Dataset Information

Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine and Magnesium Sulphate on Propofol Consumption, Haemodynamics and Postoperative Recovery in Spine Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo Controlled, Double-blind Study.

ABSTRACT: Dexmedetomidine and magnesium sulfate have been used in anesthesia as adjuvant to provide hemodynamic stability and anesthetic agents sparing effect. We compared these effects of dexmedetomidine and magnesium sulfate in spine surgeries.Ninety patients were randomly assigned to three groups. Group D received dexmedetomidine loading dose 1 µg/kg over a period of 15 minutes and maintenance 0.5 µg/kg/h throughout the surgery. Group M received magnesium sulfate loading dose 50 mg/kg over a period of 15 minutes and maintenance 15 mg/kg/h throughout the surgery. Group C received same volume of normal saline. Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure values were recorded at various intervals. The induction and maintenance doses of anesthetics and recovery parameters were also recorded.Heart rate in group D and group M were significantly decreased (p<0.05) during the whole intraoperative period compared to preoperative values. There was a significant difference in HR values between group C, D and M, during the whole intraoperaive period (p<0.05). Blood pressure values were statistically significantly lower in the group D and group M compared to group C after intubation and all time observations of surgery (p<0.05). Both drugs reduced the anesthetic agent's requirement during surgery. However, the recovery parameters were statistically significant increase with magnesium sulphate compared to dexmedetomidine and control groups.Dexmedetomidine is more effective than magnesium sulfate for maintaining the hemodynamic stability in spine surgeries. Both these drugs also reduce the requirements of anesthetic agents. Recovery from dexmedetomidine is as rapid as control group compared to magnesium sulfate.

SUBMITTER: Srivastava VK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4845545 | biostudies-other | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine and Magnesium Sulphate on Propofol Consumption, Haemodynamics and Postoperative Recovery in Spine Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo Controlled, Double-blind Study.

Srivastava Vinit K VK Mishra Abhishek A Agrawal Sanjay S Kumar Sanjay S Sharma Sunil S Kumar Raj R

Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin 20160317 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Dexmedetomidine and magnesium sulfate have been used in anesthesia as adjuvant to provide hemodynamic stability and anesthetic agents sparing effect. We compared these effects of dexmedetomidine and magnesium sulfate in spine surgeries.<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety patients were randomly assigned to three groups. Group D received dexmedetomidine loading dose 1 µg/kg over a period of 15 minutes and maintenance 0.5 µg/kg/h throughout the surgery. Group M received magnesium sulfate loading ...[more]

PMID: 27123421

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Propofol injection pain, despite various interventions, still occurs during the anesthesia induction and causes intense discomfort and anxiety in patients. This study aimed to explore the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine on propofol injection pain prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C. Methods: A total of 251 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II) who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgery were randomly assigned to a combination group (n = 63), lidocaine group (n = 62), dexmedetomidine group (n = 63), and placebo-control group (n = 63); they received 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C, 40 mg lidocaine, 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction, and normal saline, respectively. Incidence of pain, pain intensity, and reaction to the pain stimulus were evaluated by using verbal categorial scoring (VCS), a numerical rating scale (NRS), and the Surgical Pleth Index (SPI), respectively. In addition, hemodynamic parameters such as heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were also measured. The VCS and NRS were evaluated at 5 s after propofol injection. In addition, SPI, HR, and MAP were evaluated at three time points (before anesthesia induction and 5 and 30 s after propofol injection). Results: The incidence of pain in the combination group (51%) was significantly lower than that in the lidocaine group (71%), dexmedetomidine group (67%), or placebo-control group (94%) (p < 0.001). VCS and NRS scores in the combination group were also lower compared with the other three groups (p < 0.001), with no statistically significant differences between the lidocaine group and dexmedetomidine group (p > 0.05). The SPI of the combination group decreased significantly in comparison with the other three groups at 5 s after propofol injection (F = 96.23, p < 0.001) and 30 s after propofol injection (F = 4.46, p = 0.005). Further comparisons between HR and MAP revealed no significant differences across the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Because of the sedative nature of dexmedetomidine and analgesic effect of low temperature, this study showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C is highly effective in attenuating the incidence and severity of pain during injection compared with lidocaine (40 mg), dexmedetomidine 0.5 ug/kg) and placebo. This approach was not associated with any anesthesia complications. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: ChiCTR-2000034663.

Project description:ImportancePostoperative delirium is common following cardiac surgery and may be affected by choice of analgesic and sedative.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of postoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) vs placebo combined with IV propofol vs dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium among older patients undergoing cardiac surgery.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial among 120 patients aged 60 years or older undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or combined CABG/valve surgeries at a US center. Enrollment was September 2015 to April 2018, with follow-up ending in April 2019.InterventionsPatients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups receiving postoperative analgesia with IV acetaminophen or placebo every 6 hours for 48 hours and postoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol starting at chest closure and continued for up to 6 hours (acetaminophen and dexmedetomidine: n = 29; placebo and dexmedetomidine: n = 30; acetaminophen and propofol: n = 31; placebo and propofol: n = 30).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was incidence of postoperative in-hospital delirium by the Confusion Assessment Method. Secondary outcomes included delirium duration, cognitive decline, breakthrough analgesia within the first 48 hours, and ICU and hospital length of stay.ResultsAmong 121 patients randomized (median age, 69 years; 19 women [15.8%]), 120 completed the trial. Patients treated with IV acetaminophen had a significant reduction in delirium (10% vs 28% placebo; difference, -18% [95% CI, -32% to -5%]; P = .01; HR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-7.8]). Patients receiving dexmedetomidine vs propofol had no significant difference in delirium (17% vs 21%; difference, -4% [95% CI, -18% to 10%]; P = .54; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]). There were significant differences favoring acetaminophen vs placebo for 3 prespecified secondary outcomes: delirium duration (median, 1 vs 2 days; difference, -1 [95% CI, -2 to 0]), ICU length of stay (median, 29.5 vs 46.7 hours; difference, -16.7 [95% CI, -20.3 to -0.8]), and breakthrough analgesia (median, 322.5 vs 405.3 µg morphine equivalents; difference, -83 [95% CI, -154 to -14]). For dexmedetomidine vs propofol, only breakthrough analgesia was significantly different (median, 328.8 vs 397.5 µg; difference, -69 [95% CI, -155 to -4]; P = .04). Fourteen patients in both the placebo-dexmedetomidine and acetaminophen-propofol groups (46% and 45%) and 7 in the acetaminophen-dexmedetomidine and placebo-propofol groups (24% and 23%) had hypotension.Conclusions and relevanceAmong older patients undergoing cardiac surgery, postoperative scheduled IV acetaminophen, combined with IV propofol or dexmedetomidine, reduced in-hospital delirium vs placebo. Additional research, including comparison of IV vs oral acetaminophen and other potentially opioid-sparing analgesics, on the incidence of postoperative delirium is warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02546765.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative pain is a common occurrence in pediatric patients following craniotomy, often leading to negative outcomes. Intravenous dexmedetomidine and lidocaine are commonly used adjuvant medicines in general anesthesia to reduce perioperative opioid consumption and relieve postoperative pain in adults. While they show promise for use in pediatrics, the evidence of their application in pediatric craniotomy patients is limited. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on postoperative pain in pediatric patients following craniotomy.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, single-center trial on children scheduled for craniotomy. The 255 recruited participants aged 1-12 years were randomly assigned to intraoperatively receive a loading intravenous dose of either dexmedetomidine 1 μg·kg-1 or lidocaine 2 mg·kg-1 or normal saline for 15 min followed by dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg·kg-1·h-1 or lidocaine 1 mg·kg-1·h-1 or normal saline until the sutures of endocranium were completed. The primary outcome was the cumulative sufentanil consumption within 24 h post-surgery.ResultsA total of 241 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The primary outcome did not show any significant differences among the three groups (median (IQR) lidocaine group: 3.36 (1.32-5.64) μg vs. dexmedetomidine group: 3.12 (1.36-6.39) μg vs. control group 3.46 (1.77-7.62) μg, p = 0.485). Among the secondary outcomes, there was a statistically significant but small reduction in sufentanil consumption within 2 h, postoperative FLACC/WBFS/NRS pain scores within 4 h after surgery and postoperative Ramsay sedation scores in dexmedetomidine group (p < 0.05). Regarding postoperative complications, the incidence of electrolyte disturbance within 24 and 48 h after surgery was significantly higher in control group compared to the other two groups. There were no significant differences in intraoperative opioid consumption, postoperative frequency of remedy medication, or length of hospitalization among the three groups. No adverse events related to lidocaine or dexmedetomidine were observed.ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in the primary outcome among the three groups. Although dexmedetomidine showed some benefits in reducing postoperative opioid consumption within the first 2 h and pain intensity within the first 4 h post-surgery, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to comprehensively assess the outcomes and determine the optimal administration strategy.Clinical trial registration[http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx], identifier [ChiCTR1800019411].

Project description:IntroductionThe transition of acute to chronic postoperative pain (CPP) remains a significant burden to the rehabilitation of patients. The research for adjuvants to prevent CPP continues; among others, dexmedetomidine and lidocaine seem promising agents.MethodsThis is a long-term follow-up of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study on women who underwent open abdominal gynecological surgery and received dexmedetomidine or lidocaine or placebo infusion perioperatively (n = 81). The effect of these adjuvants on the development of CPP and neuropathic pain was assessed during a 12-month follow-up. Eighty-one (81) women ASA I-II, aged between 30 and 70 years, were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (DEX group) or lidocaine (LIDO group) or placebo (CONTROL group) perioperatively. Before anesthesia induction, all patients received a loading intravenous dose of either 0.6 μg/kg dexmedetomidine or 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine or placebo, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine or 1.5 mg/kg/h lidocaine or placebo until last suture. Patients were followed up to obtain the long-term outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months. At these time-points, pain intensity was assessed with the Numerical Rating Scale, (NRS: 0-10) and the development of neuropathic elements with the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) score. Prognostic parameters that could affect chronic pain and its components were also identified.ResultsData from 74 women were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced NRS scores comparing to placebo at 3 months (p = 0.018), while at 6 months, lidocaine was found superior to placebo (p = 0.02), but not to dexmedetomidine, in preventing neuropathic pain (DN4 < 4). Regarding secondary endpoints, higher NRS cough scores at 48 h were associated with statistically significant NRS and DN4 scores at 3, 6, and 12 months (p < 0.02). At 6 months, a statistically significant correlation was also found between higher NRS values and older age (p = 0.020).ConclusionsDexmedetomidine was superior to placebo regarding the duration and severity of CPP, while lidocaine exhibited a protective effect against neuropathic elements of CPP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03363425.

Project description:BackgroundThe α2-adrenergic agonist dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a sedative and can be used as an adjunct to hypnotics. The study sought to evaluate the effects of different doses of DEX on the requirements for propofol for loss of consciousness (LOC) in patients monitored via the bispectral index (BIS).MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, three arm parallel group design and placebo-controlled trial, 73 patients aged between 18 and ~ 65 years with a BMI range of 18.0-24.5 kg·m- 2 and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I or II who were scheduled for general anesthesia at the General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University were included in this study. Anesthesiologists and patients were blinded to the syringe contents. All patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 0.5 μg·kg- 1 DEX infusion (0.5 μg·kg- 1 DEX group; n = 24), a 1.0 μg·kg- 1 DEX infusion (1.0 μg·kg- 1 DEX group; n = 25) or a saline infusion (control group; n = 24) for 10 min. Propofol at a concentration of 20 mg·kg- 1·h- 1 was then infused at the end of the DEX or saline infusion. The propofol infusion was stopped when the patient being infused lost consciousness. The primary endpoint were propofol requirements for LOC and BIS value at LOC.ResultsThe data from 73 patients were analyzed. The propofol requirements for LOC was reduced in the DEX groups compared with the control group (1.12 ± 0.33 mg·kg- 1 for the 0.5 μg·kg- 1 DEX group vs. 1.79 ± 0.39 mg·kg- 1 for the control group; difference, 0.68 mg·kg- 1 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.87]; P = 0.0001) (0.77 ± 0.27 mg·kg- 1 for the 1.0 μg·kg- 1 DEX group vs. 1.79 ± 0.39 mg·kg- 1 for the control group; difference, 1.02 mg·kg- 1 [95% CI, 0.84 to 1.21]; P = 0.0001). The propofol requirements for LOC was lower in the 1.0 μg·kg- 1 DEX group than the 0.5 μg·kg- 1 DEX group (0.77 ± 0.27 mg·kg- 1 vs. 1.12 ± 0.33 mg·kg- 1, respectively; difference, 0.34 mg·kg- 1 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54]; P = 0.003). At the time of LOC, the BIS value was higher in the DEX groups than in the control group (67.5 ± 3.5 for group 0.5 μg·kg- 1 DEX vs. 60.5 ± 3.8 for the control group; difference, 7.04 [95% CI, 4.85 to 9.23]; P = 0.0001) (68.4 ± 4.1 for group 1.0 μg·kg- 1 DEX vs. 60.5 ± 3.8 for the control group; difference, 7.58 [95% CI, 5.41 to 9.75]; P = 0.0001).ConclusionThe study showed that DEX (both 0.5 and 1.0 μg·kg- 1 DEX) reduced the propofol requirements for LOC. DEX pre-administration increased the BIS value for LOC induced by propofol.Clinical trial registrationThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (trial ID: NCT02783846 on May 26, 2016).

Dataset Information

Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine and Magnesium Sulphate on Propofol Consumption, Haemodynamics and Postoperative Recovery in Spine Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo Controlled, Double-blind Study.

Publications

Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine and Magnesium Sulphate on Propofol Consumption, Haemodynamics and Postoperative Recovery in Spine Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo Controlled, Double-blind Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets