Dataset Information

Propofol-sparing effect of different concentrations of dexmedetomidine : Comparison of gender differences.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The pharmacodynamics of propofol are closely linked to gender. Dexmedetomidine can decrease propofol needs during propofol anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the gender differences on the calculated effect site median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol for loss of consciousness (LOC) after pretreatment with different concentrations of dexmedetomidine. METHODS:In this study 60 male and 60 female patients were randomly allocated to receive dexmedetomidine at target plasma concentrations of 0.0?ng/ml (0.0 group), 0.4?ng/ml (0.4 group), 0.6?ng/ml (0.6 group) and 0.8?ng/ml (0.8 group). Propofol was administered after dexmedetomidine had been intravenously infused for 15?min. The propofol infusion was targeted to provide an initial effect-site concentration of 1.0??g/ml, followed by increments by 0.2??g/ml when the effect-site concentration and target concentration of propofol were in equilibrium until LOC was established, where LOC was defined by the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale (OAA/S) score?

SUBMITTER: Xiong M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6342900 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Propofol-sparing effect of different concentrations of dexmedetomidine : Comparison of gender differences.

Xiong Ming M Zheng Zhao -Xin Z- Hu Zu-Rong ZR He Jing J Madubuko Uchenna U Grech Dennis D Zhang Xing-An XA Xu Bo B

Der Anaesthesist 20181107 1

<h4>Background</h4>The pharmacodynamics of propofol are closely linked to gender. Dexmedetomidine can decrease propofol needs during propofol anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the gender differences on the calculated effect site median effective concentration (EC<sub>50</sub>) of propofol for loss of consciousness (LOC) after pretreatment with different concentrations of dexmedetomidine.<h4>Methods</h4>In this study 60 male and 60 female patients were randomly allocated to receive ...[more]

PMID: 30406275

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimTotal intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has proven advantage over inhalational anesthesia in terms of stable hemodynamic, eco-friendly, and good recovery profile, but apprehension regarding adequate depth of anesthesia and intraoperative recall is still pertaining. This study aims to compare propofol-dexmedetomidine-based TIVA with sevoflurane-based inhalational anesthesia in modified radical mastectomy in terms of depth of anesthesia, intraoperative recall, recovery profile, and hemodynamic status.Settings and designThis prospective randomized controlled study was conducted at a tertiary care center over a time frame of 1 year.MethodologyIn this randomized controlled study, 100 patients were randomly distributed into two groups: TIVA (Group T) and inhalational anesthesia (Group I). Group T patients received injection dexmedetomidine: 1 μg.kg-1 over 10 min followed by 0.7 μg.kg-1.h-1 and injection propofol: 25-100 μg.kg-1.min-1. Ventilation was maintained with oxygen-air gas flow. In Group I, patients were ventilated with nitrous oxide-oxygen (50:50) and sevoflurane. Rest of anesthesia for both the groups was same. Primary objective was to achieve adequate depth of anesthesia as monitored by intraoperative bispectral index value (BIS, 40-60). Hemodynamic variables, recovery profile, and amount of individual anesthetic agent consumed were recorded for comparison between two groups. For comparison of scale variables between two groups, independent sample t-test for significant difference between two sample means has been followed.ResultsIntraoperative BIS and hemodynamic variables were comparable (P > 0.05). Emergence time was 5.10 min in the TIVA group versus 8.38 min in the inhalational group (P = 0.00). Modified Aldrete score was comparable in two groups (P > 0.05). Cost of TIVA agents consumed per patient was 40% lesser than inhalational agents.ConclusionTIVA maintains adequate depth of anesthesia along with stable hemodynamic and good recovery profile, at low cost in an eco-friendly manner.

Project description:Studying changes in cortical oscillations can help elucidate the mechanistic link between receptor physiology and the clinical effects of anaesthetic drugs. Propofol, a GABA-ergic drug produces divergent effects on visual cortical activity: increasing induced gamma-band responses (GBR) while decreasing evoked responses. Dexmedetomidine, an α2- adrenergic agonist, differs from GABA-ergic sedatives both mechanistically and clinically as it allows easy arousability from deep sedation with less cognitive side-effects. Here we use magnetoencephalography (MEG) to characterize and compare the effects of GABA-ergic (propofol) and non-GABA-ergic (dexmedetomidine) sedation, on visual and motor cortical oscillations. Sixteen male participants received target-controlled infusions of propofol and dexmedetomidine, producing mild-sedation, in a placebo-controlled, cross-over study. MEG data was collected during a combined visuomotor task. The key findings were that propofol significantly enhanced visual stimulus induced GBR (44% increase in amplitude) while dexmedetomidine decreased it (40%). Propofol also decreased the amplitudes of the Mv100 (visual M100) (27%) and Mv150 (52%) visual evoked fields (VEF), whilst dexmedetomidine had no effect on these. During the motor task, neither drug had any significant effect on movement related gamma synchrony (MRGS), movement related beta de-synchronisation (MRBD) or Mm100 (movement-related M100) movement-related evoked fields (MEF), although dexmedetomidine slowed the Mm300. Dexmedetomidine increased (92%) post-movement beta synchronisation/rebound (PMBR) power while propofol reduced it (70%, statistically non- significant). Overall, dexmedetomidine and propofol, at equi-sedative doses, produce contrasting effects on visual induced GBR, VEF, PMBR and MEF. These findings provide a mechanistic link between the known receptor physiology of these sedative drugs with their known clinical effects and may be used to explore mechanisms of other anaesthetic drugs on human consciousness.

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown.MethodsIn a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 μg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months.ResultsOf 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 μg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 μg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAmong mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Dataset Information

Propofol-sparing effect of different concentrations of dexmedetomidine : Comparison of gender differences.

Publications

Propofol-sparing effect of different concentrations of dexmedetomidine : Comparison of gender differences.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets