Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Ketamine in Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Postoperative Pain Control in Thoracotomy Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Postoperative pain control after thoracotomy is very important, and if not controlled, it can cause severe complications. Objectives: This study aimed to compare dexmedetomidine and ketamine in serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) in pain control after thoracotomy. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 74 patients aged 18 to 60 years old with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II who were referred to Imam Khomeini hospital in Ahvaz, Iran, for thoracotomy and randomly divided into two groups. After surgery, the SAPB with ultrasound-guided was performed. In the ropivacaine-ketamine (RK) group, ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and 0.4 cc/kg ropivacaine solution 0.25% and in the ropivacaine-dexmedetomidine (RD) group, in addition to 0.4 cc/kg ropivacaine 0.25%, dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg was added. Verbal Numeric Scale (VNS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were recorded. Results: There was no significant difference in both groups in terms of demographic information (P < 0.05). The average VNS was lower in the ketamine group than in the dexmedetomidine group; however, there was a significant difference only at 1, 12, and 24 hours after surgery (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of SBP and DBP, HR, and MAP. There was a significant difference in the RR in the two groups at 12 and 24 hours after the operation (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine and ketamine, which were used as supplements to ropivacaine for SAPB in patients undergoing elective thoracotomy, reduced the pain intensity after thoracotomy; nevertheless, the intensity of pain reduction was more and more effective in the group receiving ketamine.

A Comparison of the Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam on Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endosonography Outside the Operating Room.

Background: Patients may experience anxiety, discomfort, and pain during endoscopy, which cannot be tolerated without sedative drugs. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam on patients undergoing endosonography outside the operating room. Methods: This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 126 patients aged 18 - 65 years old with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I - II undergoing elective endosonography. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The dexmedetomidine group received dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg) for 25 minutes with propofol (0.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 µg/kg) at the start of the procedure. The midazolam group received midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) with propofol (0.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 µg/kg). Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded before and 5, 10, and 15 minutes after starting the procedure. The Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) and the need for an additional dose of propofol were recorded during the procedure. The Numeric Pain Rating scale (Ambesh score) scores were recorded at the beginning, immediately after, and 1 hour after the procedure. Nausea and vomiting were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale in cooperation with the patient. Results: The dexmedetomidine group had significantly higher SpO2 and RSS scores during sedation than the midazolam group (P = 0.02). Overall, specialist satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group than in the midazolam group. There was no clinically significant difference in pain score and nausea and vomiting frequencies between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine is more effective than midazolam for sedation during gastrointestinal endosonography.

Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Outcome of Cardiac Dysrhythmias in a Noncardiac Intensive Care Unit.

Introduction: Several extrinsic factors contribute to the development of cardiac dysrhythmias. In intensive care unit (ICU) settings and among critically ill patients who are exposed to a large number of risk factors, cardiac disturbances are more common. Objectives: This study aimed to examine the epidemiology, risk factors, and outcome of cardiac dysrhythmias in a non-cardiac ICU. Methods: This is a retrospective, single-center, observational study conducted in a tertiary noncardiac ICU at Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz, Iran. Out of the 360 adult patients aged 18 years and older who were admitted to ICU for longer than 24 h, 340 cases who met the study inclusion criteria were recruited between March 2018 until October 2018. Results: The most common nonsinus dysrhythmias were new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) (12.9%) and ventricular tachycardia (21 patients-6.2%). According to our results, previous percutaneous coronary instrumentation, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and hyperkalemia act as risk factors in the development of cardiac dysrhythmias. Additionally, we found out that thyroid dysfunction and pneumonia can predict the development of NOAF in critically ill patients. The estimated mortality rate among patients with NOAF in this study was 15.7% (p < .05). Conclusion: Cardiac dysrhythmias are common in ICU patients and treating the risk factors can help to prevent their development and improve patient management and outcome.