Cargando…

The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial

Background: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a very common clinical emergency encountered in neurosurgery. While both general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) can be used during CSDH surgery, MAC is the preferred choice among surgeons. Further, while dexmedetomidine (DEX) is re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Wenming, Feng, Lei, Bai, Fenfen, Zhang, Zongwang, Zhao, Yong, Ren, Chunguang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093316/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27857689
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00410
_version_ 1782464896543227904
author Wang, Wenming
Feng, Lei
Bai, Fenfen
Zhang, Zongwang
Zhao, Yong
Ren, Chunguang
author_facet Wang, Wenming
Feng, Lei
Bai, Fenfen
Zhang, Zongwang
Zhao, Yong
Ren, Chunguang
author_sort Wang, Wenming
collection PubMed
description Background: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a very common clinical emergency encountered in neurosurgery. While both general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) can be used during CSDH surgery, MAC is the preferred choice among surgeons. Further, while dexmedetomidine (DEX) is reportedly a safe and effective agent for many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, there have been no trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in CSDH surgery. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH. Methods: In all, 215 fifteen patients underwent burr-hole surgery for CSDH with MAC and were divided into three groups: Group D1 (n = 67, DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg(−1) for 10 min), Group D2 (n = 75, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg(−1) for 10 min), and Group S (n = 73, sufentanil infusion 0.3 μg·kg(−1) for 10 min). Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of all three groups was maintained at 3. Anesthesia onset time, total number of intraoperative patient movements, hemodynamics, total cumulative dose of DEX, time to first dose and amount of rescue midazolam or fentanyl, percentage of patients converted to alternative sedative or anesthetic therapy, postoperative recovery time, adverse events, and patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were recorded. Results: The anesthesia onset time was significantly less in group D2 (17.36 ± 4.23 vs. 13.42 ± 2.12 vs. 15.98 ± 4.58 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). More patients in groups D1 and S required rescue midazolam to achieve RSS = 3 (74.63 vs. 42.67 vs. 71.23%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). However, the total dose of rescue midazolam was significantly higher in group D1 (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 2.0 ± 0.4 mg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). The time to first dose of rescue midazolam was significantly longer in group D2 (17.32 ± 4.47 vs. 23.56 ± 5.36 vs. 16.55 ± 4.91 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Significantly fewer patients in groups S and D2 required rescue fentanyl to relieve pain (62.69 vs. 21.33 vs. 27.40%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Additionally, total dose of rescue fentanyl in group D1 group was significantly higher (212.5 ± 43.6 vs. 107.2 ± 35.9 vs. 98.6 ± 32.2 μg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Total number of patient movements during the burr-hole surgery was higher in groups D1 and S (47.76 vs. 20.00 vs. 47.95%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Four patients in D1 and five in S converted to propofol. The time to recovery for discharge from the PACU was significantly shorter in group D2 (16.24 ± 4.15 vs. 12.48 ± 3.29 vs. 15.91 ± 3.66 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Results from the patient and surgeon satisfaction scores showed significant differences favoring group D2 (P < 0.05). More patients in groups D1 and S showed higher levels of the overall incidence of tachycardia and hypertension, and required higher doses of urapidil and esmolol (P < 0.05). Six patients experienced respiratory depression in group S. Conclusion: Compared with sufentanil, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg(−1) was associated with fewer intraoperative patient movements, fewer rescue interventions, faster postoperative recovery, and better patient and surgeon satisfaction scores and could be safely and effectively used for MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5093316
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50933162016-11-17 The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial Wang, Wenming Feng, Lei Bai, Fenfen Zhang, Zongwang Zhao, Yong Ren, Chunguang Front Pharmacol Pharmacology Background: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a very common clinical emergency encountered in neurosurgery. While both general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) can be used during CSDH surgery, MAC is the preferred choice among surgeons. Further, while dexmedetomidine (DEX) is reportedly a safe and effective agent for many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, there have been no trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in CSDH surgery. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH. Methods: In all, 215 fifteen patients underwent burr-hole surgery for CSDH with MAC and were divided into three groups: Group D1 (n = 67, DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg(−1) for 10 min), Group D2 (n = 75, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg(−1) for 10 min), and Group S (n = 73, sufentanil infusion 0.3 μg·kg(−1) for 10 min). Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of all three groups was maintained at 3. Anesthesia onset time, total number of intraoperative patient movements, hemodynamics, total cumulative dose of DEX, time to first dose and amount of rescue midazolam or fentanyl, percentage of patients converted to alternative sedative or anesthetic therapy, postoperative recovery time, adverse events, and patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were recorded. Results: The anesthesia onset time was significantly less in group D2 (17.36 ± 4.23 vs. 13.42 ± 2.12 vs. 15.98 ± 4.58 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). More patients in groups D1 and S required rescue midazolam to achieve RSS = 3 (74.63 vs. 42.67 vs. 71.23%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). However, the total dose of rescue midazolam was significantly higher in group D1 (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 2.0 ± 0.4 mg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). The time to first dose of rescue midazolam was significantly longer in group D2 (17.32 ± 4.47 vs. 23.56 ± 5.36 vs. 16.55 ± 4.91 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Significantly fewer patients in groups S and D2 required rescue fentanyl to relieve pain (62.69 vs. 21.33 vs. 27.40%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Additionally, total dose of rescue fentanyl in group D1 group was significantly higher (212.5 ± 43.6 vs. 107.2 ± 35.9 vs. 98.6 ± 32.2 μg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Total number of patient movements during the burr-hole surgery was higher in groups D1 and S (47.76 vs. 20.00 vs. 47.95%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Four patients in D1 and five in S converted to propofol. The time to recovery for discharge from the PACU was significantly shorter in group D2 (16.24 ± 4.15 vs. 12.48 ± 3.29 vs. 15.91 ± 3.66 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Results from the patient and surgeon satisfaction scores showed significant differences favoring group D2 (P < 0.05). More patients in groups D1 and S showed higher levels of the overall incidence of tachycardia and hypertension, and required higher doses of urapidil and esmolol (P < 0.05). Six patients experienced respiratory depression in group S. Conclusion: Compared with sufentanil, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg(−1) was associated with fewer intraoperative patient movements, fewer rescue interventions, faster postoperative recovery, and better patient and surgeon satisfaction scores and could be safely and effectively used for MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5093316/ /pubmed/27857689 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00410 Text en Copyright © 2016 Wang, Feng, Bai, Zhang, Zhao and Ren. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pharmacology
Wang, Wenming
Feng, Lei
Bai, Fenfen
Zhang, Zongwang
Zhao, Yong
Ren, Chunguang
The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial
title The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial
title_full The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial
title_fullStr The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial
title_short The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial
title_sort safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs. sufentanil in monitored anesthesia care during burr-hole surgery for chronic subdural hematoma: a retrospective clinical trial
topic Pharmacology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093316/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27857689
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00410
work_keys_str_mv AT wangwenming thesafetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT fenglei thesafetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT baifenfen thesafetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT zhangzongwang thesafetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT zhaoyong thesafetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT renchunguang thesafetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT wangwenming safetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT fenglei safetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT baifenfen safetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT zhangzongwang safetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT zhaoyong safetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial
AT renchunguang safetyandefficacyofdexmedetomidinevssufentanilinmonitoredanesthesiacareduringburrholesurgeryforchronicsubduralhematomaaretrospectiveclinicaltrial