the 2 groups at 24 and 48 hours. Results: Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced postoperative fentanyl consumption (median [interquartile range]) during 0-24 hours (45 [30-71] vs 150 [49-248] μg, P = .004; median difference = -105 μg [99.98% CI, 210-7.5]), 24-48 hours (90 [45-143] vs 188 [75-266] μg, P = .005; median difference = -98 μg [99.98% CI, 195-45]), and 0-48 hours (135 [68-195] vs 360 [146-480] μg, P = .003; median difference = -225 μg [99.98% CI, 405-7.5]). The numerical rating scale (median [interquartile range]) was lower at 6 hours (1 [0-2] vs 2 [1-3], P = .003), 12 hours (1 [1-2] vs 3 [2-3], P < .001), 24 hours (1 [1-2] vs 3 [2-3], P < .001), and 48 hours (2 [2-3] vs 3 [3-4], P < .001) after surgery in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol group. No significant intergroup differences were observed in the amount of rescue analgesics and antiemetics at 24 hours (P = .155 and P = .482) and 48 hours (P = .082 and P = .153) after surgery. Conclusions: Intraoperative dexmedetomidine sedation was associated with a small but clinically important reduction in postoperative opioid use after total knee arthroplasty.
The effect of dexmedetomidine alternative to propofol administered in general anesthesia on maintainance and recovery in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy

Yan-ling FENG,Wei GU,Xiao-ping GU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4904.2013.27.001

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine alternative to propofol administered in general anesthesia on maintainance and recovery in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy.Methods One hundred and twenty patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy,were divided into group C,D1 and D2 with 40 cases each by random digits table method.Group C received propofol 100 μ g / (kg" min) and remifentanil 0.10-0.25 μ g / (kg" min) intravenous infusion,group D1 received propofol 100 μ g/(kg" min),remifentanil 0.10-0.25 μ g/(kg" min) and dexmedetomidine 0.2 μ g/(kg" h) intravenous infusion,while group D2 received dexmedetomidine 2.0-3.0 μ g / (kg" h) and remifentanil 0.10-0.25 μ g/ (kg" min).Cis-atracurium was given on time to maintainance of anesthesia.The heart rate (HR),mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded at the following time points:arriving at operating room (To),anesthesia induction (T1),intubation (T2),skin incision (T3),pneumoperitoneum (T4),10 min after pneumoperitoneum (T5),20 min after pneumoperitoneum (T6),the end of operation (T7),discharge from post anesthesia care unit(T8) and the first postoperative day (T9).The time of emergence,extubation and duration in post anesthesia care unit were recorded too.Ramsay scale and Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale on emergence,extubation and discharge from post anesthesia care unit and post anesthesia recovery score at T9 were also recorded.Results The MAP in group D2 was higher at T3 to T7 time-points than that in group C and group D1 [(93 ± 10),(99 ± 11),(94 ± 13),(95 ± 10),(91 ± 10) mm Hg (1 mm Hg =0.133 kPa) vs.(88± 11),(90± 10),(87±9),(86±9),(83±8)mmHgand (87±9),(90± 10),(86±8),(85 ±7),(83 ± 7) mm Hg],there were significant difference (P ＜ 0.05).There were no significant difference among groups on the HR at each time point and the time of emergence,extubation and duration in post anesthesia care unit (P ＞ 0.05).Ramsay scale was lower on emergence and Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale was higher on emergence and extubation in group C than that in group D1 and group D2 [(3.7 ± 1.3) scores vs.(4.0 ± 0.9),(4.2 ±0.9) scores,(3.1 ± 1.0) scores vs.(2.8 ±0.6),(2.7 ±0.9) scores,(3.3 ±0.7) scores vs.(3.2 ± 0.4),(3.0 ± 0.5) scores],there were significant differences (P ＜ 0.05).Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale was higher on extubation in group D1 than that in group D2(P ＜ 0.05).Post anesthesia recovery score at T9 in group D2 was apparently increased compared with that in group C and group D1 [(108 ± 10) scores vs.(93 ± 13),(93 ± 15) scores] (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions Dexmedetomidine 2.0-3.0 μ g/ (kg" h) administered in general anesthesia on maintainance in gynecologic laparoscopy can improve the quality of extubation and promote postoperative recovery without prolonging extubation time,but have a influence on hemodynamic changes at early stage of pneumoperitoneum.
An evaluation of the antioxidant and antiviral action of extracts of rosemary and Provençal herbs.

O. Aruoma,J. Spencer,R. Rossi,R. Aeschbach,A. A. Khan,N. Mahmood,A. Muñoz,A. Murcia,J. Butler,B. Halliwell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6915(96)00004-X

IF: 4.3

1996-05-01

Food and Chemical Toxicology

Abstract:
Comparison of Small Dose Ketamine and Dexmedetomidine Infusion for Postoperative Analgesia in Spine Surgery--A Prospective Randomized Double-blind Placebo Controlled Study

Neha Garg,Nidhi B Panda,Komal A Gandhi,Hemant Bhagat,Yatindra K Batra,Vinod K Grover,Rajesh Chhabra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0000000000000193

Abstract:Background: High doses of opioids are frequently used to treat postoperative pain after spine surgery. This leads to opioid-related side effects like nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, etc. The current study is an attempt to find a safe analgesic adjuvant, which will afford opioid sparing property. Method: Sixty-six patients undergoing spine surgery were randomized into 1 of the 3 groups-group K (ketamine bolus 0.25 mg/kg followed by infusion of 0.25 mg/kg/h with midazolam bolus 10 μg/kg and infusion of 10 μg/kg/h mixed in the same infusion pump), group D (dexmedetomidine bolus 0.5 μg/kg followed by 0.3 μg/kg/h infusion), and group C (normal saline). Study drugs were started in the postoperative period and continued for 24 hours. Pain-free period, pain scores, rescue analgesic (morphine) requirements, and side effects were noted for 48 hours postoperatively. Result: Mean pain-free periods in the ketamine group (860 min) and the dexmedetomidine group (580 min) were longer than in the saline group (265 min) (P<0.002) during the observation period of 48 hours. There was a significant decrease in the rescue analgesic requirement in both ketamine and dexmedetomidine group (P<0.05) (cumulative morphine requirement at 24 h-group C 15.64±9.31 mg, group D 6.89±5.88 mg, group K 2.45±2.06 mg; at 48 h-group C 21.09±12.88 mg, group D 7.98±7.72 mg, group K 2.59±1.97 mg). Hemodynamics were maintained within normal range in all the groups. Patients in ketamine and dexmedetomidine groups were sedated, but none required assistance for maintaining airway patency. Few patients in the ketamine group had nausea, dizziness, and diplopia, but the difference was insignificant in comparison with other groups (P>0.05). Conclusions: Infusion of low-dose ketamine and dexmedetomidine both provide good postoperative analgesia with minimal side effects. Both of the tested analgesic regimes can be used safely and effectively for postoperative pain relief in patients after spine surgery.
Therapeutic Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on the pressor response due to endotracheal intubation and on the induction dose of propofol for surgeries under general anesthesia

ShilpaSarang Kore,VazhakalayilSubha Teresa Jose,KrushaSuresh Shah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_518_21

2022-01-01

Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth

Abstract:Introduction: Pressor response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation has been associated with sympathetic and parasympathetic responses which can be attenuated by alpha 2 receptor agonists. Aims: The present study aimed to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine in attenuating hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation and also on the induction dose of propofol. Materials and Methods: It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, parallel group, placebo-controlled study in tertiary care hospital. A total of 50 patients aged 18–60 years, American Society of Anaesthesiology 1 and 2, scheduled for elective surgeries under general anesthesia (GA). Each patient in Group 1 received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine at 0.001 mg/kg over 10 min before induction of anesthesia and Group 2 received 20 ml normal saline over 10 min. Hemodynamic parameters prior to laryngoscopy and up to 10 min after intubation were measured. The requirement of induction dose of propofol was also calculated. Results: Dexmedetomidine showed significant efficacy in suppressing pressor response during endotracheal intubation. Furthermore, lesser dose of propofol was required for induction of GA. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine can be used as an adjuvant in GA to prevent pressor response during intubation and decrease the requirement of intravenous induction agent propofol.
Influence of Dexmedetomidine Used As Intravenous Anaesthetics on Haemodynamics in Gynecologic Surgery

TAO Xueyou,ZHANG Wei,MA Zhengliang,GU Xiaoping

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective To explore the influence of dexmedetomidine on haemodynamics of gynecologic surgery by instead of propofol.Methods 40 patients with laparoscopic panhysterectomy were randomly divided into dexmedetomidine group(group A) and propofol group(group B).Group A: induced dose 0.5 μg/kg,infusion within 10 min,the maintenance dose during operation was 2.5 μg/(kg·h).Group B: induced dose 1.0 mg/kg,the maintenance dose during operation was 100 μg/(kg·min).The systolic pressure(SBP),diastolic pressure(DBP),mean arterial pressure(MAP),heart rate(HR),bispectral index(BIS) and partial pressure of oxygen(SpO2) were recorded at time points of pre-anesthesia(T1),after induction of anesthesia(T2),immediately after endotracheal intubation(T3),at the beginning of operation(T4),30 min after beginning of operation(T5) and the end of the operation(T6).Results Compared with group B,apart from T1,the HR decreased obviously at any other time points in group A(P0.01),while the SBP,DBP,MAP at T4,T5,T6 increased obviously(P0.05).Conclusion Dexmedetomidine instead of propofol in total intravenous anesthesia in laparoscopic surgery has a smooth anesthesia process and an adequate sedation.
Effect of dexmedetomidine on intraocular pressure in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy under total intravenous anesthesia: A randomized, double blinded placebo controlled clinical trial

Sakiko Kitamura,Kenichi Takechi,Tasuku Nishihara,Amane Konishi,Yasushi Takasaki,Toshihiro Yorozuya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.06.006

Abstract:Study objective: To study the effects of intraoperative dexmedetomidine on the intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) under propofol-remifentanil anesthesia. Design: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Operating room. Patients: Forty consenting male patients aged ≥20 to <80 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classes I and II. Interventions: The patients were randomly assigned to either dexmedetomidine (DEX) (n = 20) or control (n = 20) group. Anesthesia was induced and maintained using propofol, remifentanil, and rocuronium. In the dexmedetomidine group, dexmedetomidine was administered at 0.4 μg/kg/h immediately after anesthesia induction until the end of the surgery, whereas normal saline was administered as placebo in the control group. Measurements: IOP was measured using a rebound tonometer. Time points of measuring IOP were as follows: T1: before anesthesia induction, T2: 5 min after intubation, T3: 60 min after placing patient in the Trendelenburg position, T4: 120 min after placing patient in the Trendelenburg position, T5: 180 min after placing patient in the Trendelenburg position, T6: 5 min after placing patient in a horizontal position, T7: 5 min after extubation, and T8: 30 min after extubation. Main results: A linear mixed model analysis demonstrated a significant intergroup difference in IOP over time and during pneumoperitoneum in the steep Trendelenburg position. IOP at T5 was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the control group even after post-hoc analysis in the steep Trendelenburg position periods with Bonferroni correction. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine combined with propofol decreases IOP in the steep Trendelenburg position during RALRP.
Comparison of two different doses of dexmedetomidine for continuous epidural analgesia for lower limb surgeries: A randomized double-blind study

Pranjali Kurhekar,Sam Blessy Sheba,Sathyasuba Meenakshisundaram,Raghuraman M Sethuraman,Neeta Parlikar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_88_23

Abstract:Background and aims: Bolus epidural dexmedetomidine provides potent analgesia but the incidence of hemodynamic instability is high. There are only a few studies that have evaluated the efficacy of epidural dexmedetomidine infusion but none of them compared different doses to find the optimum safe dose. We compared the analgesic efficacy and safety of two different doses of dexmedetomidine in continuous epidural for postoperative analgesia. Material and methods: Patients undergoing lower limb surgeries were divided randomly into two groups: Group I (n = 36) received an epidural infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine + 0.5 μg/kg/24 h of dexmedetomidine and Group II (n = 36) received epidural infusion 0.1% ropivacaine + 1 μg/kg/24 h of dexmedetomidine. Both groups received epidural infusion at the rate of 5 ml/h over 48 h postoperatively. Pain scores, demand for rescue analgesics, hemodynamic parameters, and sedation scores were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was done using an independent t-test and Chi-square test. Results: 1 μg/kg group (Group II) had a significantly reduced pain score at all time intervals and less demand for rescue analgesia (P = 0.03). The severity of pain was more in the 0.5 μg/kg group (Group I), at all times (P = 0.000). Incidence hypotension was higher in Group II. Bradycardia was seen in two patients in Group II and none in Group I. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine in a dose of 1 μg/kg/24 h with 5 ml of 0.1% ropivacaine through epidural infusion provides better analgesia with a safe hemodynamic profile.
Comparison of Intravenous Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Preventing Propofol-Induced Pain During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study

Aravind Aditya,Khushboo Pandey,Manisha Bhagat,Wasimul Hoda,Priyanka Oraon,Ladhu Lakra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67382

2024-08-21

Cureus

Abstract:Background Propofol is the most common induction agent used in current anesthesia practice. Patients receiving propofol injections commonly experience varying degrees of pain, creating an unpleasant anesthesia experience. Methods Seventy-two patients, aged between 18 and 70, scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group D received 8 mg of dexamethasone, and Group O received 8 mg of ondansetron intravenously before induction. After five seconds, mid-arm venous occlusion was applied for one minute using a tourniquet. Propofol (0.5 mg/kg) was administered intravenously over five seconds, and patients rated the injection pain over the next 15 seconds. The primary outcome was pain intensity using the Verbal Rating Scale during propofol injection. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Normally distributed variables were compared using the Student's t-test, non-normally distributed variables using the Mann-Whitney U-test, and qualitative data using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance for the study was set at p < 0.05. Results In Group D, 30 out of 36 patients (83.3%) experienced no pain, while four patients (11.1%) reported mild pain, two patients (5.6%) reported moderate pain, and no patients (0.0%) reported severe pain. In contrast, in Group O, only 15 out of 36 patients (41.6%) experienced no pain, with 12 patients (33.3%) experiencing mild pain, seven patients (19.4%) experiencing moderate pain, and two patients (5.6%) experiencing severe pain. Overall, six out of 36 patients in Group D (16.7%) experienced some level of pain, compared to 21 out of 36 patients in Group O (58.3%), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Regarding postoperative nausea, 16 out of 36 patients in Group Dexamethasone (44.44%) experienced nausea, whereas 23 out of 36 patients in Group Ondansetron (63.88%) reported this symptom, with the difference being statistically significant (p = 0.0372). Additionally, postoperative vomiting occurred in nine out of 36 patients in Group Dexamethasone (25%), compared to 18 out of 36 patients in Group Ondansetron (50%), with this difference also reaching statistical significance (p= 0.026). Conclusions Intravenous dexamethasone before propofol administration reduces injection pain and PONV in laparoscopic cholecystectomy more effectively as compared to ondansetron.
Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Immunomodulation and Pain Control in Videolaparoscopic Cholecystectomies: A Randomized, Two-Arm, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Gustavo Nascimento Silva,Virna Guedes Brandão,Marcelo Vaz Perez,Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski,Rossano Kepler Alvim Fiorelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13040622

2023-04-01

Abstract:Aim: Digital and robotic technology applications in laparoscopic surgery have revolutionized routine cholecystectomy. Insufflation of the peritoneal space is vital for its safety but comes at the cost of ischemia-reperfusion-induced intraabdominal organ compromise before the return of physiologic functions. Dexmedetomidine in general anesthesia promotes controlling the response to trauma by altering the neuroinflammatory reflex. This strategy may improve clinical outcomes in the postoperative period by reducing postoperative narcotic use and lowering the risk of subsequent addiction. In this study, the authors aimed to evaluate dexmedetomidine's therapeutic and immunomodulatory potential on perioperative organ function. Methods: Fifty-two patients were randomized 1:1: group A-sevoflurane and dexmedetomidine (dexmedetomidine infusion [1 µg/kg loading, 0.2-0.5 µg/kg/h maintenance dose]), and group B-sevoflurane with saline 0.9% infusion as a placebo control. Three blood samples were collected: preoperatively (T0 h), 4-6 h after surgery (T4-6 h), and 24 h postoperatively (T24 h). The primary outcome was the level analysis of inflammatory and endocrine mediators. Secondary outcome measures were the time to return to normal preoperative hemodynamic parameters, spontaneous ventilation, and postoperative narcotic requirements to control surgical pain. Results: A reduction of Interleukin 6 was found at 4-6 h after surgery in group A with a mean of 54.76 (27.15-82.37; CI 95%) vs. 97.43 (53.63-141.22); p = 0.0425) in group B patients. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were lower in group A patients, who also had a statistically significantly lower opioid consumption in the first postoperative hour when compared to group B patients (p < 0.0001). We noticed a similar return to spontaneous ventilation pattern in both groups. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine decreased interleukin-6 4-6 h after surgery, likely by providing a sympatholytic effect. It provides good perioperative analgesia without respiratory depression. Implementing dexmedetomidine during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has a good safety profile and may lower healthcare expenditure due to faster postoperative recovery.
Effects of a Single Dose Dexmedetomidine on Surgical Field Visibility During Middle Ear Microsurgery: A Randomized Study.

Tingjie Liu,Minju Qin,Wenxian Li,Xia Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000996

2016-01-01

Otology & Neurotology

Abstract:Objectives: To investigate whether a single dose of dexmedetomidine (DEX) improves surgical field visibility. Study Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blind study. Setting: Tertiary teaching hospital. Interventions: ASA I or II patients undergoing tympanoplasty with ossiculoplasty were randomly assigned to receive either 0.8 mu g/kg DEX (Group D) or the same volume of saline (Group N) 10 min before anesthesia induction. Main Outcomes: The primary outcome was the visibility of the surgical field rated by surgeons by Boezaart score. The secondary outcomes were consumption of anesthesia, hemodynamic profiles, and subsequent recovery. Results: Boezaart scores for surgical visibility were lower in Group D than in Group N (1.3 +/- 0.8 versus 1.8 +/- 0.9, P = 0.014). Minimum alveolar concentrations of sevoflurane (Group D 1 [0.9/1.1] versus Group N 1 [1/1.2], P = 0.018) and remifentanil consumption (Group D 370 [218/504] mu g versus Group N 583 [300/1028] mu g, P = 0.002) were less in Group D. Except for a transient increase in blood pressure and a decrease in heart rate during DEX infusion, hemodynamic profiles were more stable in Group D than in Group N. More patients needed morphine rescue and presented with postoperative nausea and vomiting in Group N than in Group D (Group D 1 versus Group N 8, P = 0.029). Recovery time was comparable between the two groups (Group D 19 min versus Group N 18 min, P = 0.569). Conclusion: Use of a single dose of DEX resulted in improved surgical visibility, less consumption of anesthesia, and more favorable hemodynamic profile while not delaying recovery time.
The Feasibility of Using Dexmedetomidine Instead of Propofol in Anesthesia During Adolescent Scoliosis Surgery

GU Wei,GU Xiao-ping,MA Zheng-liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4378.2013.04.004

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine instead of propofol on depth of anesthesia,wake-up test,anesthesia recovery and side effects during adolescent scoliosis surgery.Methods Sixty ASA Ⅰ or Ⅱ patients aged 10 y-25 y weighing 25 kg-64 kg scheduled for posterior spinal fusion surgery were randomly divided into two groups with 30 patients in each group:In group Ⅰ (dexmedetomidine group) dexmedetomidine was infused with loading dose of 1 μg/kg over 10 min followed by an infusion of 2.5 μg·kg-1·h-1,while in group Ⅱ (propofol group) propofol was started at 100 μg·kg1-min-1,and they are both adjusted to maintain a constant depth of anesthesia as measured by BIS of 40～50.In both groups cisatraurium infusion was started at 1 μg·kg-1·min-1 and titrated to maintain TOF at 50％; remifentanil was infused at 0.4 μg ·kg-1 ·min-1.MAP,CVP,HR,SpO2,PETCO2 and rectal temperature were continuously monitored during operation.Controlled hypotension was induced with nitroglycerin at 0.1 μg· kg-1· min-1～2 μg ·kg-1 ·min-1 and MAP was maintained at 60 mm Hg-70 mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa).After dissection through muscles cisatracurium infusion was stopped.Wake-up test was began after spinal correction.Wake-up time and extubation time were recorded.Ramsay scores and Riker scores during wake-up test and anesthesia recovery were also recorded.The consumption of dexmedetomidine,incidence of intraoperative awareness,vomiting and shivering were investigated.Results The Riker scores during wake-up test and anesthesia recovery in group Ⅰ [4.00(0.25) and 4.00(1.00)] was significantly lower than that of group Ⅱ[4.50 (1.00) and 4.00 (1.25)] (P＜0.05).There were no significant differences in Ramsay scores,wake-up time,extubation time,incidence of vomiting and shivering between the two groups.Dexmedetomidine consumption in group Ⅰ was (2.4±0.5) μg· kg-1· h-1,propofol consumption in group Ⅱ was (86±12) μg ·kg-1 ·min-1.No cases of intraoperative awareness was observed.Conclusions Instead of propofol,administering dexmedetomidine in conjunction with remifentanil and nitroglycerin in total intravenous anesthesia monitored by BIS during adolescent scoliosis surgery might provide sufficient sedative effect,raise the quality of wake-up test and anesthesia recovery,and has no adverse effects.
Effect of Different Doses of Dexmedetomidine on Hemodynamic Response During Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation: A Comparative Prospective Study in GMC Jammu

Dr. Shagufta,Dr. Hitesha Gurtoo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52403/ijrr.20220878

2022-09-05

International Journal of Research and Review

Abstract:Background: Our study was conceptualised to evaluate and compare the effects of two different doses of dexmedetomidine infusion after single loading dose not only for attenuation of hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation but also to evaluate the efficacy to reduce post-operative analgesic requirement and its effect on sedation score post-operatively. Methods: This prospective randomized study was conducted in the postgraduate Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive care, Government Medical College, Jammu after getting approval from Institutional ethical committee. Around 120 patients of either sex ranging in age from 18 to 60 years, belonging to ASA physical status grade 1 and 2, scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation were enrolled for the study. Results: Dexmedetomidine infusion of 0.5 m g/kg /h after loading dose of 1 mg/kg resulted in stable, steady and smooth reduction in heart rate, and arterial blood pressure with no episode of severe hypotension or other adverse event. The total analgesic requirement in 24 hours in group D1 was 123.83±6.08 mg. The total analgesic requirement in 24 hours in group D2 was 83.72±4.28 mg. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine infusion of 0.5 mg/kg /h after loading dose of 1 mg/kg successfully maintained hemodynamic stability both intraoperatively and postoperatively. This dose increased the pain free period postoperatively, thus reducing the total analgesic requirement. Dexmedetomidine can, therefore, be considered an anaesthetic adjuvant in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and infusion dose of 0.5mg/kg/h is better than 0.2 mg/kg/ h after loading dose of 1 mg/kg. Keywords: Dexmedetomidine; hemodynamic response; tracheal intubation.
Influence of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on perioperative opioid consumption in laparoscopic intestine resection: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Lea Andjelković,Vesna Novak-Jankovič,Neva Požar-Lukanovič,Zoran Bosnić,Alenka Spindler-Vesel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518792456

2018-09-13

Journal of International Medical Research

Abstract:Objective The consumption of opioid analgesics could be reduced by the use of analgesics with different mechanisms of action. We investigated whether additional treatment with dexmedetomidine or lidocaine could reduce opioid consumption. Methods We randomized 59 study participants into three groups and examined: (i) fentanyl consumption, (ii) consumption of piritramide, and (iii) cognitive function and neuropathic pain. The control group received continuous propofol infusion and fentanyl boluses. Continuous intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg/kg/h) was administered to the dexmedetomidine group and lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg/h) was administered to the lidocaine group. Results No reduction in fentanyl consumption was observed among the groups. However, we noted a significantly lower consumption of piritramide on the first and second postoperative day in the lidocaine group. Total consumption of piritramide was significantly lower in the lidocaine group compared with the control group. Conclusions Lidocaine and dexmedetomidine reduced intraoperative propofol consumption, while lidocaine reduced postoperative piritramide consumption. Clinical trial registration: NCT02616523

pharmacology & pharmacy,medicine, research & experimental
Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation on Outcomes After Cardiac Surgery in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Control Trials

Lubna Sattar,Ibrahim Reyaz,Anurag Rawat,Raam Mannam,Abhimanyu Karumanchi,Venu Gopal Reddy Depa,Saima Batool,Muhammad Usama

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.42212

2023-07-20

Cureus

Abstract:The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. This meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Online databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, were comprehensively searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and requiring mechanical ventilation. The examined outcomes included the mean length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in hours, duration of mechanical ventilation in hours, length of hospital stay in days, and number of patients diagnosed with delirium. A total of 14 studies were included in the present meta-analysis while 1360 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were involved in these studies. Pooled results showed that the duration of mechanical ventilation was lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol group (mean difference (MD): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06-1.44, p-value: 0.03). We also found a significantly low length of stay in ICU in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the propofol (MD: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.04-1.74, p-value: 0.04). The length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as compared to the propofol group (MD: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.70, p-value<0.001). Risk of delirium was significantly higher in patients receiving propofol compared to patients receiving dexmedetomidine (RR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.48-2.74, p-value<0.001). In conclusion, our meta-analysis provides evidence of the beneficial impacts of dexmedetomidine on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital, and the risk of delirium.
Impact of Dexmedetomidine on Effect-Site Concentration of Propofol with Target Controlled Infusion and Hemodynamics During Operation

Yongzheng Han,Huili Liu,Changyi Wu,Xiangyang Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4378.2014.06.007

2014-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine(Dex) on effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol with target controlled infusion (TCI) and hemodynamics during operation.Methods A prospective,randomized,doubleblind and placebo controlled clinical protocol was used in this study.According to random number table,sixty patients (ASA Ⅰ-Ⅱ) undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy in total intravenous anesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups with 20 patients in each group.When the induction of anesthesia started,Dex 0.4 μg/kg (group Dexl),0.5 μg/kg (group Dex2) or the same volume of normal saline (group NS) was infused intravenously within 10 min.Meanwhile,all patients received the same method of induction and the maintenance of anesthesia.In three groups,the systolic blood pressure (SBP),heart rate (HR),and Ce of propofol were recorded before induction of anesthesia (T0),before skin incision (T1),1 min after pneumoperitoneum (T2),5 min after pneumoperitoneum (T3),10 min after pneumoperitoneum (T4),20 min after pneumoperitoneum (T 5),lifting of pneumoperitoneum after 5 min (T6).At the end of operation,the total dose of propofol was recorded.Results The SBP at T1 in group Dex2 was significantly higher than group NS (P＜0.01).Compared with baseline,the SBP in group NS was significantly lower at T1 and T6.The SBP in group Dex1 and Dex2 were significantly lower at T1,T5,T6.More propofol consumed in group NS [(716±209) mg] than that in group Dex1 and in group Dex2[(587±184) mg and(489±158) mg(P＜0.05)].In each time point,the propofol Ce in group Dex2 was significantly lower than group NS (P＜0.01).From T2 to T6,the propofol Ce in group Dex1 was significantly lower than group NS (T6 time point P＜0.05,other time points P＜0.01).The dosage of propofol decreased by 18％ and 32％ respectively when combined with Dex 0.4 μg/kg and 0.5 μg/kg.Conclusions Infusion of Dex in laparoscopic cholecystectomy can stabilize the hemodynamics while decreasing the propofol Ce and reducing the consumption of of propofol.

Public pensions

Effect of intraoperative Dexmedetomidine infusion on Sevoflurane requirement and blood glucose levels during entropy-guided general anesthesia

Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol Sedation ocirculation After Cardiac Surgery : A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of the influence of desflurane inhalation versus isoflurane inhalation on the morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery keeping adequate anesthetic depth and recovery

Addition of Dexmedetomidine to Propofol Anesthesia for Middle-Ear Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study

Comparison of Intraoperative Sedation With Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol on Acute Postoperative Pain in Total Knee Arthroplasty Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Trial

The effect of dexmedetomidine alternative to propofol administered in general anesthesia on maintainance and recovery in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy

An evaluation of the antioxidant and antiviral action of extracts of rosemary and Provençal herbs.

Comparison of Small Dose Ketamine and Dexmedetomidine Infusion for Postoperative Analgesia in Spine Surgery--A Prospective Randomized Double-blind Placebo Controlled Study

Therapeutic Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on the pressor response due to endotracheal intubation and on the induction dose of propofol for surgeries under general anesthesia

Influence of Dexmedetomidine Used As Intravenous Anaesthetics on Haemodynamics in Gynecologic Surgery

Effect of dexmedetomidine on intraocular pressure in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy under total intravenous anesthesia: A randomized, double blinded placebo controlled clinical trial

Comparison of two different doses of dexmedetomidine for continuous epidural analgesia for lower limb surgeries: A randomized double-blind study

Comparison of Intravenous Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Preventing Propofol-Induced Pain During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study

Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Immunomodulation and Pain Control in Videolaparoscopic Cholecystectomies: A Randomized, Two-Arm, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Effects of a Single Dose Dexmedetomidine on Surgical Field Visibility During Middle Ear Microsurgery: A Randomized Study.

The Feasibility of Using Dexmedetomidine Instead of Propofol in Anesthesia During Adolescent Scoliosis Surgery

Effect of Different Doses of Dexmedetomidine on Hemodynamic Response During Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation: A Comparative Prospective Study in GMC Jammu

Influence of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on perioperative opioid consumption in laparoscopic intestine resection: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation on Outcomes After Cardiac Surgery in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Control Trials

Impact of Dexmedetomidine on Effect-Site Concentration of Propofol with Target Controlled Infusion and Hemodynamics During Operation