Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study.

Q2 Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2023-08-06 eCollection Date: 2023-08-01 DOI:10.5812/aapm-138274
Murali Manoj Manoharan, Manohar Paneer, Karthikeyan Elavarasan, Kameshwaran Kannappan Punniyakoti
{"title":"Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Murali Manoj Manoharan, Manohar Paneer, Karthikeyan Elavarasan, Kameshwaran Kannappan Punniyakoti","doi":"10.5812/aapm-138274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Postoperative pain management is vital to improve patient care. Successful postoperative pain relief is currently achieved only through NSAIDs and narcotics.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We compared dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives to hyperbaric levobupivicaine 0.5% for the sub-arachnoid block (spinal anesthesia) concerning the onset time, duration of the block, hemodynamic changes, level of sedation intraoperatively and postoperatively and time taken for the first postoperative analgesic request and frequency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, double-blind study enrolled 60 patients who underwent lower abdominal surgeries and were eligible for a sub-arachnoid block. They were allocated randomly to one of the two groups. Group D received intrathecal dexmedetomidine 5 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg. Group C received intrathecal clonidine 50 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients who received dexmedetomidine had a longer duration of the block (2-segment regression: 135 ± 15 min vs. 130 ± 20 min, S1 segment regression: 305 ± 50.4 min vs. 290 ± 47.2 min, Bromage 0: 285 ± 60 min vs. 280 ± 45 min), delayed first rescue analgesia request (700 ± 160 min vs. 506 ± 112 min), reduced frequency of rescue analgesics (1 vs. 2), and desired level of sedation (1.3 ± 0.46 vs. 0.4 ± 0.01) when compared to those receiving clonidine. There were insignificant differences between the groups in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, such as minimal bradycardia and minimal hypotension. Though dexmedetomidine had an early onset, there was no statistically significant difference compared to clonidine.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparing dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives in the sub-arachnoid block, the group who received dexmedetomidine had similar onset, prolonged duration of blockade, delayed first rescue analgesia demand, reduced frequency of analgesics, and desired sedation with similar minimal hemodynamic changes such as bradycardia and hypotension.</p>","PeriodicalId":7841,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e138274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664160/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-138274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Postoperative pain management is vital to improve patient care. Successful postoperative pain relief is currently achieved only through NSAIDs and narcotics.

Objectives: We compared dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives to hyperbaric levobupivicaine 0.5% for the sub-arachnoid block (spinal anesthesia) concerning the onset time, duration of the block, hemodynamic changes, level of sedation intraoperatively and postoperatively and time taken for the first postoperative analgesic request and frequency.

Methods: This prospective, double-blind study enrolled 60 patients who underwent lower abdominal surgeries and were eligible for a sub-arachnoid block. They were allocated randomly to one of the two groups. Group D received intrathecal dexmedetomidine 5 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg. Group C received intrathecal clonidine 50 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg.

Results: Patients who received dexmedetomidine had a longer duration of the block (2-segment regression: 135 ± 15 min vs. 130 ± 20 min, S1 segment regression: 305 ± 50.4 min vs. 290 ± 47.2 min, Bromage 0: 285 ± 60 min vs. 280 ± 45 min), delayed first rescue analgesia request (700 ± 160 min vs. 506 ± 112 min), reduced frequency of rescue analgesics (1 vs. 2), and desired level of sedation (1.3 ± 0.46 vs. 0.4 ± 0.01) when compared to those receiving clonidine. There were insignificant differences between the groups in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, such as minimal bradycardia and minimal hypotension. Though dexmedetomidine had an early onset, there was no statistically significant difference compared to clonidine.

Conclusions: Comparing dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives in the sub-arachnoid block, the group who received dexmedetomidine had similar onset, prolonged duration of blockade, delayed first rescue analgesia demand, reduced frequency of analgesics, and desired sedation with similar minimal hemodynamic changes such as bradycardia and hypotension.

右美托咪定与可乐定作为脊髓麻醉添加剂的比较研究
背景:术后疼痛管理对改善患者护理至关重要。目前成功的术后疼痛缓解只能通过非甾体抗炎药和麻醉药来实现。目的:我们比较右美托咪定和克拉定在0.5%左布比卡因高压压下蛛网膜下阻滞(脊髓麻醉)中的作用,包括起效时间、阻滞持续时间、血流动力学变化、术中和术后镇静水平、术后首次镇痛请求时间和频率。方法:这项前瞻性双盲研究纳入了60例接受下腹部手术并符合蛛网膜下阻滞条件的患者。他们被随机分配到两组中。D组鞘内注射右美托咪定5µg和0.5%高压左布比卡因15 mg。C组鞘内注射可乐定50µg和0.5%高压左布比卡因15 mg。结果:病人Dexmedetomidine更长时间的块(2-segment回归:135±15分钟与130±20分钟,S1片段回归:305±50.4分钟与290±47.2分钟,Bromage 0: 285±60分钟与280±45分钟),延迟第一救援镇痛请求(700±160分钟与506±112分钟),减少救援止痛药(1和2),频率和期望的镇静水平(1.3±0.46和0.4±0.01)相比,那些接受可乐定。两组术中血流动力学参数(如最小心动过缓、最小低血压)差异无统计学意义。虽然右美托咪定早发,但与可乐定相比无统计学差异。结论:将右美托咪定与克拉定作为蛛网膜下阻滞的添加剂进行比较,右美托咪定组发作相似,阻滞持续时间延长,首次救援镇痛需求延迟,镇痛频率减少,镇静需求减少,心动过缓、低血压等血流动力学变化最小。
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
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
×
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