4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Sedation in Patients with Intubation after Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , , 1 , 2 ,
      BioMed Research International
      Hindawi

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of the investigation is to clarify the beneficial sedative effects for patients with postoperative intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) after oral and maxillofacial surgery. Forty patients with postoperative intubation were divided into two groups in method of random number table: midazolam group and dexmedetomidine group. The Ramsay score, the behavioral pain scale (BPS) score, SpO 2, HR, MAP, and RR were recorded before sedation (T0), 30 minutes (T1), 1 hour (T2), 2 hours (T3), 6 hours (T4), and 12 hours (T5) after dexmedetomidine or midazolam initiation in intensive care unit, and 10 minutes after extubation (T6). The rate of incidences of side effects was calculated. Sedation with midazolam was as good as standard sedation with dexmedetomidine in maintaining target sedation level. The BPS score in the midazolam group was higher than that in the dexmedetomidine group. The time of tracheal catheter extraction in the dexmedetomidine group was shorter than that in the midazolam group ( p ≤ 0.001). The incidence of bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group was higher than that in the midazolam group ( p = 0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups ( p = 0.732). The incidence of respiratory depression of group midazolam was higher than that of group dexmedetomidine ( p = 0.018). The incidence of delirium in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the midazolam group, and the difference was statistically significant ( p = 0.003). Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can meet the needs for sedation in ICU patients. And dexmedetomidine can improve patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intraoperative Infusion of Dexmedetomidine for Prevention of Postoperative Delirium and Cognitive Dysfunction in Elderly Patients Undergoing Major Elective Noncardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

          Postoperative delirium occurs in 10% to 60% of elderly patients having major surgery and is associated with longer hospital stays, increased hospital costs, and 1-year mortality. Emerging literature suggests that dexmedetomidine sedation in critical care units is associated with reduced incidence of delirium. However, intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine for prevention of delirium has not been well studied.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

            Objectives To systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation. Materials and Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (≥18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for conscious sedation and at least one group receiving dexmedetomidine and one group receiving midazolam. Exclusion criteria: patients in intensive care, pediatric subjects and per protocol use of additional sedative medication other than rescue medication. Outcome measures for efficacy comparison were patient and clinician satisfaction scores and pain scores; outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications. Results We identified 89 papers, of which 12 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 883 patients were included in these studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher patient and operator satisfaction than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced less pain and had lower analgesic requirements. Respiratory and hemodynamic safety were similar. Conclusions Dexmedetomidine is a promising alternative to midazolam for use in procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine provides more comfort during the procedure for the patient and clinician. If carefully titrated, the safety profiles are similar.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of an Analgesia-Based Sedation Protocol on Mechanically Ventilated Patients in a Medical Intensive Care Unit

              BACKGROUND Recent attention to adverse effects of intensive care unit (ICU) sedation has led to the use of strategies that target a “lighter” depth of sedation. Among these strategies are “analgosedation” protocols, which prioritize pain management and preferentially use IV opioids before administration of continuously infused sedatives such as propofol or midazolam. We hypothesized that using an analgosedation protocol would result in a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation than a protocol with greater emphasis on IV sedatives METHODS We conducted a retrospective study comparing the duration of mechanical ventilation before and after implementation of an analgosedation protocol in a 24-bed medical ICU. Patients were aged 18 years or older and required mechanical ventilation where a light level of sedation was clinically appropriate. Exclusion criteria included a clinical need for deeper levels of sedation or tracheal intubation confined to the perioperative period. RESULTS Seventy-nine patients were included in the postimplementation group and 65 in the preimplementation group. After adjustment for baseline covariates, introduction of the 2013 analgosedation protocol was associated with a decreased duration of mechanical ventilation (−26.62 hours; 95% confidence interval, − 44.98 to −8.26, P = 0.005). Patients managed with the analgosedation protocol experienced a lighter level of sedation (median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, −2.57 vs −1.25, P = 0.001) and improved pain management (median Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score, 2.0 vs 1.5, P = 0.03). The use of continuously infused sedatives was reduced by 54.3% (92.3% vs 38.0%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that implementation of an analgosedation protocol was associated with an overall lighter level of sedation, shorter mean ventilator duration, and a reduced use of continuous infusion sedatives. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of such protocols on ICU delirium.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Biomed Res Int
                Biomed Res Int
                BMRI
                BioMed Research International
                Hindawi
                2314-6133
                2314-6141
                2020
                8 April 2020
                : 2020
                : 7082597
                Affiliations
                1The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology (Hubei-MOST) and Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079, China
                2Department of Anesthesiology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079, China
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Kurt Ruetzler

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0578-728X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2925-1375
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3495-5895
                Article
                10.1155/2020/7082597
                7168695
                03adb5a6-7c18-4bf5-aa9c-a9b388bb58ad
                Copyright © 2020 Li Wang et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 December 2019
                : 12 February 2020
                : 27 February 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Health and Family Planning Commission of Hubei Province
                Award ID: WJ2019M222
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Comments

                Comment on this article