Dataset Information

Monitored Anesthesia Care with Dexmedetomidine Supplemented by Midazolam/Fentanyl versus Midazolam/Fentanyl Alone in Patients Undergoing Pleuroscopy: Effect on Oxygenation and Respiratory Function.

ABSTRACT: Although pleuroscopy is considered a safe and well tolerated procedure with a low complication rate, it requires the administration of procedural sedation and analgesia. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine administration on oxygenation and respiratory function in patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic pleuroscopy. Through a prospective, single center, cohort study, we studied 55 patients receiving either a dexmedetomidine intravenous infusion supplemented by midazolam/fentanyl (Group DEX + MZ/F) or a conventional sedation protocol with midazolam/fentanyl (Group MZ/F). Our primary outcome was the changes in lung gas exchange (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio) obtained at baseline and at predetermined end points, while changes in respiratory mechanics (FEV1, FVC and the ratio FEV1/FVC) and PaCO₂ levels, drug consumption, time to recover from sedation and adverse events were our secondary endpoints (NCT03597828). We found a lower postoperative decrease in FEV1 volumes in Group DEX + MZ/F compared to Group MZ/F (p = 0.039), while FVC, FEV1/FVC and gas exchange values did not differ between groups. We also found a significant reduction in midazolam (p < 0.001) and fentanyl consumption (p < 0.001), along with a more rapid recovery of alertness postprocedure in Group DEX + MZ/F compared to Group MZ/F (p = 0.003), while pain scores during the postoperative period, favored the Group DEX + MZ/F (p = 0.020). In conclusion, the use of intravenous dexmedetomidine during pleuroscopy is associated with a smaller decrease in FEV1, reduction of the consumption of supplementary sedatives and analgesics and quicker awakening of patients postoperatively, when compared to midazolam/fentanyl. Therefore, dexmedetomidine administration may provide clinically significant benefits in terms of lung mechanics and faster recovery of patients undergoing pleuroscopy.

SUBMITTER: Kostroglou A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8396832 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dexmedetomidine as a sole agent showed limited use for painful procedures due to its insufficient sedative/analgesic effect, pronounced hemodynamic instability and prolonged recovery. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) versus dexmedetomidine-midazolam-fentanyl (DMF) combination on the quality of sedation/analgesia and recovery profiles for monitored anesthesia care (MAC).Fifty six patients undergoing chemoport insertion were randomly assigned to group DK or DMF. All patients received 1 μg.kg(-1) dexmedetomidine over 10 min followed by 0.2-1.0 μg.kg(-1)h(-1) in order to maintain 3 or 4 of modified Observer's Assessment of Analgesia and Sedation score checked every 3 min. At the start of dexmedetomidine infusion, patients in group DK or DMF received 0.5 mg.kg(-1) ketamine or 0.05 mg.kg(-1) midazolam + 0.5 μg.kg(-1) fentanyl intravenously, respectively. When required, rescue sedatives (0.5 mg.kg-1 of ketamine or 0.05 mg.kg-1 of midazolam) and analgesics (0.5 mg.kg-1 of ketamine or 0.5 μg.kg-1 of fentanyl) were given to the patients in DK or DMF group, respectively. The primary outcome of this study was the recovery parameters (time to spontaneous eye opening and the length of the recovery room stay). The secondary outcomes were parameters indicating quality of sedation/analgesia, cardiorespiratory variables, and satisfaction scores.There were no significant differences in the onset time, time to spontaneous eye opening, recovery room stay, the incidences of inadequate analgesia, hypotension and bradycardia between the two groups. Despite lower infusion rate of dexmedetomidine, more patients in the DMF group had bispectral index (BIS) < 60 than in the DK group and vice versa for need of rescue sedatives. The satisfaction scores of patients, surgeon, and anesthesiologist in the DMF group were significantly better than the DK group.The DK and DMF groups showed comparable recovery time, onset time, cardiorespiratory variables, and analgesia. However, the DMF group showed a better sedation quality and satisfaction scores despite the lower infusion rate of dexmedetomidine, and a higher incidence of BIS < 60 than the DK group.Clinical Trial Registry of Korea KCT0000951 , registered 12/12/2013.

Project description:ImportancePerioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs) are the most common complication during pediatric anesthesia, and they may be affected by the administration of preoperative sedatives.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of intranasal dexmedetomidine or midazolam used for premedication on the occurrence of PRAEs.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted among children aged 0 to 12 years undergoing elective tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy from October 2020 to June 2021 at Children's Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China. Data analysis was performed from June to October 2021.InterventionsChildren were randomly assigned to 3 groups: the midazolam group received intranasal midazolam (0.1 mg/kg), and the dexmedetomidine group received intranasal dexmedetomidine (2.0 μg/kg) for premedication. The normal saline group received intranasal 0.9% saline for control.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference in the incidence of PRAEs among the 3 groups. The secondary outcomes were the frequency of the individual PRAEs, including the incidence of such events during the induction and recovery periods, postoperative emergence delirium, postoperative pain score, sedation success rate, and heart rate values.ResultsA total of 384 children (median [IQR] age, 7 [5-10] years; 227 boys [59.1%]) were enrolled and randomized; 373 data sets were available for intention-to-treat analysis (124 children in the midazolam group, 124 children in the dexmedetomidine group, and 125 children in the normal saline group). After the data were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, body mass index, obstructive sleep apnea, upper respiratory tract infection, and passive smoking, children in the midazolam group were more likely to experience PRAEs than those in the normal saline group (70 of 124 children [56.5%] vs 51 of 125 children [40.8%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.99; 95% CI, 1.18-3.35), whereas the dexmedetomidine group had a significantly lower PRAEs incidence than the normal saline group (30 of 124 children [24.2%] vs 51 of 125 children [40.8%]; aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78). Compared with the dexmedetomidine group, the midazolam group had a higher risk of PRAEs (aOR, 4.44; 95% CI, 2.54-7.76), but no other serious clinical adverse events were observed.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, intranasal midazolam used for premedication was associated with increased incidence of PRAEs, whereas premedication with intranasal dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced incidence of PRAEs. Where clinically appropriate, anesthesiologists should consider using intranasal dexmedetomidine for sedation in children undergoing tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Register Identifier: ChiCTR2000038359.

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.

Dataset Information

Monitored Anesthesia Care with Dexmedetomidine Supplemented by Midazolam/Fentanyl versus Midazolam/Fentanyl Alone in Patients Undergoing Pleuroscopy: Effect on Oxygenation and Respiratory Function.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets