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

Intraoperative Dexmedetomidine Use for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in Cardiac Surgery-Single Center Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

Background and Objectives: Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist, is used as an adjunct to anesthesia in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. One of its advantages is the opioid-sparing effect which can facilitate early extubation and recovery. When the ERAS cardiac society was set in 2017, our facility was already using the ERAS program, in which the "fast-track Anesthesia" was facilitated by the intraoperative infusion of dexmedetomidine. Our objective is to share our experience and investigate the potential impact of intraoperative dexmedetomidine use as a part of the ERAS program on patient outcomes in elective cardiac surgery. Materials and Methods: An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted at a university hospital in Switzerland. The patients who underwent elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between 1 June 2017 and 31 August 2018 were included in this analysis (n = 327). Regardless of the surgery type, all the patients received a standardized fast-track anesthesia protocol inclusive of dexmedetomidine infusion, reduced opioid dose, and parasternal nerve block. The primary outcome was the postoperative time when the criteria for extubation were met. Three groups were identified: group 0-(extubated in the operating room), group < 6 (extubated in less than 6 h), and group > 6 (extubated in >6 h). The secondary outcomes were adverse events, length of stay in ICU and in hospital, and total hospitalization costs. Results: Dexmedetomidine was well-tolerated, with no significant adverse events reported. Early extubation was performed in 187 patients (57%). Group 3 had a significantly longer length of stay in the ICU (median: 70 h vs. 25 h) and in hospital (17 vs. 12 days), and consequently higher total hospitalization costs (CHF 62,551 vs. 38,433) compared to the net data from the other two groups (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that dexmedetomidine can be safely used as part of the opioid-sparing anesthesia protocol in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass with the potential to facilitate early extubation, shorter ICU and hospital stays, and reduced hospitalization costs.

Effects of dexmedetomidine on pulmonary function in patients receiving one-lung ventilation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation, particularly one-lung ventilation (OLV), can cause pulmonary dysfunction. This meta-analysis assessed the effects of dexmedetomidine on the pulmonary function of patients receiving OLV.

METHODS

The Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry databases were systematically searched. The primary outcome was oxygenation index (OI). Other outcomes including the incidence of postoperative complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials involving 845 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Dexmedetomidine improved the OI at 30 (mean difference [MD]: 40.49, 95% CI [10.21, 70.78]), 60 (MD: 60.86, 95% CI [35.81, 85.92]), and 90 min (MD: 55, 95% CI [34.89, 75.11]) after OLV and after surgery (MD: 28.98, 95% CI [17.94, 40.0]) and improved lung compliance 90 min after OLV (MD: 3.62, 95% CI [1.7, 5.53]). Additionally, dexmedetomidine reduced the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio: 0.44, 95% CI [0.24, 0.82]) and length of hospital stay (MD: -0.99, 95% CI [-1.25, -0.73]); decreased tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and malondialdehyde levels; and increased superoxide dismutase levels. However, only the results for the OI and IL-6 levels were confirmed by the sensitivity and trial sequential analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine improves oxygenation in patients receiving OLV and may additionally decrease the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and shorten the length of hospital stay, which may be related to associated improvements in lung compliance, anti-inflammatory effects, and regulation of oxidative stress reactions. However, robust evidence is required to confirm these conclusions.

A narrative review on pain control interventions for non-surgical pleural procedures

Pleural diseases are common and frequently result in disabling symptoms, impaired health-related quality of life and hospitalisation. Both diagnosis and management often require pleural procedures and despite a variety of pain control strategies available for clinicians to employ, many procedures are still complicated by pain and discomfort. This can interfere with procedure success and can limit patient satisfaction. This review examines the evidence for pain control strategies for people undergoing non-surgical pleural procedures. A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify published studies examining different pain control strategies including pharmacological (sedatives, paravertebral blocks, erector spinae blocks, intrapleural anaesthesia, epidural anaesthesia, local anaesthetic, methoxyflurane, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids) and non-pharmacological measures (transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation [TENS], cold application and changes to the intervention or technique). Current literature is limited by heterogeneous study design, small participant numbers and use of different endpoints. Strategies that were more effective than placebo or standard care at improving pain included intrapleural local anaesthesia, paravertebral blocks, NSAIDs, small-bore intercostal catheters (ICC), cold application and TENS. Inhaled methoxyflurane, thoracic epidural anaesthesia and erector spinae blocks may also be useful approaches but require further evaluation to determine their roles in routine non-surgical pleural procedures. Future research should utilise reliable and repeatable study designs and reach consensus in endpoints to allow comparability between findings and thus provide the evidence-base to achieve standardisation of pain management approaches.

The Practice of Deep Sedation in Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Laboratories: Results of an Italian Survey Promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

The aim of this survey, which was open to all Italian cardiologists involved in arrhythmia, was to assess common practice regarding sedation and analgesia in interventional electrophysiology procedures in Italy. The survey consisted of 28 questions regarding the approach to sedation used for elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC), subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation, and transvenous lead extraction procedures. A total of 105 cardiologists from 92 Italian centres took part in the survey. The rate of centres where DCC, S-ICD implantation, AF ablation, VT ablation and lead extraction procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance was 60.9%, 23.6%, 51.2%, 37.3%, and 66.7%, respectively. When these procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance, the drugs (in addition to local anaesthetics) commonly administered were benzodiazepines (from 64.3% to 79.6%), opioids (from 74.4% to 88.1%), and general anaesthetics (from 7.1% to 30.4%). Twenty-three (21.9%) of the 105 cardiologists declared that they routinely administered propofol, without the supervision of an anaesthesiologist, in at least one of the above-mentioned procedures. In current Italian clinical practice, there is a lack of uniformity in the sedation/analgesia approach used in interventional electrophysiology procedures.