Brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine vs propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in non-brain injured patients

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Hong-Xun Yuan, Li-Na Zhang, Gang Li, Li Qiao
{"title":"Brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine vs propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in non-brain injured patients","authors":"Hong-Xun Yuan, Li-Na Zhang, Gang Li, Li Qiao","doi":"10.5498/wjp.v14.i3.370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Dexmedetomidine and propofol are two sedatives used for long-term sedation. It remains unclear whether dexmedetomidine provides superior cerebral protection for patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation.\n AIM\n To compare the neuroprotective effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.\n METHODS\n Patients who underwent mechanical ventilation for > 72 h were randomly assigned to receive sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was used to evaluate sedation effects, with a target range of -3 to 0. The primary outcomes were serum levels of S100-β and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) every 24 h. The secondary outcomes were remifentanil dosage, the proportion of patients requiring rescue sedation, and the time and frequency of RASS scores within the target range.\n RESULTS\n A total of 52 and 63 patients were allocated to the dexmedetomidine group and propofol group, respectively. Baseline data were comparable between groups. No significant differences were identified between groups within the median duration of study drug infusion [52.0 (IQR: 36.0-73.5) h vs 53.0 (IQR: 37.0-72.0) h, P = 0.958], the median dose of remifentanil [4.5 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) μg/kg/h vs 4.6 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) μg/kg/h, P = 0.395], the median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation [85.6% (IQR: 65.8%-96.6%) vs 86.7% (IQR: 72.3%-95.3), P = 0.592], and the median frequency within the target RASS range without rescue sedation [72.2% (60.8%-91.7%) vs 73.3% (60.0%-100.0%), P = 0.880]. The proportion of patients in the dexmedetomidine group who required rescue sedation was higher than in the propofol group with statistical significance (69.2% vs 50.8%, P = 0.045). Serum S100-β and NSE levels in the propofol group were higher than in the dexmedetomidine group with statistical significance during the first six and five days of mechanical ventilation, respectively (all P < 0.05).\n CONCLUSION\n Dexmedetomidine demonstrated stronger protective effects on the brain compared to propofol for long-term mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v14.i3.370","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Dexmedetomidine and propofol are two sedatives used for long-term sedation. It remains unclear whether dexmedetomidine provides superior cerebral protection for patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation. AIM To compare the neuroprotective effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury. METHODS Patients who underwent mechanical ventilation for > 72 h were randomly assigned to receive sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was used to evaluate sedation effects, with a target range of -3 to 0. The primary outcomes were serum levels of S100-β and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) every 24 h. The secondary outcomes were remifentanil dosage, the proportion of patients requiring rescue sedation, and the time and frequency of RASS scores within the target range. RESULTS A total of 52 and 63 patients were allocated to the dexmedetomidine group and propofol group, respectively. Baseline data were comparable between groups. No significant differences were identified between groups within the median duration of study drug infusion [52.0 (IQR: 36.0-73.5) h vs 53.0 (IQR: 37.0-72.0) h, P = 0.958], the median dose of remifentanil [4.5 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) μg/kg/h vs 4.6 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) μg/kg/h, P = 0.395], the median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation [85.6% (IQR: 65.8%-96.6%) vs 86.7% (IQR: 72.3%-95.3), P = 0.592], and the median frequency within the target RASS range without rescue sedation [72.2% (60.8%-91.7%) vs 73.3% (60.0%-100.0%), P = 0.880]. The proportion of patients in the dexmedetomidine group who required rescue sedation was higher than in the propofol group with statistical significance (69.2% vs 50.8%, P = 0.045). Serum S100-β and NSE levels in the propofol group were higher than in the dexmedetomidine group with statistical significance during the first six and five days of mechanical ventilation, respectively (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION Dexmedetomidine demonstrated stronger protective effects on the brain compared to propofol for long-term mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.
右美托咪定与异丙酚在非脑损伤患者长期机械通气期间的镇静作用对大脑的保护作用
背景 右美托咪定和异丙酚是两种用于长期镇静的镇静剂。目前尚不清楚右美托咪定是否能为长期接受机械通气的患者提供更好的脑保护。目的 比较右美托咪定和丙泊酚在无脑损伤患者长期机械通气期间镇静对神经的保护作用。方法 随机分配接受机械通气超过 72 小时的患者接受右美托咪定或丙泊酚镇静。主要结果为每 24 小时血清中 S100-β 和神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)的水平,次要结果为瑞芬太尼用量、需要抢救镇静的患者比例以及 RASS 评分在目标范围内的时间和频率。结果 分别有 52 名和 63 名患者被分配到右美托咪定组和丙泊酚组。各组的基线数据具有可比性。研究药物输注持续时间中位数[52.0(IQR:36.0-73.5)小时 vs 53.0(IQR:37.0-72.0)小时,P = 0.958]、瑞芬太尼剂量中位数[4.5(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h vs 4.6(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h,P = 0.395]、时间中位数百分比[4.5(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h vs 4.6(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h,P = 0.395]均无明显差异。395]、在目标 RASS 范围内未使用抢救镇静剂的时间百分比中位数[85.6% (IQR: 65.8%-96.6%) vs 86.7% (IQR: 72.3%-95.3), P = 0.592]、在目标 RASS 范围内未使用抢救镇静剂的频率中位数[72.2% (60.8%-91.7%) vs 73.3% (60.0%-100.0%), P = 0.880]。右美托咪定组需要抢救镇静的患者比例高于异丙酚组,差异有统计学意义(69.2% vs 50.8%,P = 0.045)。在机械通气的前六天和五天,异丙酚组的血清 S100-β 和 NSE 水平分别高于右美托咪定组,差异有统计学意义(均 P < 0.05)。结论 在无脑损伤患者的长期机械通气中,右美托咪定对大脑的保护作用强于异丙酚。
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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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