Dataset Information

Effectiveness of transtracheal lidocaine as an adjunct to general anesthesia in providing patient immobility during total parotidectomy: A comparison with dexmedetomidine infusion.

ABSTRACT: Dexmedetomidine and propofol infusions are increasingly being used to ensure intraoperative patient immobility in the absence of muscle relaxants during parotidectomy. The primary aim of our study was to assess the effectiveness of transtracheal block as an adjunct to general anesthesia in providing patient immobility during total parotidectomy, as compared to dexmedetomidine infusion.This prospective, randomized study was conducted in 58 patients. Group A patients received a transtracheal injection of 4 ml of 4% lidocaine before induction whereas in Group B, dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg was administered intravenously. Following induction and intubation, anesthesia was maintained with oxygen, nitrous oxide, and isoflurane and dexmedetomidine was administered in Group B at a rate of 0.7 mcg/kg/h. In both the groups, if the patient moved, bucked, or if there were signs of inadequate depth of anesthesia, plane of anesthesia was deepened with a bolus of propofol 0.5 mg/kg intravenously. Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis.The number of patients who moved in the transtracheal group was significantly less as compared to dexmedetomidine group (3 vs. 11). Mean heart rates (HRs) were comparable in both groups till 10 min, but between 15 and 180 min, Group B had significantly low HR. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was significantly high at 10 min following dexmedetomidine bolus in Group B. Though Group B showed low SBP values as compared to Group A from 10 min following induction, the difference became significant between 45 and 180 min. Changes in mean arterial blood pressures followed a similar trend as with SBP.Transtracheal lidocaine ensured patient immobility with hemodynamic stability during total parotidectomy with nerve stimulation studies as compared to intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion.

SUBMITTER: Rajan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5520591 | biostudies-other | 2017 Apr-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty may be performed under general or spinal anesthesia. The purpose of the current study was to compare perioperative outcomes between anesthetic types for patients undergoing primary elective total hip arthroplasty.MethodsPatients who had undergone primary elective total hip arthroplasty from 2010 to 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Operating room times, length of stay, thirty-day adverse events, and readmission were compared between patients who had received general anesthesia and those who had received spinal anesthesia. Propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis was used to control for selection bias and baseline patient characteristics.ResultsA total of 20,936 patients who had undergone total hip arthroplasty met inclusion criteria for this study. Of these, 12,752 patients (60.9%) had received general anesthesia and 8184 patients (39.1%) had received spinal anesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analyses, general anesthesia for total hip arthroplasty was associated with increased operative time (+12 minutes [95% confidence interval, +11 to +13 minutes]; p < 0.001) and postoperative room time (+5 minutes [95% confidence interval, +4 to +6 minutes]; p < 0.001). General anesthesia was also associated with the occurrence of any adverse event (odds ratio, 1.31 [95% confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.41]; p < 0.001), prolonged postoperative ventilator use (odds ratio, 5.81 [95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 25.06]; p = 0.018), unplanned intubation (odds ratio, 2.17 [95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 4.29]; p = 0.024), stroke (odds ratio, 2.51 [95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 6.20]; p = 0.046), cardiac arrest (odds ratio, 5.04 [95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 22.07]; p = 0.032), any minor adverse event (odds ratio, 1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.45]; p = 0.001), and blood transfusion (odds ratio, 1.34 [95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.45]; p < 0.001). General anesthesia was not associated with any difference in preoperative room time, postoperative length of stay, or readmission.ConclusionsGeneral anesthesia was associated with an increased rate of adverse events and mildly increased operating room times.

Project description:BackgroundA few studies have reported that administration of lidocaine and dexmedetomidine relieves the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We explored whether combined infusion of lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine had lower occurrence of PONV undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy with general anesthesia.MethodsA total of 248 women undergoing elective laparoscopic hysterectomy were allocated into the following four groups: the control group (group C, n = 62) received an equal volume of saline, the lidocaine group (group L, n = 62) received intravenous lidocaine (bolus infusion of 1.5 mg/kg over 10 min, 1.5 mg/kg/h continuous infusion), the dexmedetomidine group (group D, n = 62) received dexmedetomidine administration (bolus infusion of 0.5 µg/kg over 10 min, 0.4 µg/kg/h continuous infusion), and the lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine group (group LD, n = 62) received combination of lidocaine (bolus infusion of 1.5 mg/kg over 10 min, 1.5 mg/kg/h continuous infusion) and dexmedetomidine administration (bolus infusion of 0.5 µg/kg over 10 min, 0.4 µg/kg/h continuous infusion). The primary outcome was the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and PONV during the first 48 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of total 24 h PONV after surgery, intraoperative remifentanil requirement, postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and fentanyl consumption, the incidence of bradycardia, agitation, shivering, and mouth dry during post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay period.ResultsThe occurrence of nausea and PONV in group LD (5.0 and 8.3%) at 0-2 h after operation was lower than group C (21.7 and 28.3%) (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference with respect to occurrence of nausea and PONV in groups L (13.3 and 20.0%) and D (8.3 and 13.3%) at 0-2 h after operation compared to group C (21.7 and 28.3%). The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and PONV at 2-24 and 24-48 h after surgery in all four groups was not statistically significant. The incidence of total 24 h PONV in group LD (33.3%) was significantly decreased compared to group C (60.0%) (P < 0.05). The cumulative consumption of fentanyl at 6 and 12 h after surgery was significantly reduced in group LD compared to other three groups (P < 0.05). The pain VAS scores were significantly decreased at 2, 6, and 12 h after operation in group LD compared to other three groups (P < 0.05). Remifentanil dose in the intraoperative period was significantly lower in groups LD and D compared with groups C and L (P < 0.05). The number of mouth dry, bradycardia, and over sedation during the PACU stay period was markedly increased in group LD (28.3, 30.0, and 35.0%, respectively) compared with groups C (1.7, 1.7, and 3.3%, respectively) and L (3.3, 5.0, and 6.7%, respectively) (P < 0.05).ConclusionsLidocaine combined with dexmedetomidine infusion markedly decreased the occurrence of nausea and PONV at 0-2 h as well as the total 24 h PONV. However, it significantly increased the incidence of mouth dry, bradycardia, and over sedation during the PACU stay period after laparoscopic hysterectomy with general anesthesia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03809923 ), registered on January 18, 2019.

Project description:Background and objectives: Flexible bronchoscopy has been widely used for diagnosis and intervention, while various drugs are used for sedation during bronchoscopy. We examined two regular standardized sedation options (with or without dexmedetomidine) regularly used in our regional hospital. The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine on conscious sedation under bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from April 2017 to March 2018. All patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation were enrolled. Patients having received dexmedetomidine-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group D, and those having received midazolam-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group M. The primary outcome was a safety profile during the procedure, including the incidence of procedural interference by patient cough or movement, transient hypoxemia, and hypotension. The secondary outcome was measured by the recovery profile (awake and ambulation time). Results: Thirty-five patients in group D and thirty-three in group M were collected in this retrospective study. All patients underwent the procedure successfully. Group D showed higher safety with fewer procedural interference incidences by cough or body movement than Group M (3.3% versus 36.3%, p < 0.001) and minor respiratory adverse effects. Patients in group D showed faster recovery in a shorter ambulation time than group M (24.9 ± 9.7 versus 31.5 ± 11.9, p = 0.02). In group D, bronchoscopist satisfaction to sedation was higher than group M (p = 0.01). More transient bradycardia episodes were noted in patients receiving dexmedetomidine (p < 0.05), but all recovered without atropine intervention. Overall post-procedural adverse events and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions: The co-administration of dexmedetomidine met the safety and recovery demands of flexible bronchoscopy. Compared to the conventional midazolam-propofol-fentanyl regimen, the application of dexmedetomidine improved sedative effectiveness with less procedural interruptions, shorter time to ambulation and higher bronchoscopist satisfaction.

Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension under general anesthesia. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP databases, as well as dissertations and conference papers, to obtain randomized controlled trials comparing remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension before August 23, 2021. The primary outcomes included hemodynamic profiles, surgical field score, and blood loss. Extubation time, sedation and pain score at the PACU, and perioperative adverse events were the secondary outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials with 543 patients (272 in the dexmedetomidine group and 271 in the remifentanil group) were eventually included. This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between dexmedetomidine and remifentanil in terms of surgical field score, blood loss, minimum values of mean arterial pressure (MD 0.24 with 95% CI [-1.65, 2.13], P = 0.80, I2 = 66%) and heart rate (MD 0.42 [-1.33, 2.17], P = 0.64, I2 = 40%), sedation scores at the PACU (MD -0.09 [-0.69, 0.50], P = 0.76, I2 = 92%), and incidence of bradycardia (OR 2.24 [0.70, 7.15], P = 0.17, I2 = 0%). Compared with remifentanil, dexmedetomidine as the controlled hypotensive agent showed a lower visual analogue score at the PACU (MD -1.01 [-1.25, -0.77], P<0.00001, I2 = 0%) and incidence of shivering (OR 0.22 [0.08, 0.60], P = 0.003, I2 = 0%), nausea, and vomiting (OR 0.34 [0.13, 0.89], P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). However, extubation time was shorter in the remifentanil group (MD 3.34 [0.75, 5.93], P = 0.01, I2 = 90%). In conclusion, dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are both effective in providing satisfactory controlled hypotension and surgical conditions. Dexmedetomidine is better in easing postoperative pain at the PACU and reducing the occurrence of shivering, nausea, and vomiting. Meanwhile, remifentanil is a fast-track anesthesia with a shorter extubation time. Given the limitations of this meta-analysis, further studies are needed for a more definitive comparison of the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of transtracheal lidocaine as an adjunct to general anesthesia in providing patient immobility during total parotidectomy: A comparison with dexmedetomidine infusion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets