Rozaini Hassan, Azlee Abdul Mutalib, Chen Yi Shang, Nirpal Singh Sachdev, Farkad Abdul Rahman, Esther Siew Lee Ling
{"title":"比较瑞芬太尼与右美托咪定输注对国家心脏研究所阴道实验室电生理学手术患者的镇静效果和血液动力学稳定性的随机单盲研究。","authors":"Rozaini Hassan, Azlee Abdul Mutalib, Chen Yi Shang, Nirpal Singh Sachdev, Farkad Abdul Rahman, Esther Siew Lee Ling","doi":"10.1007/s10840-024-01884-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While studies comparing the effectiveness of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine are prevalent in other nations, using remifentanil alone is uncommon in Malaysia. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of sedation with remifentanil or dexmedetomidine infusion in monitored anesthesia care for electrophysiology procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical study. One hundred twenty patients were randomized into two groups (remifentanil vs dexmedetomidine). Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes, including level of sedation, vital signs, and patient satisfaction were monitored and recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group R showed a higher mean observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score (3.9 ± 0.7 vs 3.6 ± 0.8; p = 0.008), mean arterial pressure (92.0 ± 12.0 vs 83.0 ± 13.0 mmHg; p < 0.001), heart rate (82.0 ± 20.0 vs 73.0 ± 18.0 beats/min; p = 0.006), systolic blood pressure (139.0 ± 16.0 vs 123.0 ± 17.0 mmHg; p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (75.0 ± 13.0 vs 69.0 ± 14.0 mmHg; p = 0.009) than Group D. Oxygen saturation (99.0 ± 1.0%; p = 0.220) and respiration rate (16.0 ± 3.0 breaths/min; p = 0.361) for both groups were the same. Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory depression were observed in both groups. Both groups gave positive responses ranging from fair to good for patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dexmedetomidine is a better choice of anesthesia as it was associated with a higher level of sedation, more stable hemodynamics, lower incidence of adverse events, and better patient satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":"1735-1743"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11607042/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized single-blinded study comparing sedation effectiveness and hemodynamic stability of remifentanil vs dexmedetomidine infusion for electrophysiology procedures in patients of National Heart Institute cathlab.\",\"authors\":\"Rozaini Hassan, Azlee Abdul Mutalib, Chen Yi Shang, Nirpal Singh Sachdev, Farkad Abdul Rahman, Esther Siew Lee Ling\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10840-024-01884-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While studies comparing the effectiveness of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine are prevalent in other nations, using remifentanil alone is uncommon in Malaysia. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of sedation with remifentanil or dexmedetomidine infusion in monitored anesthesia care for electrophysiology procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical study. One hundred twenty patients were randomized into two groups (remifentanil vs dexmedetomidine). Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes, including level of sedation, vital signs, and patient satisfaction were monitored and recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group R showed a higher mean observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score (3.9 ± 0.7 vs 3.6 ± 0.8; p = 0.008), mean arterial pressure (92.0 ± 12.0 vs 83.0 ± 13.0 mmHg; p < 0.001), heart rate (82.0 ± 20.0 vs 73.0 ± 18.0 beats/min; p = 0.006), systolic blood pressure (139.0 ± 16.0 vs 123.0 ± 17.0 mmHg; p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (75.0 ± 13.0 vs 69.0 ± 14.0 mmHg; p = 0.009) than Group D. Oxygen saturation (99.0 ± 1.0%; p = 0.220) and respiration rate (16.0 ± 3.0 breaths/min; p = 0.361) for both groups were the same. Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory depression were observed in both groups. Both groups gave positive responses ranging from fair to good for patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dexmedetomidine is a better choice of anesthesia as it was associated with a higher level of sedation, more stable hemodynamics, lower incidence of adverse events, and better patient satisfaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1735-1743\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11607042/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01884-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01884-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:虽然比较瑞芬太尼和右美托咪定有效性的研究在其他国家很普遍,但在马来西亚单独使用瑞芬太尼并不常见。本研究旨在评估在电生理学手术的监测麻醉护理中使用瑞芬太尼或右美托咪定输注镇静的有效性:本研究是一项单中心、单盲、前瞻性随机临床研究。120名患者被随机分为两组(瑞芬太尼组和右美托咪定组)。研究人员对两组患者的人口统计学特征和临床结果(包括镇静程度、生命体征和患者满意度)进行了监测和记录:结果:R 组的平均警觉性/镇静度观察者评估得分(3.9 ± 0.7 vs 3.6 ± 0.8;P = 0.008)、平均动脉压(92.0 ± 12.0 vs 83.0 ± 13.0 mmHg;P 结论:右美托咪定是一种有效的镇静剂:右美托咪定是一种更好的麻醉选择,因为它具有更高的镇静水平、更稳定的血流动力学、更低的不良反应发生率和更好的患者满意度。
Randomized single-blinded study comparing sedation effectiveness and hemodynamic stability of remifentanil vs dexmedetomidine infusion for electrophysiology procedures in patients of National Heart Institute cathlab.
Background: While studies comparing the effectiveness of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine are prevalent in other nations, using remifentanil alone is uncommon in Malaysia. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of sedation with remifentanil or dexmedetomidine infusion in monitored anesthesia care for electrophysiology procedures.
Methods: This study is a single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical study. One hundred twenty patients were randomized into two groups (remifentanil vs dexmedetomidine). Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes, including level of sedation, vital signs, and patient satisfaction were monitored and recorded.
Results: Group R showed a higher mean observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score (3.9 ± 0.7 vs 3.6 ± 0.8; p = 0.008), mean arterial pressure (92.0 ± 12.0 vs 83.0 ± 13.0 mmHg; p < 0.001), heart rate (82.0 ± 20.0 vs 73.0 ± 18.0 beats/min; p = 0.006), systolic blood pressure (139.0 ± 16.0 vs 123.0 ± 17.0 mmHg; p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (75.0 ± 13.0 vs 69.0 ± 14.0 mmHg; p = 0.009) than Group D. Oxygen saturation (99.0 ± 1.0%; p = 0.220) and respiration rate (16.0 ± 3.0 breaths/min; p = 0.361) for both groups were the same. Adverse events, including hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory depression were observed in both groups. Both groups gave positive responses ranging from fair to good for patient satisfaction.
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is a better choice of anesthesia as it was associated with a higher level of sedation, more stable hemodynamics, lower incidence of adverse events, and better patient satisfaction.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology is an international publication devoted to fostering research in and development of interventional techniques and therapies for the management of cardiac arrhythmias. It is designed primarily to present original research studies and scholarly scientific reviews of basic and applied science and clinical research in this field. The Journal will adopt a multidisciplinary approach to link physical, experimental, and clinical sciences as applied to the development of and practice in interventional electrophysiology. The Journal will examine techniques ranging from molecular, chemical and pharmacologic therapies to device and ablation technology. Accordingly, original research in clinical, epidemiologic and basic science arenas will be considered for publication. Applied engineering or physical science studies pertaining to interventional electrophysiology will be encouraged. The Journal is committed to providing comprehensive and detailed treatment of major interventional therapies and innovative techniques in a structured and clinically relevant manner. It is directed at clinical practitioners and investigators in the rapidly growing field of interventional electrophysiology. The editorial staff and board reflect this bias and include noted international experts in this area with a wealth of expertise in basic and clinical investigation. Peer review of all submissions, conflict of interest guidelines and periodic editorial board review of all Journal policies have been established.