Kantharaju Shankar, S. Rangalakshmi, P. Kailash, D. Priyanka
{"title":"全麻下腹腔镜手术中右美托咪定雾化和静脉注射的血液动力学和阿片类药物储备效果的比较。","authors":"Kantharaju Shankar, S. Rangalakshmi, P. Kailash, D. Priyanka","doi":"10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nDexmedetomidine has been used by multiple routes in laparoscopic surgeries to attenuate the hemodynamic response. The present study was done to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine nebulization with intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA prospective, double blind study was conducted, and 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients of either gender between 18-65 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized into three groups. (1) Group N (n = 30) received dexmedetomidine nebulization 1 mcg/kg in 3 mL of 0.9% saline 15 minutes before induction and 10 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline over 10 minutes at the time of induction of anesthesia. (2) Group I (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in 10 mL of 0.9% saline. (3) Group F (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous fentanyl 2 mcg/kg in 10mL of 0.9% saline. Heart rate, blood pressure, propofol requirement, and opioid consumption were monitored throughout surgery and for 1 hour in post-operative period. Statistical analysis was done by using analysis of variance test, chi-square test. P value < 0.05 was considered signifi cant.\n\n\nRESULTS\nSuppression of hemodynamic response following intubation and pneumoperitoneum by dexmedetomidine nebulization was compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl. Opioid requirement was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group than fentanyl group (P < 0.05). Propofol requirement was lower with intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine than intravenous fentanyl.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nIn laparoscopic surgeries, nebulized dexmedetomidine suppresses hemodynamic response when compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine along with dose sparing effect of opioid and propofol.","PeriodicalId":8482,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","volume":"60 1 1","pages":"33-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Hemodynamics and Opioid Sparing Effect of Dexmedetomidine Nebulization and Intravenous Dexmedetomidine in Laparoscopic Surgeries Under General Anesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Kantharaju Shankar, S. Rangalakshmi, P. Kailash, D. Priyanka\",\"doi\":\"10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nDexmedetomidine has been used by multiple routes in laparoscopic surgeries to attenuate the hemodynamic response. The present study was done to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine nebulization with intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nA prospective, double blind study was conducted, and 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients of either gender between 18-65 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized into three groups. (1) Group N (n = 30) received dexmedetomidine nebulization 1 mcg/kg in 3 mL of 0.9% saline 15 minutes before induction and 10 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline over 10 minutes at the time of induction of anesthesia. (2) Group I (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in 10 mL of 0.9% saline. (3) Group F (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous fentanyl 2 mcg/kg in 10mL of 0.9% saline. Heart rate, blood pressure, propofol requirement, and opioid consumption were monitored throughout surgery and for 1 hour in post-operative period. Statistical analysis was done by using analysis of variance test, chi-square test. P value < 0.05 was considered signifi cant.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nSuppression of hemodynamic response following intubation and pneumoperitoneum by dexmedetomidine nebulization was compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl. Opioid requirement was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group than fentanyl group (P < 0.05). Propofol requirement was lower with intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine than intravenous fentanyl.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nIn laparoscopic surgeries, nebulized dexmedetomidine suppresses hemodynamic response when compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine along with dose sparing effect of opioid and propofol.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"60 1 1\",\"pages\":\"33-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Hemodynamics and Opioid Sparing Effect of Dexmedetomidine Nebulization and Intravenous Dexmedetomidine in Laparoscopic Surgeries Under General Anesthesia.
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine has been used by multiple routes in laparoscopic surgeries to attenuate the hemodynamic response. The present study was done to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine nebulization with intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia.
METHODS
A prospective, double blind study was conducted, and 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients of either gender between 18-65 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized into three groups. (1) Group N (n = 30) received dexmedetomidine nebulization 1 mcg/kg in 3 mL of 0.9% saline 15 minutes before induction and 10 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline over 10 minutes at the time of induction of anesthesia. (2) Group I (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in 10 mL of 0.9% saline. (3) Group F (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous fentanyl 2 mcg/kg in 10mL of 0.9% saline. Heart rate, blood pressure, propofol requirement, and opioid consumption were monitored throughout surgery and for 1 hour in post-operative period. Statistical analysis was done by using analysis of variance test, chi-square test. P value < 0.05 was considered signifi cant.
RESULTS
Suppression of hemodynamic response following intubation and pneumoperitoneum by dexmedetomidine nebulization was compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl. Opioid requirement was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group than fentanyl group (P < 0.05). Propofol requirement was lower with intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine than intravenous fentanyl.
CONCLUSIONS
In laparoscopic surgeries, nebulized dexmedetomidine suppresses hemodynamic response when compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine along with dose sparing effect of opioid and propofol.
期刊介绍:
Asian Journal of Anesthesiology (AJA), launched in 1962, is the official and peer-reviewed publication of the Taiwan Society of Anaesthesiologists. It is published quarterly (March/June/September/December) by Airiti and indexed in EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SIIC Data Bases. AJA accepts submissions from around the world. AJA is the premier open access journal in the field of anaesthesia and its related disciplines of critical care and pain in Asia. The number of Chinese anaesthesiologists has reached more than 60,000 and is still growing. The journal aims to disseminate anaesthesiology research and services for the Chinese community and is now the main anaesthesiology journal for Chinese societies located in Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore. AJAcaters to clinicians of all relevant specialties and biomedical scientists working in the areas of anesthesia, critical care medicine and pain management, as well as other related fields (pharmacology, pathology molecular biology, etc). AJA''s editorial team is composed of local and regional experts in the field as well as many leading international experts. Article types accepted include review articles, research papers, short communication, correspondence and images.