A comparative study of dexmedetomidine propofol and midazolam with respect to changes in mean arterial pressure and SpO2 after sedation at tertiary health care centre

Surabhi Gupta
{"title":"A comparative study of dexmedetomidine propofol and midazolam with respect to changes in mean arterial pressure and SpO2 after sedation at tertiary health care centre","authors":"Surabhi Gupta","doi":"10.26611/101516319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Sedation is an important component of compassionate care in ICU patients to promote rest and sleep. The sedatives used most often include propofol and midazolam. These medications provide adequate sedation but also can cause oversedation. The α2 agonist dexmedetomidine have unique sedative properties that it produces only mild cognitive impairment, allowing easy communication between health-care provider and patient in the ICU. We therefore compared the sedative and analgesic properties, cardiovascular responses, ventilation and extubation characteristics, and patient perceptions of dexmedetomidine with those of the commonly used i.v. sedative agent propofol in the ICU. Material and Methods: Present study was a randomized. open label trial conducted in the ICU ppatients >18 years of age, who required immediate sedation as to permit the initiation and tolerance of mechanical ventilation. 30 patients each were randomly allocated to dexmedetomidine, propofol & midazolam group. Results: Male predominance was noted, in all groups (dexmedetomidine, propofol & midazolam), M:F ratio was 1.3 : 1. According to age distribution most common age group in dexmedetomidine, propofol & midazolam group was 31-45 years (40 %). At all times the difference in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, SpO2, mean arterial blood pressure among all the three groups calculated by ANOVA test was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The mean time (hours) from cessation of sedation to extubation for dexmedetomidine is 7.4 hours, for propofol is 5.6 hours and for midazolam is 16.9 hours. P-value of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam group is <0.001, which is statistically significant. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine provides hemodynamic stability and have no clinically important adverse effects on respiration in terms of mean SpO2. Tracheal extubation was earlier in patients receiving dexmedetomidine and propofol than from midazolam.","PeriodicalId":18595,"journal":{"name":"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26611/101516319","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: Sedation is an important component of compassionate care in ICU patients to promote rest and sleep. The sedatives used most often include propofol and midazolam. These medications provide adequate sedation but also can cause oversedation. The α2 agonist dexmedetomidine have unique sedative properties that it produces only mild cognitive impairment, allowing easy communication between health-care provider and patient in the ICU. We therefore compared the sedative and analgesic properties, cardiovascular responses, ventilation and extubation characteristics, and patient perceptions of dexmedetomidine with those of the commonly used i.v. sedative agent propofol in the ICU. Material and Methods: Present study was a randomized. open label trial conducted in the ICU ppatients >18 years of age, who required immediate sedation as to permit the initiation and tolerance of mechanical ventilation. 30 patients each were randomly allocated to dexmedetomidine, propofol & midazolam group. Results: Male predominance was noted, in all groups (dexmedetomidine, propofol & midazolam), M:F ratio was 1.3 : 1. According to age distribution most common age group in dexmedetomidine, propofol & midazolam group was 31-45 years (40 %). At all times the difference in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, SpO2, mean arterial blood pressure among all the three groups calculated by ANOVA test was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The mean time (hours) from cessation of sedation to extubation for dexmedetomidine is 7.4 hours, for propofol is 5.6 hours and for midazolam is 16.9 hours. P-value of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam group is <0.001, which is statistically significant. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine provides hemodynamic stability and have no clinically important adverse effects on respiration in terms of mean SpO2. Tracheal extubation was earlier in patients receiving dexmedetomidine and propofol than from midazolam.
右美托咪定、异丙酚和咪达唑仑在三级保健中心镇静后平均动脉压和SpO2变化的比较研究
背景:镇静是ICU患者体恤护理中促进休息和睡眠的重要组成部分。最常用的镇静剂包括异丙酚和咪达唑仑。这些药物提供足够的镇静,但也可能导致过度镇静。α2激动剂右美托咪定具有独特的镇静特性,仅产生轻度认知障碍,使ICU医护人员和患者之间易于沟通。因此,我们比较了右美托咪定与ICU常用静脉注射镇静剂异丙酚的镇静和镇痛特性、心血管反应、通气和拔管特征以及患者的感知。材料与方法:本研究为随机对照。在>18岁的ICU患者中进行的开放标签试验,这些患者需要立即镇静以允许机械通气的启动和耐受性。30例患者随机分为右美托咪定、异丙酚、咪达唑仑组。结果:右美托咪定组、异丙酚组、咪达唑仑组均以男性为主,M:F比值为1.3:1。根据年龄分布,右美托咪定、异丙酚和咪达唑仑组最常见的年龄组为31-45岁(40%)。各组患者收缩压、舒张压、SpO2、平均动脉压的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。右美托咪定从停止镇静到拔管的平均时间(小时)为7.4小时,异丙酚为5.6小时,咪达唑仑为16.9小时。右美托咪定、异丙酚、咪达唑仑组p值<0.001,差异有统计学意义。结论:右美托咪定具有血流动力学稳定性,对呼吸无明显不良影响。使用右美托咪定和异丙酚的患者比使用咪达唑仑的患者更早拔管。
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