Cargando…

Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management is vital to improve patient care. Successful postoperative pain relief is currently achieved only through NSAIDs and narcotics. OBJECTIVES: We compared dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives to hyperbaric levobupivicaine 0.5% for the sub-arachnoid block...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manoharan, Murali Manoj, Paneer, Manohar, Elavarasan, Karthikeyan, Kannappan Punniyakoti, Kameshwaran
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Brieflands 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38023998
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/aapm-138274
_version_ 1785138556068429824
author Manoharan, Murali Manoj
Paneer, Manohar
Elavarasan, Karthikeyan
Kannappan Punniyakoti, Kameshwaran
author_facet Manoharan, Murali Manoj
Paneer, Manohar
Elavarasan, Karthikeyan
Kannappan Punniyakoti, Kameshwaran
author_sort Manoharan, Murali Manoj
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management is vital to improve patient care. Successful postoperative pain relief is currently achieved only through NSAIDs and narcotics. OBJECTIVES: We compared dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives to hyperbaric levobupivicaine 0.5% for the sub-arachnoid block (spinal anesthesia) concerning the onset time, duration of the block, hemodynamic changes, level of sedation intraoperatively and postoperatively and time taken for the first postoperative analgesic request and frequency. METHODS: This prospective, double-blind study enrolled 60 patients who underwent lower abdominal surgeries and were eligible for a sub-arachnoid block. They were allocated randomly to one of the two groups. Group D received intrathecal dexmedetomidine 5 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg. Group C received intrathecal clonidine 50 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg. RESULTS: Patients who received dexmedetomidine had a longer duration of the block (2-segment regression: 135 ± 15 min vs. 130 ± 20 min, S1 segment regression: 305 ± 50.4 min vs. 290 ± 47.2 min, Bromage 0: 285 ± 60 min vs. 280 ± 45 min), delayed first rescue analgesia request (700 ± 160 min vs. 506 ± 112 min), reduced frequency of rescue analgesics (1 vs. 2), and desired level of sedation (1.3 ± 0.46 vs. 0.4 ± 0.01) when compared to those receiving clonidine. There were insignificant differences between the groups in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, such as minimal bradycardia and minimal hypotension. Though dexmedetomidine had an early onset, there was no statistically significant difference compared to clonidine. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives in the sub-arachnoid block, the group who received dexmedetomidine had similar onset, prolonged duration of blockade, delayed first rescue analgesia demand, reduced frequency of analgesics, and desired sedation with similar minimal hemodynamic changes such as bradycardia and hypotension.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10664160
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Brieflands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106641602023-08-06 Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study Manoharan, Murali Manoj Paneer, Manohar Elavarasan, Karthikeyan Kannappan Punniyakoti, Kameshwaran Anesth Pain Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management is vital to improve patient care. Successful postoperative pain relief is currently achieved only through NSAIDs and narcotics. OBJECTIVES: We compared dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives to hyperbaric levobupivicaine 0.5% for the sub-arachnoid block (spinal anesthesia) concerning the onset time, duration of the block, hemodynamic changes, level of sedation intraoperatively and postoperatively and time taken for the first postoperative analgesic request and frequency. METHODS: This prospective, double-blind study enrolled 60 patients who underwent lower abdominal surgeries and were eligible for a sub-arachnoid block. They were allocated randomly to one of the two groups. Group D received intrathecal dexmedetomidine 5 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg. Group C received intrathecal clonidine 50 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg. RESULTS: Patients who received dexmedetomidine had a longer duration of the block (2-segment regression: 135 ± 15 min vs. 130 ± 20 min, S1 segment regression: 305 ± 50.4 min vs. 290 ± 47.2 min, Bromage 0: 285 ± 60 min vs. 280 ± 45 min), delayed first rescue analgesia request (700 ± 160 min vs. 506 ± 112 min), reduced frequency of rescue analgesics (1 vs. 2), and desired level of sedation (1.3 ± 0.46 vs. 0.4 ± 0.01) when compared to those receiving clonidine. There were insignificant differences between the groups in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, such as minimal bradycardia and minimal hypotension. Though dexmedetomidine had an early onset, there was no statistically significant difference compared to clonidine. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives in the sub-arachnoid block, the group who received dexmedetomidine had similar onset, prolonged duration of blockade, delayed first rescue analgesia demand, reduced frequency of analgesics, and desired sedation with similar minimal hemodynamic changes such as bradycardia and hypotension. Brieflands 2023-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10664160/ /pubmed/38023998 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/aapm-138274 Text en Copyright © 2023, Murali Manoj et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Manoharan, Murali Manoj
Paneer, Manohar
Elavarasan, Karthikeyan
Kannappan Punniyakoti, Kameshwaran
Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study
title Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study
title_full Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study
title_fullStr Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study
title_short Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study
title_sort dexmedetomidine versus clonidine as additives for spinal anesthesia: a comparative study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38023998
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/aapm-138274
work_keys_str_mv AT manoharanmuralimanoj dexmedetomidineversusclonidineasadditivesforspinalanesthesiaacomparativestudy
AT paneermanohar dexmedetomidineversusclonidineasadditivesforspinalanesthesiaacomparativestudy
AT elavarasankarthikeyan dexmedetomidineversusclonidineasadditivesforspinalanesthesiaacomparativestudy
AT kannappanpunniyakotikameshwaran dexmedetomidineversusclonidineasadditivesforspinalanesthesiaacomparativestudy