34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dexmedetomidine decreases the requirement of ketamine and propofol during burns debridement and dressings

      other

      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

          Background and Aims:

          Dexmedetomidine (Dex), a highly selective α 2-adrenoreceptor agonist, is used for sedation management in various clinical settings and shows anaesthetic-sparing effect. Our aim was to study the effects of Dex on requirements of propofol, ketamine, and intraoperative haemodynamic variations during burns debridement and dressing changes, and compare its effectiveness and safety with combination of ketamine and propofol.

          Methods:

          Sixty adult patients posted for elective debridement and dressing were included in the study. Thirty patients received Dex (intramuscular)(IM) 1 μg/kg, 1 h before shifting to the operation theatre while the other thirty did not. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and ketamine followed by adjusted infusion to achieve a Ramsay Sedation Scale score (RSS) of six in all patients. Intraoperatively haemodynamic parameters were recorded at regular intervals of 5, 15, 30, 45, and 60 min. The mean data between the groups were compared by unpaired t test and medians by Mann-Whitney U test. Within group analysis was performed by using repeated measures ANOVA. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

          Results:

          The dose requirement of ketamine and propofol in Dex group was significantly lower when compared to control group (100.5 ± 17.58 mg vs. 231.5 ± 60.39 mg ( P < 0.0001) and 127.7 ± 15.47 mg vs. 254 ± 59.22 mg ( P < 0.0001) respectively). Additionally, recovery time was lower in the Dex group as compared to the control group, 9.57 ± 1.50 min vs. 11.53 ± 2.56 min ( P = 0.0006). Haemodynamic variations were also significantly lower in the Dex group as compared to the control group.

          Conclusion:

          Dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg IM) reduced the requirement of propofol and ketamine, with more stable intraoperative haemodynamics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

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

          Clinical uses of alpha2 -adrenergic agonists.

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

            Effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine in humans. II. Hemodynamic changes.

            Dexmedetomidine (DMED) is a novel clonidine-like compound known to have sedative, analgesic, and cardiovascular stabilizing qualities. DMED is a more highly selective alpha 2-adrenergic agonist than clonidine. This investigation examined the hemodynamic effects of four selected iv doses in consenting healthy male volunteers. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial subjects received 0 (n = 9), 0.25 (n = 6) 0.5 (n = 6), 1.0 (n = 6), or 2.0 (n = 10) micrograms/kg of DMED by infusion (2 min). ECG, heart rate (HR), arterial blood pressure (MABP), bioimpedance cardiac output (CO), and plasma catecholamines concentrations (CA) were monitored from 90 min before to 360 min after infusion. Plasma DMED concentrations were measured. DMED produced a maximum decrease in MABP at 60 min of 14%, 16%, 23%, and 27% for the 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 micrograms/kg groups, respectively (P < .05). At 330 min MABP remained below baseline by 8% and 17% at the two largest doses (P < .05). Both HR and CO decreased maximally by both 17% at 105 min. The two largest doses produced a transient (peak at 3 min lasting < 11 min) increased in MABP (16 +/- 2.5 and 24 +/- 10 mmHg, respectively; P < .05) with a concomitantly reduced CO (41%, 2 micrograms/kg; P < .05) and HR (22%, 2 micrograms/kg; P < .05), whereas systemic vascular resistance doubled. Even the lowest dose decreased CA immediately to values close to 20 pg/ml for 5 h. A 2-min iv infusion of DMED produced a transient increase in MABP and a longer lasting decrease in MABP and CA. These DMED doses were well tolerated in the healthy volunteers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Propofol infusion syndrome.

              The clinical features of propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS) are acute refractory bradycardia leading to asystole, in the presence of one or more of the following: metabolic acidosis (base deficit > 10 mmol.l(-1)), rhabdomyolysis, hyperlipidaemia, and enlarged or fatty liver. There is an association between PRIS and propofol infusions at doses higher than 4 mg.kg(-1).h(-1) for greater than 48 h duration. Sixty-one patients with PRIS have been recorded in the literature, with deaths in 20 paediatric and 18 adult patients. Seven of these patients (four paediatric and three adult patients) developed PRIS during anaesthesia. It is proposed that the syndrome may be caused by either a direct mitochondrial respiratory chain inhibition or impaired mitochondrial fatty acid metabolism mediated by propofol. An early sign of cardiac instability associated with the syndrome is the development of right bundle branch block with convex-curved ('coved type') ST elevation in the right praecordial leads (V1 to V3) of the electrocardiogram. Predisposing factors include young age, severe critical illness of central nervous system or respiratory origin, exogenous catecholamine or glucocorticoid administration, inadequate carbohydrate intake and subclinical mitochondrial disease. Treatment options are limited. Haemodialysis or haemoperfusion with cardiorespiratory support has been the most successful treatment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian J Anaesth
                Indian J Anaesth
                IJA
                Indian Journal of Anaesthesia
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                0019-5049
                0976-2817
                Mar-Apr 2014
                : 58
                : 2
                : 138-142
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Narayana Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital, ChinthareddyPalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
                [1 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Clinical Research, Narayana Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital, ChinthareddyPalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Prof. Prabhavathi Ravipati, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Narayana Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital Chinthareddy Palem, Nellore - 524 002, Andhra Pradesh, India. E-mail: prabhavathi95gmc@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                IJA-58-138
                10.4103/0019-5049.130813
                4050928
                24963176
                27a2d450-48cd-461f-aba9-6dfd771d2925
                Copyright: © Indian Journal of Anaesthesia

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Clinical Investigation

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                burns,dexmedetomidine,drug combinations,debridement and dressing of burns,fentanyl,ketamine,propofol

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content164

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors394