Is dexmedetomidine better than propofol and fentanyl combination in minor day care procedures? A prospective randomised double-blind study

Successful management of delirium with dexmedetomidine in a patient with haloperidol-induced neuroleptic malignant syndrome: A case report

BACKGROUND

We report a case of lorazepam-induced agitated delirium treated with haloperidol, which in turn triggered the onset of neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS). The latter condition, a medical emergency, was effectively treated with medical treatment and dexmedetomidine, a versatile and highly selective short-acting alpha-2 adrenergic agonist with sedative-hypnotic and anxiolytic effects.

CASE SUMMARY

A 65-year-old man with a history of bipolar disorder presented to the emergency department with severe abdominal discomfort after binge eating. During his hospital stay, he received intravenous lorazepam for insomnia. On the next day, he became delirious and was thus treated with seven doses (5 mg each) of haloperidol over a 48 h period. Signs of NMS (hyperthermia, rigidity, myoclonus of upper limbs, impaired consciousness, tachypnea, and dark urine) became apparent and haloperidol was immediately suspended and brisk diuresis was initiated. On intensive care unit admission, he was confused, disoriented, and markedly agitated. Dexmedetomidine infusion was started with the goal of achieving a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score of -1 or 0. NMS was resolved gradually and the patient stabilized, permitting discontinuation of dexmedetomidine after 3 d.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine may be clinically helpful for the management of NMS, most likely because of its sympatholytic activity.

Discharge readiness after minor gynaecological surgeries comparing dexmedetomidine and ketamine premedication in bispectral index (BIS) guided propofol-based anaesthesia

Background and Aims:

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine are commonly used pre-medicants to propofol. Previous literature shows a delay in recovery with their use without any clarity on discharge. This study was planned to find out whether adding these premedicants to Bispectral index (BIS) guided propofol anaesthesia led to delayed discharge in minor gynaecological surgeries.

Methods:

Totally, 120 adult females belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II undergoing minor gynaecological surgeries under general anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine (Group D), 0.5 mg/kg ketamine (Group K) and normal saline (Group P) as premedication. Propofol 1% was used for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia keeping BIS between 55 and 70. After the procedure, patients were assessed primarily for discharge readiness using Modified Post Anaesthesia Discharge Scoring System (MPADSS).The secondary outcomes were Modified Aldrete Score (MAS), total dose of propofol used and haemodynamics.

Results:

The percentage of patients ready for discharge were 22.5%, 30% and 15%at 1 hour in group D, K and P, respectively (p = 0.275). Median MAS was 5, 4 and 6 respectively for group D, K and P immediately post-surgery (p = 0.000). The mean dose of propofol used was 69.75 ± 12.56 mg in group D and 135.25 ± 9.2 mg in group P (p = 0.001). There were significant haemodynamic variations in group D (16.4% fall in heart rate at 5 minutes and 24.18% fall in mean arterial pressure at 15 minutes).

Conclusion:

Premedication with dexmedetomidine and ketamine in propofol anaesthesia does not delay discharge. However, stable haemodynamics and good analgesia with ketamine make it a better option.

[Propofol-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Day-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

METHODS

We enrolled 120 patients (2-7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg^-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg^-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg^-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes respectively, p <0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and six patients experienced SpO₂ <92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p=0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

Propofol-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial

Background and objectives

Day-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

Methods

We enrolled 120 patients (2−7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg^-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg^-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg^-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

Results

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and 6 patients experienced SpO₂ < 92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p =  0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

Conclusions

The P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.

Registration number

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

Comparative Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam as Premedication to Propofol Anesthesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Background:

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is used to diagnose and treat pancreaticobiliary diseases. It is a potentially uncomfortable procedure that needs to be performed under conscious sedation. Safe and effective sedation protocol is the need of an hour.

Aims:

This study aims to evaluate the requirement of propofol using midazolam and dexmedetomidine as premedication for ERCP. The degree of comfort experienced by endoscopist and the patients was also assessed.

Materials and Methods:

A total of sixty patients were enrolled in a randomized, assessor-blinded study in the age group of 40–80 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class II–III undergoing elective ERCP procedures. They were divided into two groups of 30 each. Group D (n = 30): Dexmedetomidine (100 μg/mL + 18 mL saline) loading dose at 1 μg/kg intravenous (IV) over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion, and Group M (n = 30): Midazolam at 0.05 mg/kg IV bolus over 10 min followed by normal saline infusion under hemodynamic monitoring. Satisfaction scores, total propofol requirement, and complications such as gagging, restlessness, agitation, postoperative nausea and vomiting were noted and analyzed statistically.

Statistical Analysis:

Statistical analysis was performed using SSPS 17.0 software (SPSS Inc., 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, USA). The Chi-square test was applied for nonparametric data and parametric numerical data, unpaired t-test for intergroup comparison, and repeated measures ANOVA for intragroup comparison. Results were expressed as a mean ± standard deviation. Value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and <0.001 as highly significant.

Results:

Surgeons and patients were more satisfied and comfortable along with less requirement of propofol in the dexmedetomidine group. The incidence of complications was also less in the dexmedetomidine group as compared to that of midazolam group.

Conclusion:

Both dexmedetomidine and midazolam can be safely administered as an anesthetic adjuvant to propofol for short procedures like ERCP's. Dexmedetomidine provided intense and better sedation quality along with lesser requirement of propofol doses. Moreover, it provided stable hemodynamic conditions and good recovery characteristics as compared to midazolam group.

The Sedative and Propofol-Sparing Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam as Premedicants in Minor Gynecological Day Care Surgeries: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Ambulatory surgery is continually evolving specialty in the majority of surgical procedures. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are newer adjuvants for sedation and reducing the dose of anesthetic agents. The aim of this study was to compare the sedative and propofol-sparing effect of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in minor gynecological day care surgeries. Observer's Assessment of Activity and Sedation, dose of additional propofol, Aldrete and street fitness score were studied as primary outcomes. Hemodynamic parameters and side effects were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized placebo-controlled study was conducted on 150 American Society of Anesthesiologists ASA physical status Classes I and II gynecological patients between 18 and 50 years and were allocated into three groups of fifty each. Group A received intravenous (i.v.) dexmedetomidine 0.1 μg/kg, Group B received i.v. midazolam 0.04 mg/kg, and Group C received normal saline 10 min before induction.

RESULTS

Sedation score was statistically highly significant between Group A and B (P < 0.001). Between Group A and C, it was statistically significant (P < 0.05); however, score was nonsignificant between Groups B and C (P > 0.05). During recovery at 120 min after surgery, score 5 was achieved equally by all three groups which was found to be statistically insignificant (P > 0.05). Mean dose of additional propofol used was less in Group A (14 ± 9.25) than B (25 ± 5.40) and C (53 ± 10.96). On intergroup comparison between all three groups, it was found to be statistically highly significant (P < 0.001). Comparison of bispectral index (BIS) values between Groups A and C and Groups B and C were highly significant (P < 0.001). However, it was statistically significant between Groups A and B (P < 0.05). Aldrete scoring and street fitness scores were highly significant between Groups A and B, B and C, and also between Groups A and C (P < 0.001). No significant hemodynamic derangements and side effects were noted in any of three groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine had good sedation and better recovery characteristics than midazolam. BIS monitoring was helpful in maintaining the depth of anesthesia.

Role of dexmedetomidine as an anaesthetic adjuvant in breast cancer surgery as a day-care procedure: A randomised controlled study

Background and Aims:

Breast cancer surgery can be carried out as day-care procedure to increase patient turnover, decrease disease progression and financial burden. The present study was carried out to assess the role of dexmedetomidine in breast cancer surgery as a day-care procedure.

Methods:

This prospective randomised, double-blind study was carried out on 100 patients screened for day-care breast cancer surgery. They were divided into two groups of 50 each; who received either normal saline (Group NS) or 0.6 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine (Group D) infusion from 10 min before induction until skin closure. All patients were given general anaesthesia. The incidence of discharge, post-operative pain (POP), average rescue analgesia (fentanyl) required and side effects were noted. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test and Chi-square test.

Results:

Incidence of discharge in group NS was 60% compared to 88% in Group D (P = 0.001). Average rescue analgesia requirement by group NS was 136.07 ± 43.06 μg, whereas it was 77.5 ± 29.86 μg in Group D (P = 0.01). The incidence of POP in 6 h and within 2 h of expected discharge time in Group NS was 56% and 28%, respectively, and in Group D, it was 8% in both the periods (P < 0.001 and 0.01). Side effects such as post-operative nausea, vomiting and bleeding were encountered in eight and two patients, respectively, in Group NS and two and one patients, respectively, in Group D.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine as an anaesthetic adjuvant makes breast cancer surgery feasible on day-care basis.

Attenuation of Haemodynamic Parameters in Response to Pneumoperitoneum during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Infusions of Propofol and Dexmedetomidine

INTRODUCTION

Effective control of sympathetic response to pneumoperitoneum is vital to avoid morbidity in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. This control must be achieved without any side effects of the drugs being used as well as ensuring a raid recovery from anaesthesia in order to maximise operation theatre utility.

AIM

To study the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine in attenuating the haemodynamic response to pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (using only the maintenance dose) with that of propofol and compare time to extubation, haemodynamics on extubation, sedation score after extubation and any incidence of side effects between the two study drug.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) I and II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy between age of 20-60 years were randomly divided into two groups of 30 patients each: Group D to receive dexmedetomidine in dose of 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/hr titrated as per clinical response and Group P to receive propofol in dose of 25-75 μg/kg/min (1.5-4.5 mg/kg/hr) titrated as per clinical response after standard anaesthetic induction. Data recording was done for changes in haemodynamic parameters, time to extubation and post extubation sedation score. Statistical analysis was done using student's-test and Chi-square test with p-value of< 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Attenuation of haemodynamic parameters by dexmedetomidine during the intraoperative period even without the loading dose was comparable to that by propofol (p-value >0.05). Time to extubation was similar in both the groups (p-value >0.05). Haemodynamics on extubation was better controlled in dexmedetomidine group (p-value <0.05) while the sedation score was better in propofol group (p-value <0.05). Mean dose of dexmedetomidine and propofol used were 0.504±0.09 μg/kg/hr and 3.19±0.7 mg/kg/hr respectively.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine in a dose of 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/hr provides a stable haemodynamics without any side effects in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.