ObjectiveTo explore sedation effect of dexmedetomidine alone and its effects on respiration and circulation of complications in transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy. MethodsFrom April 2012 to May 2014, 60 adult patients who plan to undergo transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy were recruited in the study. The patients were divided into a midazolam combined with fenanyl citrate intravenous injection group (MF group), and a dexmedetomidine target controlled infusion group (Y group) using the method of random number table, with 30 cases in each group. All patients were given 2% lidocaine 15 mL by ultrasonic atomizing inhalation for local surface anaesthesia preoperatively, and then the patients in MF group received midazolam and fentanyl citrate by slow intravenous injection, the patients in Y group received dexmedetomidine 0.5 g intravenous injection and persistant infusion of dexmedetomidinein dosage of 0.2 μg/h. The basic Ramsay sedation score (T0) was recorded, then the Ramsay sedation scoring was conducted when the bronchoscope entering into the pharyngeal cavity (T1), into the glottis (T2), and into the bronchial (T3), respectively. ResultsThere were no significant differences in restlessness, hypotension, hypertension, or tachycardia incidence rate between two groups (P>0.05). The differences in Ramsay score between two groups was not significant at T0 or T1 time point (P>0.05), but was significant at T2 and T3 time point (P<0.05). Compared with MF group, the incidence of respiratory depression and hypoxemia was significantly lower, and the recovery time was significantly shorter in Y group (P<0.05). All patients in Y group woke up immediately by simple call. While in MF group, 23 patients needed intravenous flumazenil to promote awakening. ConclusionDexmedetomidine alone can provide effective sedation in transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy with good effect, high safety, and more convenient awakening.
Objective To determine the efficiency and safety of dexmedetomidine in general anesthesia. Methods Trials were located through electronic searches of the PubMed, EBSCO, OVID, Springer, Foreign Journals Integration System, CNKI, CMBdisk (from the date of establishment of the databases to April 2008). Bibliographies of the retrieved articles were also checked. Result A total of 25 trials involving 1 241 patients were included. The Meta-analysis showed: dexmedetomidine reduced peri-operative heart rate and blood pressure, reduced the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomitting [RR=0.57, 95%CI (0.38, 0.84)], postoperative agitation [RR=0.29, 95%CI (0.17, 0.51)], shivering [RR=0.45, 95%CI (0.29, 0.68)], increase the occurrence of bradycardia [RR=2.16, 95%CI (1.58, 2.95)], hypotension [RR=2.97, 95%CI (1.42, 6.18)]. Dexmedetomidine reduced administration of thiopental, isoflurane and fentanyl, while there was no difference in muscle relaxant. Dexmedetomidine showed no difference in emergency time compared with the control group. As a result of low incidence of adverse reaction, dexmedetomidine showed superior in discharge time [WMD15.17, 95%CI (3.87, 26.46)]. Conclusions The limited current evidence shows that dexmedetomidine is better in maintaining the hemodynamic balance; reducing occurrence of nausea, vomiting, agitation and shivering; and reducing doses of anesthetics. In emergency time, dexmedetomidine shows no difference except discharge time.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for controlled hypotension in orthognathic surgery. MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on dexmedetomidine for controlled hypotension in orthognathic surgery from inception to May, 2024. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed by using RevMan 5.4 software. ResultsA total of 8 RCTs involving 371 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time of dexmedetomidine group was not significantly different from that of hypotensive drug group, but was shorter than that of saline group (MD=?23.20, 95%CI ?44.05 to ?2.35, P=0.03). There were no statistically significant differences in the mean arterial pressure and the intraoperative blood loss between dexmedetomidine group and the control group. Compared with those in the control group, the heart rate (MD=?18.78, 95%CI ?30.80 to ?6.77, P=0.002) and the incidence of postoperative adverse events (OR=0.25, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P=0.01) in dexmedetomidine group were less than those in the control group significantly. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that dexmedetomidine can be used effectively for controlled hypotension in orthognathic surgery. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with dezocine for patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in patients after radical operation for abdominal tumor. MethodsBetween September 2012 and May 2013, 60 patients (aged 40-60, American Sociaty of Anesthesiologists physical statusⅠ-Ⅱ) undergoing abdominal tumor surgery and asking for PCIA pumps voluntarily were randomly divided into two groups (group D and group DF) with 30 in each group. Patients in group D were given sufentanil 0.25 μg/kg+ dezocine 0.4 mg/kg, which were added into 100 mL 0.9% normal saline, while in group DF, the patients received dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg+ sufentanil 0.15 μg/kg+ dezocine 0.4 mg/kg, which were added into 100 mL 0.9% normal saline. The changes of mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), the visual analog scale (VAS), Ramsay sedation scale, Bruggrmann analgesia scale (BCS), the efficacy of postoperative analgesia and adverse effects were observed and recorded at the preoperative time (T0), and 2 (T1), 4 (T2), 8 (T3), 24 (T4) and 48 hours (T5) postoperatively. ResultsHemodynamics in group DF was more stable than that in group D (P<0.05). There were no statically significant differences in terms of VAS and BCS between the two groups at each time point (P>0.05). The Ramsay sedation scale of group DF was better than group D, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The efficient number of pressing within 48 hours in the two groups was not significantly different (P>0.05). The incidence of nausea, vomiting and drowsiness in group D was more than that of group DF (P<0.05). ConclusionDexmedetomidine combined with dezocine can provide effective postoperative analgesia with less adverse effects for patients after radical surgery of abdominal tumor, which provides higher satisfaction to the abdominal surgery patients.
Objective To evaluate the sedative and analgesic efficacy and adverse effect of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the postoperative patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCI, SpringerLinker, ScinceDirect, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM from the date of their establishment to November 2011. The quality of the included studies was evaluated after the data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1. Results Ten RCTs involoving 793 cases were included. The qualitative analysis results showed: within a certain range of dosage as dexmedetomidine: 0.2-2.5 μg/(kg·h), and propofol: 0.8-4 mg/(kg·h), dexmedetomidine was similar to propofol in sedative effect, but dexmedetomidine group needed smaller dosage of supplemental analgesics during the period of sedative therapy. The results of meta-analysis showed: the percentage of patients needing supplemental analgesics in dexmedetomidine group was less than that in propofol group during the period of sedative therapy (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.68, P=0.008). Compared with the propofol group, the duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (WMD= –1.10, 95%CI –1.88 to –0.32, P=0.006), but the mechanical ventilated time was comparable between the two groups (WMD=0.89, 95%CI –1.15 to 2.93, P=0.39); the incidence of adverse effects had no significant difference between two groups (bradycardia: OR=3.57, 95%CI 0.86 to 14.75, P=0.08; hypotension: OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.30 to 3.32, P=1.00); respiratory depression seemed to be more frequently in propofol group, which however needed further study. Mortalities were similar in both groups after the sedative therapy (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.99, P=0.92). Conclusion Within an exact range of dosage, dexmedetomidine is comparable with propofol in sedative effect. Besides, it has analgesic effect, fewer adverse effects and fewer occurrences of respiratory depression, and it can save the extra dosage of analgesics and shorten ICU stay. Still, more larger-sample, multi-center RCTs are needed to provide more evidence to support this outcome.
ObjectiveTo explore the efficacy and safety of different sedative and analgesic methods in emergent endotracheal intubations in RICU. Methods110 cases of tracheal intubation in critically ill patients were divided into 5 groups randomly: ① control group(given no sedative or analgesic drug before intubation); ② fentanyl group(given intravenous fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ③ dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group(given dexmedetomidine hydrochloride 1 μg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by dexmedetomidine hydrochloride 0.5 μg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ④ midazolam+fentanyl group(given midazolam 0.05 mg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by midazolam 0.05 mg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ⑤ Propofol+fentanyl group(given propofol 1 mg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by propofol 0.4 mg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance).The mean arterial pressure(MAP),heart rate(HR),respiratory frequency(RR),PaO2/FiO2,Riker sedation score and agitation were monitored before,during and after intubations.The one-time success rate of intubation and severe arrhythmia (sinus bradycardia,frequent ventricular premature,ventricular fibrillation,and cardiac arrest) incidence rate were recorded. ResultsThe one-time success rates of intubations of the propofol+fentanyl group (95.4%) and the midazolam+fentanyl group (90.9%) were higher than that in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (86.4%,P<0.05),while one-time intubation success rate of three groups were higher than that of the fentanyl group (45.4%) and the control group (31.8%,P<0.05).5 minutes after intubation,the PaO2/FiO2 index of 5 groups of patients were higher than those before intubation,but the PaO2/FiO2 index of the control group and the fentanyl group were lower than those in the other three groups(P<0.05).The occurrence of serious arrhythmia rate in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (0%),the midazolam+fentanyl group (9%) and the propofol+fentanyl group (9%) were lower than that in the control group (13.6%) and the fentanyl group (18.2%).The MAP during intubation and 2 minutes after intubation of the propofol+fentanyl group and the midazolam+fentanyl group were lower than that in the other three groups(P<0.05).The proportion of patients with Riker sedation and agitation score≤4 at intubation in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (68.2%) was lower than that in the propofol+fentanyl group(90.9%) and the midazolam+fentanyl group (86.4%,P<0.05),but higher than those in the fentanyl group(22.7%)and the control group(18.2%,P<0.05). ConclusionPropofol,midazolam or dexmedetomidine hydrochloride with fentanyl are all effective and safe methods of sedation and analgesia in emergent endotracheal intubation in RICU.Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride with fentanyl is an ideal sedative relatively with less influence on cardiovascular system and less myocardial oxygen consumption.
Objective To assess the influence of dexmedetomidine on the recovery of pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia. Methods Such databases as PubMed (1966 to March 2012), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), EBSCO (ASP) (1984 to March 2012), Journals@Ovid Full Text (1993 to March 2012), CBM (1978 to March 2012), CNKI (1979 to March 2012), VIP (1989 to March 2012), and WanFang Data (1998 to March 2012) were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the influence of dexmedetomidine on the recovery of pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia, and the references of the included studies were also retrieved. Two researchers extracted the data and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies independently. Then the RevMan 5.2 software was used for meta-analysis. Results A total of 16 RCTs involving 1 217 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the placebo, dexmedetomidine could reduce the occurrence of emergence agitation (OR=0.18, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.25, Plt;0.000 01) and increase the occurrence of postoperative lethargy (OR=0.14, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.68, P=0.01), but there were no differences in the occurrence of side effects including bronchospasm, bucking, breathholding, and oxygen desaturation. Dexmedetomidine could also reduce mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) of pediatric patients during the recovery period after sevoflurane anesthesia, but it increased emergence time (MD=2.14, 95%CI 0.95 to 3.33, P=0.000 4), extubation time (MD=1.26, 95%CI 0.51 to 2.00, P=0.000 9) and the time of staying in PACU (MD=4.72, 95%CI 2.07 to 7.38, P=0.000 5). Conclusions For pediatric patients recovering from sevoflurane-based general anesthesia, dexmedetomidine can reduce the occurrence of emergence agitation, and is helpful to maintain the hemodynamic balance. But it prolongs emergence time, extubation time (or the time of using the laryngeal mask) and the time of staying in PACU, and increases the occurrence of postoperative lethargy.
Objective To evaluate the influence of dexmedetomidine on the stress of elderly patients with cardiovascular risk undergoing gastrointestinal laparoscopic surgery. Methods From August 2014 to December 2015, 210 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gastrointestinal operations were randomly divided into three groups, including the low concentration group (group D1), the high concentration group (group D2), and the control group (group C), with 70 cases in each group. The patients in group D1 and group D2 were injected with dexmedetomidine (0.4 and 0.8 μg/kg respectively) by infusion pump before anesthesia induction, and were continuously pumped with dexmedetomidine [0.4 and 0.8 μg/(kg·h) respectively] until the end of the surgery. Meanwhile, the patients in group C were injected with normal saline of the equal volumes. The heart rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was recorded before anesthesia, after endotracheal intubation and extubation. Myocardial ischemia and cardiovascular adverse events thatneeded to be handled were recorded. The concentrations of dopamine, adrenaline (AD) and noradrenaline (NE) were monitored at 15:00 one day before surgery (Ty), one hour after the beginning of surgery (T0), and at 15:00 of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd day after surgery (T1, T2, T3). Results A total of 178 patients completed the study and were enrolled in this study, including 60 cases in group D1 and 59 cases in group D2 and C respectively. In group D1 and D2, the heart rates after intubation [(80.4±9.6), (68.2±10.5) times/minutes], extubation [(70.1±6.2), (69.7±7.8) times/minutes] and MAP after extubation [(100.2±12.0), (98.0±13.1) mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)] were lower than those in group C [(98.4±10.5) and (95.2±7.3) times/minutes; (121.8±10.5) mm Hg], and the differences were significant (P<0.05). The bradycardia and hypotension in group D2 (27.12%, 22.03%) was significantly higher than those in group C (3.39%, 8.47%). Hypertension in group D1 and D2 (5.00%, 1.69%) was significantly lower than that in group C (37.29%), and the differences were significant (P<0.05). Compared with the base value at Ty in the three groups, the concentration of dopamine at T0-T3 in group C, at T0-T1 in group D1, and at T0 in group D2 increased significantly (P<0.05); the AD at T0-T3 in group C, at T0-T2 in group D1, and at T0-T1 in group D2 increased significantly (P<0.05); the NE at T0-T2 in group C, and at T1 in group D1 increased significantly (P<0.05). Compared with group C at the same time, the DA at T3 in group D1 and at T1-T3 in group D2, the AD at T2-T3 in group D1 and at T0-T3 in group D2, the NE at T0-T1 in group D1 and T0-T3 in group D2, decreased significantly (P<0.05). Conclusions Dexmedetomidine can effectively restrain the changes of hemodynamics and catecholamine induced by perioperative stress responses in a dose-dependent manner. During the surgery of elderly patients with cardiovascular risk, the concentration of dexmedetomidine should be controlled moderately to gain the optimal effect.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on systemic vascular resistance in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. MethodsThirty-one patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass from January to April, 2012 were randomized into experimental group (n=16) and control group (n=15). The flow rate was kept at 2.4 L/(min·m2) and moderate hypothermia was maintained. Equivalent dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium chloride solution were pumped for the experimental group and control group, respectively. The mean artery pressure (MAP), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), Cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine were determined before (T0) and at 10 and 20 minutes (T1,T2) after dexmedetomidine administration. ResultsCompared with T0, there were significant decreases in MAP and SVR at T1 and T2 (P<0.05). MAP and SVR were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group at T1 and T2, respectively (P<0.05); cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group at T1 and T2, respectively (P<0.05). ConclusionDexmedetomidine reduces SVR and causes decrease in MAP. It can effectively inhibit the stress reaction in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.
Objective To explore the influence of dexmedetomidine on wake-up test during spinal orthopaedic surgery. Methods All 80 patients taking spinal orthopaedic surgery were randomly divided into the trial group and the control group, with 40 cases in each group. The endotracheal intubation anesthesia was adopted in both groups with same anesthesia induction. Additionally, dexmedetomidine 0.8 μg/ (kg·h) was infused within 10 min in the trial group before anesthesia induction, and then another 0.5 μg/ (kg·h) was also infused from the intraoperation to suture of incision. For the control group, the same amount of normal saline was infused, and all the narcotics were stopped pumping 15 min before the wake-up test, but then were continued pumping after the wake-up test. Finally, the following indexes were analyzed: wake-up time, wake-up quality, hemodynamic changes at the time of 15 min before wake-up (T1), recovery of spontaneous breathing (T2), wake-up (T3) and 15 min after wake-up (T4), dosage of narcotics, and the incidence of adverse events. Results There was no significant difference in the operation time before wake-up between the two groups (P=0.07). For the trial group, the dosage of sevoflurane (P=0.03) and sufentanil (P=0.00) used before wake-up was significantly lower, the wake-up time (P=0.04) and bleeding amount during wake-up (P=0.00) were significantly less, the wake-up quality (P=0.03) was significantly higher, the blood pressure (P=0.00) and heart rate (P=0.00) when wake-up were significantly lower, and the incidence of adverse events (P=0.04) was significantly lower, compared with the control group. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine adopted in spinal orthopaedic surgery can significantly improve patient’s wake-up quality, shorten wake-up time, reduce bleeding amount when wake-up and adverse events after wake-up, and maintain the hemodynamic stability, so it has better protective effects.