Phenazepam® and Dexmedetomidine for Planned Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

A. Tsarkov, A. Levit
{"title":"Phenazepam® and Dexmedetomidine for Planned Percutaneous Coronary Interventions","authors":"A. Tsarkov, A. Levit","doi":"10.23888/hmj2022104413-424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Intraprocedural analgosedation in planned percutaneous coronary interventions is a priority method of anesthesia, since it provides comfort for patient in comparison with when it is absent; it leads to a fast recovery of patients and reduction of the incidence of complications in comparison with the general anesthesia. The question of the optimal sedation method is still open. AIM: To carry out a comparative analysis of sedation with Phenazepam® and Dexmedetomidine in planned percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with stable coronary heart disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted from September 2021 to January 2022. The study included patients with stable ischemic heart disease (serum troponin T level less than 0.32 ng/ml; absence of anginous pain at the beginning of X-ray endovascular intervention), who had planned percutaneous coronary intervention. The Phenazepam® sedation group included 40 patients, including 30.0% (n = 12) women and 70.0% (n = 28) men. 40 patients were included in the Dexmedetomidine sedation group: 30.0% (n = 12) women, 70.0% (n = 28) men. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) reduction of blood pressure and heart rate in patients in the group of sedation with Dexmedetomidine at the stage of stenting of the coronary artery, compared with analogous parameters in the group of sedation with Phenazepam®. Patients in the group of sedation with Dexmedetomidine developed chest pain at the stage of coronary artery stenting reliably 3.13 times less often (p = 0.024) than patients of the group of sedation with Phenazepam® (OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.13–0.80). With use of Dexmedetomidine, relief of anginal pain with narcotic analgesics was required 20 times less often (p < 0.001) than with Phenazepam® (OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01–0.38). One can confidently speak about the superiority and safety of analgosedation with Dexmedetomidine in planned percutaneous coronary interventions over sedation with Phenazepam®. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine provides deeper sedation and sufficient pain relief in patients in planned percutaneous coronary interventions than Phenazepam®. At the same time, Dexmedetomidine has a more pronounced hypotensive and a negative chronotropic effect.","PeriodicalId":417948,"journal":{"name":"NAUKA MOLODYKH (Eruditio Juvenium)","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NAUKA MOLODYKH (Eruditio Juvenium)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23888/hmj2022104413-424","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Intraprocedural analgosedation in planned percutaneous coronary interventions is a priority method of anesthesia, since it provides comfort for patient in comparison with when it is absent; it leads to a fast recovery of patients and reduction of the incidence of complications in comparison with the general anesthesia. The question of the optimal sedation method is still open. AIM: To carry out a comparative analysis of sedation with Phenazepam® and Dexmedetomidine in planned percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with stable coronary heart disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted from September 2021 to January 2022. The study included patients with stable ischemic heart disease (serum troponin T level less than 0.32 ng/ml; absence of anginous pain at the beginning of X-ray endovascular intervention), who had planned percutaneous coronary intervention. The Phenazepam® sedation group included 40 patients, including 30.0% (n = 12) women and 70.0% (n = 28) men. 40 patients were included in the Dexmedetomidine sedation group: 30.0% (n = 12) women, 70.0% (n = 28) men. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) reduction of blood pressure and heart rate in patients in the group of sedation with Dexmedetomidine at the stage of stenting of the coronary artery, compared with analogous parameters in the group of sedation with Phenazepam®. Patients in the group of sedation with Dexmedetomidine developed chest pain at the stage of coronary artery stenting reliably 3.13 times less often (p = 0.024) than patients of the group of sedation with Phenazepam® (OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.13–0.80). With use of Dexmedetomidine, relief of anginal pain with narcotic analgesics was required 20 times less often (p < 0.001) than with Phenazepam® (OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01–0.38). One can confidently speak about the superiority and safety of analgosedation with Dexmedetomidine in planned percutaneous coronary interventions over sedation with Phenazepam®. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine provides deeper sedation and sufficient pain relief in patients in planned percutaneous coronary interventions than Phenazepam®. At the same time, Dexmedetomidine has a more pronounced hypotensive and a negative chronotropic effect.
非那西泮和右美托咪定用于经皮冠状动脉介入治疗
导读:在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中,术中麻醉是一种优先的麻醉方法,因为与没有麻醉时相比,术中麻醉能使患者感到舒适;与全麻相比,它能使患者快速恢复,减少并发症的发生。最佳镇静方法的问题仍然是开放的。目的:比较分析非那西泮与右美托咪定在稳定期冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的镇静作用。材料和方法:一项前瞻性随机研究于2021年9月至2022年1月进行。该研究纳入了稳定型缺血性心脏病患者(血清肌钙蛋白T水平小于0.32 ng/ml;在x线血管内介入治疗开始时没有心绞痛),计划经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。Phenazepam®镇静组共40例患者,其中女性30.0% (n = 12),男性70.0% (n = 28)。右美托咪定镇静组40例患者:女性30.0% (n = 12),男性70.0% (n = 28)。结果:与Phenazepam®镇静组相比,右美托咪定镇静组患者在冠状动脉支架置入术阶段的血压和心率降低有统计学意义(p < 0.001)。右美托咪定镇静组患者在冠状动脉支架置入术期发生胸痛的发生率比非那西泮镇静组低3.13倍(p = 0.024) (OR: 0.32;95% ci: 0.13-0.80)。使用右美托咪定时,使用麻醉性镇痛药缓解心绞痛的次数比使用苯那西泮少20次(p < 0.001) (OR: 0.05;95% ci: 0.01-0.38)。我们可以自信地说,在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中,右美托咪定镇痛镇静优于非那西泮镇静。结论:与Phenazepam®相比,右美托咪定在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中提供了更深的镇静作用和足够的疼痛缓解。同时,右美托咪定具有更明显的降压作用和负性变时作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信