Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Upper Limb Orthopedic Surgery under Regional Anesthesia with Brachial Plexus Block

Neha Padhi, Samir Hota, Mahendra Ekka, Siddhanta Choudhury, Smrutirani Mund, Jajati Keshari Panigrahi, Jyoti Prakash Samal
{"title":"Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Upper Limb Orthopedic Surgery under Regional Anesthesia with Brachial Plexus Block","authors":"Neha Padhi, Samir Hota, Mahendra Ekka, Siddhanta Choudhury, Smrutirani Mund, Jajati Keshari Panigrahi, Jyoti Prakash Samal","doi":"10.4103/jssrp.jssrp_35_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The search for the ideal sedative during regional anesthesia continues. Propofol is widely as a sedative intraoperatively. It may cause troublesome hemodynamic changes. Dexmedetomidine is an α2 agonist with sedative, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties. In this study, we compared dexmedetomidine with propofol as sedatives during surgeries under brachial plexus block.\n \n \n \n In our study, 70 American Society of Anesthesiologists I Class and II patients about to undergo upper limb surgeries under brachial plexus block were blinded and randomly allocated to receive either propofol (Group P) or dexmedetomidine (Group D) infusion. Brachial plexus block was performed, and after confirmation of adequate sensory and motor block, an initial loading dose of the drug was administered over 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose till the end of the surgery. Titration of the rate of infusion was done so as to maintain Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) of 3–4 and Bispectral Index (BIS) of 60–80. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were monitored intraoperatively. Adverse effects such as hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and incidence of oversedation and undersedation were also noted. The collected data were evaluated using appropriate statistical tests in SPSS version 22®. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.\n \n \n \n The RSS remained at 4 in Group P from 20 min onward and for Group D, RSS remained at 3 after 30 min. Post-induction, there was a reduction in BIS in both the groups, but patients in Group P showed statistically significant lower values of BIS when compared with Group D. The fall in mean arterial pressure was more in Group P as compared to Group D. Nine (25.71%) incidences of hypotension were seen in Group P and none in Group D. The decrease in heart rate was more profound in Group D as compared with Group P and one incidence of bradycardia observed in Group D. The respiratory rate was relatively stable in Group D as compared to Group P. The oxygen saturation (SpO2) values in the majority of the patients in both groups were above 92%, but three patients in Group P had SpO2 <92%. In Group P, 6 (17.14%) incidences of oversedation and 8 (22.85%) incidences of undersedation were observed. In Group D, 7 (20%) incidences of undersedation with no incidence of oversedation were observed.\n \n \n \n Dexmedetomidine at recommended doses has a better sedative property with less effect on hemodynamics and respiration as compared to propofol.\n","PeriodicalId":355285,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Specialties and Rural Practice","volume":"4 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Specialties and Rural Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jssrp.jssrp_35_23","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

The search for the ideal sedative during regional anesthesia continues. Propofol is widely as a sedative intraoperatively. It may cause troublesome hemodynamic changes. Dexmedetomidine is an α2 agonist with sedative, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties. In this study, we compared dexmedetomidine with propofol as sedatives during surgeries under brachial plexus block. In our study, 70 American Society of Anesthesiologists I Class and II patients about to undergo upper limb surgeries under brachial plexus block were blinded and randomly allocated to receive either propofol (Group P) or dexmedetomidine (Group D) infusion. Brachial plexus block was performed, and after confirmation of adequate sensory and motor block, an initial loading dose of the drug was administered over 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose till the end of the surgery. Titration of the rate of infusion was done so as to maintain Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) of 3–4 and Bispectral Index (BIS) of 60–80. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were monitored intraoperatively. Adverse effects such as hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and incidence of oversedation and undersedation were also noted. The collected data were evaluated using appropriate statistical tests in SPSS version 22®. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The RSS remained at 4 in Group P from 20 min onward and for Group D, RSS remained at 3 after 30 min. Post-induction, there was a reduction in BIS in both the groups, but patients in Group P showed statistically significant lower values of BIS when compared with Group D. The fall in mean arterial pressure was more in Group P as compared to Group D. Nine (25.71%) incidences of hypotension were seen in Group P and none in Group D. The decrease in heart rate was more profound in Group D as compared with Group P and one incidence of bradycardia observed in Group D. The respiratory rate was relatively stable in Group D as compared to Group P. The oxygen saturation (SpO2) values in the majority of the patients in both groups were above 92%, but three patients in Group P had SpO2 <92%. In Group P, 6 (17.14%) incidences of oversedation and 8 (22.85%) incidences of undersedation were observed. In Group D, 7 (20%) incidences of undersedation with no incidence of oversedation were observed. Dexmedetomidine at recommended doses has a better sedative property with less effect on hemodynamics and respiration as compared to propofol.
比较右美托咪定和丙泊酚对在臂丛神经阻滞区域麻醉下进行上肢矫形手术的患者的镇静作用
在区域麻醉中寻找理想镇静剂的工作仍在继续。异丙酚被广泛用作术中镇静剂。它可能会引起麻烦的血流动力学变化。右美托咪定是α2激动剂,具有镇静、抗焦虑和镇痛作用。在这项研究中,我们比较了右美托咪定和异丙酚在臂丛神经阻滞手术中作为镇静剂的作用。 在我们的研究中,70 名即将在臂丛神经阻滞下接受上肢手术的美国麻醉医师协会 I 级和 II 级患者被随机分配到接受异丙酚(P 组)或右美托咪定(D 组)输注的盲区。进行臂丛神经阻滞,在确认充分的感觉和运动阻滞后,在 10 分钟内给予初始负荷剂量的药物,随后给予维持剂量直至手术结束。对输注速度进行调节,以保持拉姆塞镇静评分(RSS)在 3-4 分,双频谱指数(BIS)在 60-80 分。术中监测血液动力学和呼吸参数。还注意到低血压、心动过缓、呼吸抑制等不良反应以及过度镇静和镇静不足的发生率。收集的数据通过 SPSS 22® 版进行了适当的统计检验。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。 从 20 分钟起,P 组的 RSS 保持在 4,而 D 组的 RSS 在 30 分钟后保持在 3。诱导后,两组患者的 BIS 值均有所下降,但 P 组患者的 BIS 值较 D 组低,差异有统计学意义。与 P 组相比,D 组的心率下降幅度更大,并观察到一次心动过缓。与 P 组相比,D 组的呼吸频率相对稳定。在 P 组,观察到 6 例(17.14%)过度镇静,8 例(22.85%)镇静不足。在 D 组中,观察到 7 例(20%)过度镇静,无过度镇静。 与异丙酚相比,推荐剂量的右美托咪定镇静效果更好,对血液动力学和呼吸的影响更小。
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