Objective To study the sedative effects and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolamfor acute exacerbate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( AECOPD) underwentmechanical ventilation.Methods 68 AECOPD patients underwentmechanical ventilation were enrolled and randomly divided into adexmedetomidine group ( n =34) and a midazolam group ( n = 34) by acute physiology and chronic healthevaluation Ⅱ ( APACHEⅡ) score. The patients in the dexmedetomidine group were given a loading dose( 1 μg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 2-0. 8 mg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 . The patients in the midazolam group weregiven a loading dose ( 0. 05 mg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 06-0. 2 mg· kg- 1 · h- 1 . Sedation levelwas assessed by Ramsay score and maintained a Ramsay score of 3-4. The sedation onset time, disablesedatives wake time, duration of mechanical ventilation, extubation success rate, ICU length of stay, and 28days mortality after admission to the ICU were compared between two groups. And calmer respiratorydepression, circulatory and delirium adverse reactions incidence were also compared. Results Thedifferences in patients’age, gender, and APACHEⅡ score between two groups were not significant ( P gt;0. 05) . Compared with the midazolam group, the dexmedetomidine group had more rapid onset of sedation[ ( 49. 80 ±8. 20) s vs. ( 107. 55 ±19. 65) s, P lt;0. 01] , shorter wake-up time [ ( 18. 90 ±2. 30) min vs. ( 40. 82 ±19. 85) min, P lt;0. 01] , shorter duration of mechanical ventilation [ ( 4. 9 ±1. 6) d vs. ( 7. 8 ±2. 5) d,P lt;0. 01] , higher successful extubation rate ( 79. 41% vs. 58. 82% , P lt;0. 01) , and shorter ICUlength of stay[ ( 6. 5 ±2. 5) d vs. ( 9. 6 ±3. 4) d, P lt;0. 05] . Dexmedetomidine had lower respiratory depression rate, littleeffects on hemodynamics, lower occurrence and short duration of delirium. Conclusion It is highlyrecommended that dexmedetomidine be used for sedation in AECOPD patients with mechanical ventilation.
Objective To investigate the applied significance of adjustable low-concentration of mixed oxygenand nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia in anorectal surgery. Methods Three hundreds patients underwent anorectal surgery in our hospital were divided into control group （n=154） and observation group （n=146）. Patients of control group underwent pure lidocaine local anesthesia， and patients of observation group underwent mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide sedation analgesia combined with lidocaine local anesthesia. Vital signs before and after operation as well as results of sedation and analgesia were compared between the 2 groups. Results Anorectal surgeries of all patients were performed successfully. There were no significant differences on change of heart rate， blood pressure， and oxygen saturation between the 2 groups before and after operation （P＞0.05）. The operation time between the control group 〔（36.3±6.8） min〕 and observation group 〔（35.4±6.5） min〕 had no statistically significant difference（t=-0.607， P=0.544）. The analgesic effects （Z=-6.859， P=0.000） and sedative effects （Z=-5.275， P=0.000） of obser-vation group were both better than those of control group. Conclusions Low-concentration of mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia can relieve the discomfort of fear and pain， no side-impacts on vital sign before and after operation were observed，and it has better effects of sedation and analgesia， therefore it can be recommended to clinical application.
Sedation and analgesia is an essential part of the emergency work. Presently, for adults, clinical assessment and application of sedation and analgesia has been gradually perfect, but in the face of pediatric patients, clinicians would always concern drug-related adverse reactions as well as a variety of uncontrollable factors, leading to reducing and even ignoring the sedation and analgesia in children. This review focuses on the current research status and relevant evidence of pediatric sedation depth and risk assessment, pain assessment, as well as the principles, application methods, advantages and disadvantages of various commonly used clinical drugs, and the aim is to provide evidence for higher quality sedation and analgesia for children.
ObjectiveTo observe the effect of dexmedetomidine combined with etomidate on the clinical safety and the tracheal extubation response after general anesthesⅠa in elderly patient undergoing thyroidectomy. MethodsFifty patients (aged between 65 and 75 years, ASAⅠor Ⅱ) scheduled for thyroid surgery between July 2012 and January 2013 were randomly divided into two groups:dexmedetomidine group (group D) and control group (group C) with 25 patients in each group. Group D received dexmedetomidine of 0.5 μg/(kg·h) through intravenous infusion after anesthesia induction, and the intravenous infusion was stopped five minutes before the end of surgery. Normal saline was infused at the same volume in group C at the same time. Patients were induced with etomidate at 0.2 mg/kg for anesthesia, and etomidate and remifentanil were used for the anesthesia maintenance during the operation. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded 5 (T1), 15 (T2) and 30 (T3) minutes after the beginning of the operation, and 15 (T4) and 5 (T5) minutes before the end of the operation. Moreover, the time of eye opening, time of extubation, the number of patients with restlessness and etomidate requirement were recorded. ResultsCompared with group C, HR and MAP at the time points of T2 and T5 in group D did not obviously change, but the number of restlessness patients in group D was significantly less than in group C (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in time of eye opening and time of extubation between the two groups (P>0.05). Etomidate requirement in group D was[(8.6±2.1) μg/(kg·min)], which was significantly lower than that in group C[(14.4±3.4) μg/(kg·min)] (P<0.05). ConclusionDexmedetomidine combined with etomidate is efficient and safe for elderly patients undergoing thyroidectomy, and this method can effectively reduce cardiovascular responses to tracheal extubation, decrease the incidence of postoperative restlessness, and reduce the requirement of etomidate during the operation.
Objective To assess the correlation between bispectral index (BIS) and richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) and sedation-agitation scale (SAS) through the spearman correlation coefficient by systematic review. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2016), CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM were searched from inception to July 2016 to collect literature on the correlation between BIS and RASS and SAS. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After extracting data and assessing the quality of the included studies, meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta Analysis 3.0 software. Results A total of 12 studies involving 397 patients were included. BIS was positively correlated with RASS score and SAS, and the summary correlation coefficient was 0.742 with 95% CI 0.678 to 0.795 and 0.605 with 95% CI 0.517 to 0.681, respectively. Conclusion BIS has a good correlation with RASS and SAS, which will provide more options for assessing sedation of patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU.
ObjectiveTo know the fundamental status of painless digestive endoscopy in China. MethodsA 23-item survey including multiple choices and fill-in-the-blank questions on 3 pages was performed on anesthesiologists in China excluding Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong on www.xqnmz.com and www.dxy.cn/bbs from November 1 to December 31, 2013, among which 5 questions were on personal details, 9 on hospital and department, and 9 on clinic details. The results about the basic facts, risk factors of anesthesia and drug use and monitoring of painless digestive endoscopy in China were analyzed. ResultsA total of 726 questionnaires were collected, among which 667 (91.87%) were considered valid. Interviewed hospitals included hospitals from 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions excluding Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong. Thirty questionnaires were from the first-grade hospitals (4.5%), 292 from the second-grade (43.78%), and 345 from the third-grade (51.72%). And 69.12% of the questionnaires showed these hospitals could only carry out painless gastroscopy and/or colonoscopy, while 80.81% showed the number of the mean painless endoscopy cases was 0-30 per day; 47.23% of the respondents working in digestive endoscopy center had to complete the anesthesia procedure alone, and 35.83% of the respondents illustrated their digestive endoscopy centers had established the post anesthesia care unit; 62.97% were equipped with anesthesia apparatus or ventilator; 89.96% were equipped with tracheal intubation tool; and 21.44% were equipped with defibrillator. Among them, 25.79% did not prepare rescue medicines regularly in digestive endoscopy center. Propofol was the most frequently used anesthetic, and composited fentanyl was at the highest use rate for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Respondents who used electrocardiogram, non-invasive blood pressure and pulse oxygen saturation the least to monitor during painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy took up 43.48% and 46.08% respectively. ConclusionPainless digestive endoscopy needs further development and standardization with the regulation of related guidelines and standardized residents training.
ObjectiveTo explore the applicability of early goal-directed sedation (EGDS) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with mechanical ventilation.MethodsAn prospective double blind study was conducted. ICU patients with mechanical ventilation in the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University were recruited as research objects by chester sampling from September 2015 to September 2017, and divided into an experimental group and a control group by stratified randomization. Two groups were sedated on the basis of adequate analgesia. The experimental group adopted the EGDS strategy that dexmedetomidin was the first choice to be infused at the rate of 1 μg·kg–1·h–1. And the patients were given Richmond agitation-sedation score (RASS) on the interval of 4 hours: used additionally propofol and midazolam if RASS>2, or reduced right metomomidin at the speed of 0.2 μg·kg–1·h–1 per 30 min if RASS<–3, and stopped sedation until RASS of –2 to 0. The control group adopted routine sedation strategy that propofol was the first choice to be infused and combined with dexmedetomidine and midazolam until RASS score in –2 to –3. The doses of sedative drugs, mechanical ventilation time, ICU-stayed time, total hospitalization time and the incidence of adverse events such as delirium, accidental extubation, and ICU death were compared between two groups.ResultsSixty-sis cases were selected in the experimental group and 71 in the control group. The baseline data such as gender, age, acute physiology chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHEⅡ), or basic diseases in two groups had no significant differences. Compared with the control group, the per capita total doses of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam in the experimental group were significantly less [right metopromicine (μg): 154.45±27.86 vs. 378.85±39.76; propofol (mg): 4 490.03±479.88 vs. 7 349.76±814.31; midazolam (mg): 255.38±46.24 vs. 562.79±97.26; all P<0.01], mechanical ventilation time, ICU-stayed time, total hospitalization time were significantly lower [mechanical ventilation time (d): 7.7±3.3vs. 11.7±3.6; ICU-stayed time (d): 10.2±3.9 vs. 19.2±4.1, total hospitalization time (d): 29.9±4.6 vs. 50.4±9.1; all P<0.01]. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the incidence of delirium in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (log-rankχ2=5.481, P<0.05). The accidental extubation rate and accidental fatality rate in two groups had no significant differences (log-rankχ2=0.078, 0.999, P>0.05).ConclusionEGDS can not only reduce the dose of sedative drugs, shorten the mechanical ventilation time, the ICU-stayed time and the total hospitalization time, but also reduce the incidence of delirium, so it has a positive impact in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the application of dexmedetomidine for moderate sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography.MethodsPatients who were planned to undergo endoscopic ultrasonography in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from February to June 2019 were randomly divided into dexmedetomidine group (trial group) and propofol group (control group). The basic conditions, success rate of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis and treatment, sedation-related adverse events, implementation of airway management, postoperative comfort evaluation and endoscopic physician satisfaction score of the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 120 patients were eventually enrolled, 60 in each group. There was no significant difference in the basic conditions of the two groups (P>0.05). The success rate of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis and treatment in two groups were 100%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bucking, apnea and bradycardia between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of hypotension (15.0% vs. 31.7%), hypoxemia (6.7% vs.20.0%) in the trial group was lower than those in the control group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The proportion of patients in the trial group who performed airway management was lower than that in the control group (1.7% vs. 28.3%), and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative pain score, the first time to get out of bed and postoperative 15-item quality of recovery questionnaire score between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of nausea and vomiting at 6 hours after operation (48.3% vs. 3.3%) and 24 hours after operation (10.0% vs. 0.0%) and the time required for recovery of gastrointestinal function ［(201.4±178.4) vs. (148.5±75.7) min］ in the trial group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The median (the lower and upper quartile) of comfort score of patients and satisfaction score of endoscopic physicians were 8 (6, 10) and 8 (7, 9) in the trial group, respectively, and were 10 (9, 10) and 9 (8, 10) in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05).ConclusionModerate sedation with dexmedetomidine could provide good sedative and analgesic effects in endoscopic ultrasonography. It has little effect on respiration and blood pressure, but the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were higher than deep sedation with propofol. And patient comfort and endoscopic physician satisfaction also need to be improved.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effects of nursing-implemented sedation protocol on outcomes of mechanical ventilation and sedation in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. MethodsWe searched EMbase (Ovid), The Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect studies on nursing-implemented sedation protocol up to January 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 2118 patients (1 037 were in the intervention group, and 1 081 were in the control group) were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that nursing-implemented sedation protocol could reduce the total dosage of midazolam (MD=-163.82, 95%CI -309.81 to -17.84, P=0.03), the daily dosage of midazolam (MD=-37.22, 95%CI -61.14 to -13.29, P<0.01), and the incidence rate of VAP (RR=0.53, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.81, P<0.01). However, nursing-implemented sedation protocol had no effects on the length of mechanical ventilation, the length of ICU stay, and self-extubation. ConclusionCompared with the usual sedation management, nursing-implemented sedation protocol can reduce the dosage of midazolam and the incidence rate of VAP. But no statistical significances are found in the length of mechanical ventilation, the length of ICU and the incidence rate of self-extubation.
Objective To evaluate the sedative and analgesic efficacy and adverse effect of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the postoperative patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCI, SpringerLinker, ScinceDirect, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM from the date of their establishment to November 2011. The quality of the included studies was evaluated after the data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1. Results Ten RCTs involoving 793 cases were included. The qualitative analysis results showed: within a certain range of dosage as dexmedetomidine: 0.2-2.5 μg/(kg·h), and propofol: 0.8-4 mg/(kg·h), dexmedetomidine was similar to propofol in sedative effect, but dexmedetomidine group needed smaller dosage of supplemental analgesics during the period of sedative therapy. The results of meta-analysis showed: the percentage of patients needing supplemental analgesics in dexmedetomidine group was less than that in propofol group during the period of sedative therapy (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.68, P=0.008). Compared with the propofol group, the duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (WMD= –1.10, 95%CI –1.88 to –0.32, P=0.006), but the mechanical ventilated time was comparable between the two groups (WMD=0.89, 95%CI –1.15 to 2.93, P=0.39); the incidence of adverse effects had no significant difference between two groups (bradycardia: OR=3.57, 95%CI 0.86 to 14.75, P=0.08; hypotension: OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.30 to 3.32, P=1.00); respiratory depression seemed to be more frequently in propofol group, which however needed further study. Mortalities were similar in both groups after the sedative therapy (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.99, P=0.92). Conclusion Within an exact range of dosage, dexmedetomidine is comparable with propofol in sedative effect. Besides, it has analgesic effect, fewer adverse effects and fewer occurrences of respiratory depression, and it can save the extra dosage of analgesics and shorten ICU stay. Still, more larger-sample, multi-center RCTs are needed to provide more evidence to support this outcome.