Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients

ObjectiveTo compare the sedative, hemodynamic, respiratory and adverse effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) in pediatrics.MethodsAfter obtaining approval of the research and ethics committee and informed consent of the parents of the patients, eighty pediatric patients ASA I/II aged 1–14 years, scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized into dexmedetomidine group or propofol group. Sedation was achieved with propofol 2 mg/kg bolus then infused at 100 μg/kg/min or dexmedetomidine 2.5 μg/kg over 10 min then infused at 2 μg/kg/h to achieve a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) ⩾5. HR, MAP, RR and SPO2 were continuously monitored and analyzed at (T0) baseline, (T1) after induction, (T2) after insertion of endoscope, (T3) during procedure, (T4) recovery period. Times of induction, procedure, and recovery were reported together with any adverse effects.ResultsThere were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. HR values were significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group at T1, T2 and T3 (83.95 ± 13.79 versus 92.95 ± 12.38, 103.35 ± 15.34 versus 112.75 ± 12.79 and 90.80 ± 13.99 versus 104.05 ± 10.73) beats/min respectively, (p-value < 0.05). No significant differences were found in MAP, RR and SPO2 values between groups at all time points. Induction and recovery times were significantly longer in dexmedetomidine group 10.51 ± 1.75 versus 3.17 ± 0.72 min and 28.55 ± 7.95 versus 13.68 ± 3.35 min (p-value < 0.001). Seven patients in dexmedetomidine group (17.5%) versus one patient in propofol group (2.5%) showed unwanted movement (p-value 0.057), and no cases in dexmedetomidine group demonstrated oxygen desaturation versus 6 patients (15%) within propofol group (p-value 0.026).ConclusionDexmedetomidine sedation during GIE provides more respiratory safety and HR stability presenting itself as a suitable alternative agent especially for the relatively longer procedures.     

New-onset,postoperative tachyarrhythmias in critically ill surgical patients

Tachyarrhythmias in critically ill surgical patients can have varying effects, from minimal consequence to lifetime sequelae. Atrial fibrillation can be common in the post-operative period, often a result of fluctuations in volume status and electrolyte derangements. While there is extensive literature regarding the critically ill medical or cardiac patient, there is less focusing on the critically ill surgical or trauma patient. More specifically, there is minimal regarding tachyarrhythmias in burn patients. The latter population tends to have frequent and wide variations in volume status given initial resuscitation and after major excisions, concomitant with acute blood loss anemia, which can contribute to cardiac disturbances. A literature review was conducted to investigate the incidence and consequences of tachyarrhythmias in critically ill surgical and trauma patients, with a focus on the burn population. While some similarities and conclusions can be drawn between these surgical populations, further inquiry into the unique burn patient is necessary.     

右美托咪啶在重症患者谵妄的预防和治疗作用研究进展

背景 重症患者谵妄的发生率较高,并且谵妄的发生会增加重症患者并发症的发生率及病死率.右美托咪啶(dexmedetomidine,DEX)是一种较新型的镇静药,具有镇静、镇痛作用.临床试验证实其在重症医学科谵妄预防和治疗中具有独特优势.目的 综述DEX在重症医学科谵妄预防和治疗中的作用.内容 阐述谵妄的流行病学及危险因素...     

Aminophylline reversal of prolonged postoperative sedation induced by propofol

Propofol is frequently used for intravenous sedation or anesthesia in ambulatory and office-based anesthesia. Although awakening is usually rapid, there are instances of delayed recovery from propofol anesthesia. It has been reported that aminophylline antagonizes the sedative effects of several anesthetic and analgesic drugs. The case reports presented here demonstrate that intravenous aminophylline effectively reversed prolonged propofol-induced sedation/anesthesia in the postoperative period. There were no side effects or delayed re-sedation after the administration of aminophylline. Our study suggests that aminophylline could be a clinically useful propofol antagonist.     

右美托咪定和丙泊酚用于硬膜外麻醉下妇科手术患者镇静的比较

目的 比较右美托咪定(Dex)和丙泊酚用于硬膜外麻醉下妇科手术患者的镇静效果.方法 硬膜外麻醉下择期行子宫或(和)卵巢切除患者100例,随机均分成Dex组(D组)和丙泊酚组(P组),应用Ramsay镇静评分和脑电双频指数(BIS)对两组患者术中镇静效果进行观察.记录给药前(T0)、切皮前即给药后15 min(T1)、手术开始后15 min(T2)、30 min(T3)、45 min(T4)、术毕(T5)及术后1 h(T6)患者HR、MAP、BIS、Ramsay镇静评分及呼吸抑制情况.结果 T1～T5时D组BIS,MAP明显低于T0时和P组,Ramsay镇静评分低于P组,HR慢于T0时和P组(P<0.05).低血压的发生率P组明显高于D组(P<0.05).结论 Dex用于硬膜外麻醉下妇科手术患者镇静是安全和可行的.     

Reversal of prolonged sedation using flumazenil in critically ill patients

Thirteen critically ill patients received flumazenil after multiple doses, or an infusion, of midazolam was used as part of a sedation regimen to facilitate intensive care. All patients remained excessively sedated after the midazolam was stopped for 6 hours or longer. An improvement in conscious level occurred in eight patients (61%). In four of these eight patients, the duration of action of flumazenil necessitated its continued administration by an infusion to maintain the improvement in conscious level. The dose of flumazenil required each hour was less than estimated previously; this indicates that it may be subjected to similar alterations of elimination as those described for midazolam. Flumazenil appears to be a useful drug for the reversal of prolonged benzodiazepine sedation but repeated bolus doses or an infusion are needed if significant accumulation of benzodiazepines has occurred.     

丙泊酚镇静对全子宫切除术患者血浆细胞因子的影响

目的 以咪唑安定镇静作为对照,研究丙泊酚镇静对硬膜外麻醉下行全子宫切除术患者手术前后血浆细胞因子变化的影响。方法30例硬膜外麻醉下择期行全子宫切除术患者,ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级,随机分为三组(每组10例):对照组,术中未给予任何镇静药物;咪唑安定组,切皮前静脉注射咪唑安定0.1 mg/kg,继之以微泵输注,输注速度为0.1mg·kg-1·h-1;丙泊酚组,切皮前静脉注射丙泊酚2.0 mg/kg,继之以微泵输注,输注速度为3.0mg·kg-1·h-1。分别调节丙泊酚和咪唑安定的输注速度和输注量,使患者的Ramsay镇静评分约为3分。抽取患者外周静脉血检测术前和术后肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)、白细胞介素-6(IL-6)、白细胞介素-8(IL-8)和白细胞介素-10(IL-10)的浓度。结果三组患者术后血浆中TNF-α、IL-6、IL-8和IL-10的浓度与术前相比均明显升高(P<0.05)。术后血浆TNF-α、IL-6、IL-8浓度升高的幅度,丙泊酚组明显低于对照组和咪唑安定组,咪唑安定组明显低于对照组(P<0.05);IL-10浓度升高的幅度,丙泊酚组明显高于对照组和咪唑安定组(P<0.05),咪唑安定组与对照组无显著性差异。结论 丙泊酚镇静可降低患者的应激反应而有效缓解手术创伤和麻醉对患者机体免疫功能的抑制。     

重症患者右美托咪啶和咪达唑仑镇静效果的比较:Meta分析

目的 采用Meta分析比较右美托咪啶和咪达唑仑用于重症患者镇静的效果.方法 检索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆、万方数据库、CNKI、VIP等数据库,收集右美托咪啶和咪达唑仑用于重症患者镇静的临床随机对照研究.采用Cochrane协作网系统评价纳入文献的质量,采用Rev-Man 5.0软件对收集的患者资料进行Meta分析.结果 共纳入6项研究,包括613例患者,其中右美托咪啶组385例,咪达唑仑组228例.与咪达唑仑组比较,右美托咪啶组ICU住院时间缩短,机械通气时间、心动过缓、低血压和谵妄的发生率、病死率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 与咪达唑仑相比,右美托咪啶可缩短ICU住院时间,提示右美托咪啶有利于重症患者的转归.     

Propofol infusion syndrome: A lethal condition in critically injured patients eliminated by a simple screening protocol

Propofol infusion syndrome (PIS) is defined by arrhythmia, rhabdomyolysis, lactic acidosis, and unrecognized leads to death. We sought to determine the incidence of PIS in trauma patients and evaluate the efficacy of a prospective screening protocol in this patient population.     

The effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine infusion on fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients

Background

We studied the effects of propofol or dexmedetomidine on preload dependency and fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients.

Methods

In the study, we included 91 patients with acute circulatory failure (70 ± 15 y) who received propofol (n = 45 patients, PROP group) or dexmedetomidine (n = 46 patients, DEX group). An initial passive leg-raising (PLR 1) test was performed in all patients to evaluate preload dependency at baseline. Propofol and dexmedetomidine were infused and titrated according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale; the results ranged from −2 to −1, and the bispectral index values ranged from 60–75. A second PLR test (PLR 2) was performed before administration of a 250-mL normal saline fluid challenge over a 5-min period. We obtained central venous pressure and cardiac index (CI) measurements before and after the two PLR tests and volume expansion. An increase of ≥10% in CI during PLR was considered to be a positive test finding that was indicative of preload dependency, whereas an increase of <10% in CI during PLR was considered to be a negative test finding.

Results

At baseline, 22 of 45 patients had negative PLR 1 in the PROP group, whereas 20 of 46 patients had negative PLR 1 in the DEX group. After propofol or dexmedetomidine sedation, there were significant decreases in CI (−9.5% [±6.6%] versus −16.4% [±8.5%], P < 0.001) in the PROP and DEX groups, respectively. In the PROP group, there were significant increases in CI (+18.4% [±9.5%] versus +10.7% [±12.3%], P < 0.05) induced by PLR 2 compared with that induced by PLR 1. In the DEX group, there were no significant increases in CI (+13.2% [±14.9%] versus +12.8% [±17.7%]) induced by PLR 2 compared with that induced by PLR 1. Although the mean arterial pressure values increased comparably with the volume expansion observed in both groups, the volume expansion resulted in a significantly higher increase in CI compared with the baseline values in the PROP group (3.2 ± 0.8 versus 3.2 ± 0.7 L/min/m²) but not in the DEX group (2.9 ± 0.7 versus 3.1 ± 0.8 L/min/m², P < 0.05).

Conclusions

We observed that propofol infusion, but not dexmedetomidine infusion, can increase preload dependency and fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory failure.     

Clinical benefits of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in adult intensive care unit patients: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

This meta-analysis was performed to assess the influence of dexmedetomidine and propofol for adult intensive care unit (ICU) sedation, with respect to patient outcomes and adverse events.

Materials and methods

A systematic review was conducted of all randomized controlled trials exploring the clinical benefits of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in adult intensive care patients. The primary outcomes of this study were length of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and risk of ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included risk of delirium, hypotension, bradycardia and hypertension.

Results

Ten randomized controlled trials, involving 1202 patients, were included. Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the length of ICU stay by <1 d (five studies, 655 patients; mean difference, −0.81 d; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.48 to −0.15) and the incidence of delirium (three studies, 658 patients; relative risk [RR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.74) in comparison with propofol, whereas there was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation (five studies, 895 patients; mean difference, 0.53 h; 95% CI −2.66 to 3.72) or ICU mortality (five studies, 267 patients; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.32–2.12) between these two drugs. Dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased risk of hypertension (three studies, 846 patients; RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.11–2.20) compared with propofol. Other adverse event rates were similar between dexmedetomidine and propofol groups.

Conclusions

For ICU patient sedation, dexmedetomidine may offer advantages over propofol in terms of decrease in the length of ICU stay and the risk of delirium. However, transient hypertension may occur when dexmedetomidine is administered with a loading dose or at high infusion rates.     

右美托咪定与丙泊酚麻醉诱导时的协同作用

目的评价右美托咪定和丙泊酚麻醉诱导时镇静作用的相互影响。方法择期全麻手术患者75例,男36例,女39例,年龄18～65岁,BMI 20～25kg/m~2,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法均分为三组,每组25例:丙泊酚组(A组)、右美托咪定组(B组)、丙泊酚复合右美托咪定组(C组),每组再根据不同药物剂量分为5个亚组,相邻两组剂量等比为1.25,采用点斜法计算ED_(50)及其95%可信区间(CI)。结果A组丙泊酚诱导剂量ED_(50)为1.25 mg/kg(95%CI 0.90～1.45mg/kg),B组右美托咪定麻醉诱导剂量ED_(50)为1.35μg/kg(95%CI 0.95～1.50μg/kg),C组丙泊酚和右美托咪定诱导剂量ED_(50)分别为0.65mg/kg(95%CI 0.50～0.90mg/kg)和0.40μg/kg(95%CI 0.34～0.65μg/kg)。等辐射分析法判定丙泊酚和右美托咪定之间在镇静效应上呈现协同作用。结论右美托咪定复合丙泊酚可以产生明显的镇静效应协同作用。     

The immunomodulatory effects of prolonged intravenous infusion of propofol versus midazolam in critically ill surgical patients

Both propofol and midazolam are known to inhibit immune function. The aim of this study was to investigate cytokine production in critically ill surgical patients as early markers of immune response to prolonged infusion of propofol and midazolam. The study enrolled 40 elective patients who were to receive long-term sedation for more than 2 days. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two equally sized groups. Central venous blood samples for measurement of interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) and interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) were drawn prior to the start and after 48 h of infusion. After 48 h, propofol caused significant increases in IL-1beta (24%), IL-6 (23%) and TNF-alpha (4.8 times) levels, while midazolam caused significant decreases in IL-1beta (21%), IL-6 (21%) and TNF-alpha (19%). Both agents caused significant decreases in IL-8 levels (propofol: 30%, midazolam: 48%, p < 0.05). Propofol caused significant decreases in IL-2 levels (68%, p < 0.001) but increases in IFN-gamma (30%, p < 0.05), whereas there was no significant change with midazolam compared with the pre-infusion level. In conclusion, during 48 h of continuous infusion, propofol stimulated, while midazolam suppressed, the production of the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1beta, IL-6 and TNF-alpha, and both caused suppression of IL-8 production. Propofol inhibited IL-2 production and stimulated IFN-gamma production, whereas midazolam failed to do so. Therefore, sedative agents may have clinical implications in high-risk and immunocompromised patients.     

重症患者右美托咪定镇静的有效性和安全性Meta分析

目的采用Meta分析右美托咪定用于重症患者镇静的有效性和安全性。方法检索PubMed、EMbase、OVID、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)和中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)。收集关于右美托咪定用于重症患者镇静的临床随机对照试验。采用Cochrane协作网系统评价纳入文献的质量,采用RevMan 5.2软件进行分析。结果纳入7项研究,共计1 074例患者,其中右美托咪定组601例,对照组473例。与对照组比较,右美托咪定组ICU住院时间明显缩短,谵妄的发生率明显降低(P0.05),心动过缓的发生率明显升高(P0.05),拔管时间、低血压的发生率和死亡率差异无统计学意义。结论右美托咪定可以缩短ICU住院时间,减少谵妄的发生率,短期镇静安全有效。     

Dexmedetomidine sedation in a child with frontonasal encephalocoele scheduled for MRI

Paediatric patients undergoing radiological imaging often require sedation to minimise motion artefacts. Sedation during Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) poses many challenges to the anaesthetist. Inadequate or failed sedation results in difficulty in keeping them motionless while maintaining respiratory and hemodynamic stability. Secondly, limited access to the patient may pose a safety risk during MRI. Dexmedetomidine, an α₂-adrenoceptor agonist, has recently been used as a sedative for diagnostic imaging studies. We report a use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in MRI suite in a child with frontonasal encephalocoele. A two-year-old girl child weighing 11 kg was scheduled for MRI of the brain and paranasal sinuses with nasal cavity under anaesthesia at our institute. After applying standard monitoring, an initial loading dose of dexmedetomidine was given @ 2 μg kg⁻¹ over 10 min followed by continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine @ 1 μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Sedation was monitored by the Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS), and as soon as a score of 5 was achieved, the child was transferred to the MRI table. Anaesthetic conditions were excellent, with minimal change in vital signs during the entire 35 min duration of the scan. Imaging was successful with no motion artefacts.     

脑电双频指数反馈调控丙泊酚靶控输注用于妇科手术病人的清醒镇静

目的　探讨脑电双频指数 (BIS)作为丙泊酚靶控输注的反馈控制变量用于硬膜外麻醉病人清醒镇静的可行性。方法　 4 0例ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级拟在硬膜外麻醉下行妇科手术病人 ,随机分为反馈靶控输注组 (反馈组 )和靶控输注组 (靶控组 ) ,每组 2 0例。BIS作为反馈控制变量设定为 80 ,丙泊酚血浆靶浓度设定为 1 7μg/ml,记录并比较两组间的实时BIS值、术中血压下降、呼吸抑制、术中回忆情况、镇静的满意度以及丙泊酚单位标准化使用剂量。结果　反馈组丙泊酚单位标准化使用剂量明显低于靶控组 (P <0 0 1) ;两组间血压下降、呼吸抑制、术中回忆的发生率及镇静的满意率均无显著性差异 (P >0 0 5 )。结论　BIS作为反馈控制变量用于硬膜外麻醉下妇科手术病人的清醒镇静是可行的 ,具有简单易行、安全有效、节约费用的优点。     

Long-term sedation with propofol 60 mg ml(-1) vs. propofol 10 mg(-1) ml in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients

BACKGROUND: Hypertriglyceridaemia is the main cause of therapeutic failure during propofol use in long-term sedated mechanically ventilated patients. Propofol 60 mg ml(-1) has been developed to reduce fat and volume load for the critically ill patient. The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of sedation, achievability of effective concentrations and the effects on serum lipid concentrations of propofol 60 mg ml(-1) vs. propofol 10 mg ml(-1) for long-term sedation in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this randomized, open, prospective study, 20 critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients who required sedation for a minimum of 48 h received propofol 60 mg ml(-1) or propofol 10 mg ml(-1) in doses as required during 2-5 days. RESULTS: No differences between propofol 60 mg ml(-1) and propofol 10 mg ml(-1) were observed in the effectiveness of sedation using the Ramsay Sedation score and the Subjective Sedation score, nor in relation to the propofol concentrations. Between the two groups, there were no significant differences in the daily propofol dose, number of daily infusion rate adjustments or need for additional sedatives. Mean serum triglyceride concentrations were higher in the propofol 10 mg ml(-1) group compared with the propofol 60 mg ml(-1) group [5.26 (3.19) vs. 3.22 (2.05) mmol l(-1), P > 0.05][mean (SD)]. Patients in the propofol 10 mg ml(-1) group received more fat from the propofol infusion than from the propofol 60 mg ml(-1) group [53.2 (29.6) vs. 10.0 (4.7) % compared with fat from nutrition, respectively]. A significant relationship was observed between the daily total fat dose and the serum triglyceride concentration (r2 = 0.32, P < 0.001), whereas there was no significant correlation between the daily propofol dose and the serum triglyceride concentration. CONCLUSION: Propofol 60 mg ml(-1) is a useful alternative to propofol 10 mg ml(-1) for the long-term sedation of critically ill patients. Sedation with propofol 60 mg ml(-1) reduces fat and volume load by 83%, which reduces the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia.     

Ketamine/propofol versus fentanyl/propofol for sedating obese patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

ObjectiveThis study was conducted to compare two techniques of sedation for obese patients undergoing ERCP, using either ketofol or fentanyl–propofol as regards propofol consumption, recovery time, patients’ satisfaction, and sedation-related adverse events.Materials and methodsTwo hundred obese patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups; ketamine/propofol (ketofol) group KP (n = 100) or fentanyl/propofol group FP (n = 100). The level of sedation was adjusted to achieve a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 5.ResultsTotal dose of propofol consumed was significantly higher in group FP compared with group KP (97.08 ± 23.31 mg and 57.71 ± 16.97) mg. Recovery time was slightly longer in group KP compared with group FP (11.19 ± 2.59 min and 9.43 ± 1.23 min, respectively), time needed to achieve Aldrete Recovery Scale Score of 9 was comparable in both groups, and sedation-related side effects as hypotension, bradycardia, apnea, and reduction of SpO₂ were more significant in the FP group.In conclusionKetamine/propofol combination 1:4 provided better sedation quality than fentanyl/propofol combination with less side effects and can be safely used for sedating obese patients undergoing ERCP.