Comparison Between Analgesic Effect of Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Spinal Anaesthesia for Elective Caesarean Sections

Baher Said Abdelhady
{"title":"Comparison Between Analgesic Effect of Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Spinal Anaesthesia for Elective Caesarean Sections","authors":"Baher Said Abdelhady","doi":"10.54289/jaad2200102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Caesarean sections are usually performed under spinal anaesthesia. It provides effective postoperative pain control over a limited period of time. As a result, various intrathecal additives have been used. Recently, dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine have been used as adjuncts for different types of regional anaesthesia without increasing the risk of neurological complications. Objectives: We compared the analgesic effects of intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in elective caesarean sections. Design: A single-blind randomized trial. Setting: Benha University Hospital, between February 2021 and July 2021. Patients: We randomly enrolled 633 pregnant women in this study. Only 580 patients met all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were age of 18 to 40 years old, an ASA class ІІ - III, gestational age > 37 weeks, BMI less than 30 kg/m2 who were electively scheduled for. The exclusion criteria included patient refusal, age < 18 or > 40 years, known allergy to medications used in the study, BMI more than 30 kg/m2, coagulopathies or anticoagulant use, cerebrovascular insufficiency, neuromuscular diseases and diabetic neuropathy. Intervention: The dexmedetomidine group (A) received 10 μg of dexmedetomidine with 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%intrathecally(n=290). The dexamethasone group (B) received 4 mg of dexamethasone with 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%intrathecally(n=290). Main outcome: The time to initial analgesic rescue (pethidine 0.5 mg/kg) and the duration of motor blockage were assessed. Results: The time to the first rescue analgesia and motor blockade were significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group. (418 min vs 190 min), P<0.001, (324 min vs 144 min), P <0.001 respectively. Conclusion: According to this study, both drugs could be safely added to bupivacaine intrathecally. Dexmedetomidine provides significantly longer postoperative analgesia and motor blockade times than dexamethasone. Further dose-response studies are needed to determine the optimum dosage of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine and the safety of the intrathecal route.","PeriodicalId":326444,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia and Anesthetic Drugs","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia and Anesthetic Drugs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54289/jaad2200102","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

Background Caesarean sections are usually performed under spinal anaesthesia. It provides effective postoperative pain control over a limited period of time. As a result, various intrathecal additives have been used. Recently, dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine have been used as adjuncts for different types of regional anaesthesia without increasing the risk of neurological complications. Objectives: We compared the analgesic effects of intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in elective caesarean sections. Design: A single-blind randomized trial. Setting: Benha University Hospital, between February 2021 and July 2021. Patients: We randomly enrolled 633 pregnant women in this study. Only 580 patients met all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were age of 18 to 40 years old, an ASA class ІІ - III, gestational age > 37 weeks, BMI less than 30 kg/m2 who were electively scheduled for. The exclusion criteria included patient refusal, age < 18 or > 40 years, known allergy to medications used in the study, BMI more than 30 kg/m2, coagulopathies or anticoagulant use, cerebrovascular insufficiency, neuromuscular diseases and diabetic neuropathy. Intervention: The dexmedetomidine group (A) received 10 μg of dexmedetomidine with 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%intrathecally(n=290). The dexamethasone group (B) received 4 mg of dexamethasone with 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%intrathecally(n=290). Main outcome: The time to initial analgesic rescue (pethidine 0.5 mg/kg) and the duration of motor blockage were assessed. Results: The time to the first rescue analgesia and motor blockade were significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group. (418 min vs 190 min), P<0.001, (324 min vs 144 min), P <0.001 respectively. Conclusion: According to this study, both drugs could be safely added to bupivacaine intrathecally. Dexmedetomidine provides significantly longer postoperative analgesia and motor blockade times than dexamethasone. Further dose-response studies are needed to determine the optimum dosage of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine and the safety of the intrathecal route.
地塞米松与右美托咪定辅助布比卡因腰麻择期剖宫产术镇痛效果比较
背景:剖宫产通常在脊髓麻醉下进行。它在有限的时间内提供了有效的术后疼痛控制。因此,使用了各种鞘内添加剂。最近,地塞米松和右美托咪定被用作不同类型的局部麻醉的辅助药物,而不会增加神经系统并发症的风险。目的:比较地塞米松和右美托咪定在择期剖宫产术中的镇痛效果。设计:单盲随机试验。地点:本哈大学医院,2021年2月至2021年7月。患者:我们随机招募了633名孕妇。只有580例患者符合所有纳入和排除标准。入选标准为年龄18 ~ 40岁,ASA分级ІІ - III级,胎龄> 37周,BMI小于30 kg/m2。排除标准包括患者拒绝、年龄< 18岁或> 40岁、已知对研究中使用的药物过敏、BMI大于30 kg/m2、凝血功能障碍或抗凝剂使用、脑血管功能不全、神经肌肉疾病和糖尿病性神经病变。干预:右美托咪定组(A组)给予右美托咪定10 μg,同时给予12.5 mg 0.5%布比卡因鞘内注射(n=290)。地塞米松组(B组)给予地塞米松4 mg,布比卡因12.5 mg,浓度为0.5%。主要观察指标:评估初始镇痛救援时间(哌啶0.5 mg/kg)和运动阻滞持续时间。结果:右美托咪定组到第一次抢救镇痛和运动阻滞的时间明显高于右美托咪定组。(418 min vs 190 min), P<0.001, (324 min vs 144 min), P<0.001。结论:两种药物均可安全加入布比卡因鞘内治疗。右美托咪定术后镇痛和运动阻滞时间明显长于地塞米松。需要进一步的剂量反应研究来确定地塞米松和右美托咪定的最佳剂量以及鞘内途径的安全性。
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