Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Anesth Analg ; 118(5): 946-55, 2014 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24722260

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The α2-adrenergic agonist dexmedetomidine is a sedative and can be used as an adjunct to anesthetics. Our primary goal was thus to determine the extent to which dexmedetomidine reduces the requirement for propofol and remifentanil. METHODS: This double-blinded, randomized study (NCT00921284) used an automated dual closed-loop administration to maintain the Bispectral Index between 40 and 60. Sixty-6 ASA physical status I and II patients were given either dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg over 10 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 0.5 µg/kg/h throughout surgery) or comparable volumes of saline as a placebo. Propofol and remifentanil requirements were compared using nonparametric tests and expressed as medians (interquartile ranges). RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients in each group completed the study. Patients given dexmedetomidine required less propofol (1.0 [0.7-1.3] vs 1.3 [1.0-1.7] mg/kg, P = 0.002) and remifentanil (1.2 [1.0-1.4] vs 1.6 [1.1-2.8] µg/kg, P = 0.02) for anesthetic induction. The propofol dosage required for anesthetic maintenance was 29% (with a 95% confidence interval, 18-40) lower in patients given dexmedetomidine (2.2 [1.5-3.0] vs 3.1 [2.4-4.5] mg/kg/h, P = 0.005), whereas the remifentanil dosage was not significantly different (0.16 [0.09-0.17] vs 0.14 [0.13-0.21] µg/kg/h with P = 0.3). The incidence of adverse events, including hemodynamic instability and delayed recovery, was comparable with and without dexmedetomidine. The first postoperative request for morphine analgesia was delayed in patients given dexmedetomidine (median fourth hour vs first hour, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine administration significantly reduced the requirement for both propofol and remifentanil during anesthetic induction and reduced propofol use during maintenance of anesthesia. Dexmedetomidine also delayed postoperative analgesic use. Dexmedetomidine is a useful adjuvant that reduces anesthetic requirement and provides postoperative analgesia.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/methods , Anesthesia, Intravenous/methods , Anesthetics, Intravenous/administration & dosage , Dexmedetomidine/pharmacology , Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology , Piperidines/administration & dosage , Propofol/administration & dosage , Adult , Aged , Algorithms , Anesthesia Recovery Period , Atracurium , Consciousness Monitors , Double-Blind Method , Ephedrine/therapeutic use , Female , Hemodynamics/drug effects , Hemodynamics/physiology , Humans , Intraoperative Period , Male , Middle Aged , Neuromuscular Nondepolarizing Agents , Remifentanil , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
2.
Anesthesiology ; 120(2): 355-64, 2014 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24051391

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several commercial formulations of propofol are available. The primary outcome of this study was the required dose of propofol alone or combined with lidocaine to achieve induction of general anesthesia. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blinded trial randomized patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) just before elective surgery with the use of a computer-generated list. Three different propofol 1% formulations-Diprivan (Astra-Zeneca, Cheshire, United Kingdom), Propoven (Fresenius-Kabi AG, Bad Homburg, Germany), and Lipuro (B-Braun, Melshungen AG, Germany)-were compared with either placebo (saline solution) or lidocaine 1% mixed to the propofol solution. Depth of anesthesia was automatically guided by bispectral index and by a computerized closed-loop system for induction, thus avoiding dosing bias. The authors recorded the total dose of propofol and duration of induction and the patient's discomfort through a behavioral scale (facial expression, verbal response, and arm withdrawal) ranging from 0 to 6. The authors further evaluated postoperative recall of pain using a Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients enrolled, 217 were available for analysis. Demographic characteristics were similar in each group. Propoven required a higher dose for induction (2.2 ± 0.1 mg/kg) than Diprivan (1.8 ± 0.1 mg/kg) or Lipuro (1.7 ± 0.1 mg/kg; P = 0.02). However, induction doses were similar when propofol formulations were mixed with lidocaine. Patient discomfort during injection was significantly reduced with lidocaine for every formulation: Diprivan (0.5 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3), Propoven (0.4 ± 0.3 vs. 2.4 ± 0.3), and Lipuro (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3), all differences significant, with P < 0.0001. No adverse effect was reported. CONCLUSION: Plain propofol formulations are not equipotent, but comparable doses were required when lidocaine was concomitantly administered.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Intravenous , Anesthetics, Intravenous , Propofol , Adult , Aged , Analysis of Variance , Anesthesia, General , Anesthetics, Intravenous/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Intravenous/adverse effects , Blood Gas Analysis , Chemistry, Pharmaceutical , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement/drug effects , Pharmaceutical Solutions , Propofol/administration & dosage , Propofol/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...