open access

Vol 50, No 5 (2018)
Original and clinical articles
Published online: 2018-12-10
Submitted: 2018-09-18
Accepted: 2018-11-30
Get Citation

Effect of dexmedetomidine or propofol sedation on haemodynamic stability of patients after thoracic surgery

Szymon Białka, Maja Copik, Jacek Karpe, Maciej Przybyła, Magdalena Śliwczyńska, Damian Czyżewski, Hanna Misiołek
DOI: 10.5603/AIT.a2018.0046
·
Pubmed: 30615795
·
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2018;50(5):359-366.

open access

Vol 50, No 5 (2018)
Original and clinical articles
Published online: 2018-12-10
Submitted: 2018-09-18
Accepted: 2018-11-30

Abstract

Background: Dexmedetomidine and propofol are commonly used sedative agents in non-invasive ventilation as they allow for easy arousal and are relatively well controllable. Moreover dexmedetomidine is associated with low risk of respiratory depression. However, both agents are associated with significant hemodynamic side effects. The primary objective of this study is to compare the influence of both drugs on hemodynamic effects in patients after thoracic surgical procedures receiving dexmedetomidine or propofol for noninvasive postoperative ventilation.

Methods: A prospective, randomised, observational study University Hospital. Interventions: Continuous sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for six hours of postoperative non-invasive ventilation after thoracic surgery, with concomitant use of continuous epidural analgesia.

Results: A total of 38 patients (20 dexmedetomidine and 18 propofol) were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes of this study is that heart rate, systolic and mean arterial blood pressure did not differ significantly between the groups, but diastolic arterial blood pressure was significantly higher in propofol group. Comparison analysis of epinephrine usage did not reveal significant differences between the groups. Cardiac output (CO) and cardiac index (CI) analysis did not show significant differences between the groups, but there is a clear tendency of lower values of CO/CI in group receiving propofol. We also observed similar tendency in stroke volume index (SVI) and stroke volume variation (SVV) values, but also those differences did not reach statistical significance. Systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) values were higher in propofol group, exceeding reference values, but similarly, the difference between the groups was not significant.

Conclusions: The main finding of this study is that dexmedetomidine and propofol provide similar advantages in haemodynamic stability during short-term sedation for non-invasive ventilation after thoracic surgical procedures in patients receiving continuous epidural analgesia.

Abstract

Background: Dexmedetomidine and propofol are commonly used sedative agents in non-invasive ventilation as they allow for easy arousal and are relatively well controllable. Moreover dexmedetomidine is associated with low risk of respiratory depression. However, both agents are associated with significant hemodynamic side effects. The primary objective of this study is to compare the influence of both drugs on hemodynamic effects in patients after thoracic surgical procedures receiving dexmedetomidine or propofol for noninvasive postoperative ventilation.

Methods: A prospective, randomised, observational study University Hospital. Interventions: Continuous sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for six hours of postoperative non-invasive ventilation after thoracic surgery, with concomitant use of continuous epidural analgesia.

Results: A total of 38 patients (20 dexmedetomidine and 18 propofol) were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes of this study is that heart rate, systolic and mean arterial blood pressure did not differ significantly between the groups, but diastolic arterial blood pressure was significantly higher in propofol group. Comparison analysis of epinephrine usage did not reveal significant differences between the groups. Cardiac output (CO) and cardiac index (CI) analysis did not show significant differences between the groups, but there is a clear tendency of lower values of CO/CI in group receiving propofol. We also observed similar tendency in stroke volume index (SVI) and stroke volume variation (SVV) values, but also those differences did not reach statistical significance. Systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) values were higher in propofol group, exceeding reference values, but similarly, the difference between the groups was not significant.

Conclusions: The main finding of this study is that dexmedetomidine and propofol provide similar advantages in haemodynamic stability during short-term sedation for non-invasive ventilation after thoracic surgical procedures in patients receiving continuous epidural analgesia.

Get Citation

Keywords

thoracic surgery, postoperative period; sedation; sedatives, dexmedetomidine; sedatives, propofol; haemodynamics, monitoring

About this article
Title

Effect of dexmedetomidine or propofol sedation on haemodynamic stability of patients after thoracic surgery

Journal

Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy

Issue

Vol 50, No 5 (2018)

Pages

359-366

Published online

2018-12-10

DOI

10.5603/AIT.a2018.0046

Pubmed

30615795

Bibliographic record

Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2018;50(5):359-366.

Keywords

thoracic surgery
postoperative period
sedation
sedatives
dexmedetomidine
sedatives
propofol
haemodynamics
monitoring

Authors

Szymon Białka
Maja Copik
Jacek Karpe
Maciej Przybyła
Magdalena Śliwczyńska
Damian Czyżewski
Hanna Misiołek

References (17)
  1. Agostini P, Cieslik H, Rathinam S, et al. Postoperative pulmonary complications following thoracic surgery: are there any modifiable risk factors? Thorax. 2010; 65(9): 815–818.
  2. Kroenke K, Lawrence VA, Theroux JF, et al. Postoperative complications after thoracic and major abdominal surgery in patients with and without obstructive lung disease. Chest. 1993; 104(5): 1445–1451.
  3. Chiumello D, Chevallard G, Gregoretti C. Non-invasive ventilation in postoperative patients: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2011; 37(6): 918–929.
  4. Soroksky A, Esquinas A. Goal-directed mechanical ventilation: are we aiming at the right goals? A proposal for an alternative approach aiming at optimal lung compliance, guided by esophageal pressure in acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Res Pract. 2012; 2012: 597932.
  5. Barbas CS, Matos GF, Amato MB, et al. Goal-oriented respiratory management for critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Res Pract. 2012; 2012: 952168.
  6. McGrane S, Pandharipande PP. Sedation in the intensive care unit. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012; 78(3): 369–380.
  7. Wanat M, Fitousis K, Boston F, et al. Comparison of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiovascular surgery. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2014; 10(2): 111–117.
  8. Wunsch H. Weighing the costs and benefits of a sedative. JAMA. 2012; 307(11): 1195–1197.
  9. Djaiani G, Silverton N, Fedorko L, et al. Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol Sedation Reduces Delirium after Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesthesiology. 2016; 124(2): 362–368.
  10. Chrysostomou C, Schmitt CG. Dexmedetomidine: sedation, analgesia and beyond. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2008; 4(5): 619–627.
  11. Ławicka M, Małek A, Antczak D, et al. Non-invasive haemodynamic measurements with Nexfin predict the risk of hypotension following spinal anaesthesia. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015; 47(4): 303–308.
  12. Talke P, Chen R, Thomas B, et al. The hemodynamic and adrenergic effects of perioperative dexmedetomidine infusion after vascular surgery. Anesth Analg. 2000; 90(4): 834–839.
  13. Arain SR, Ruehlow RM, Uhrich TD, et al. The efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus morphine for postoperative analgesia after major inpatient surgery. Anesth Analg. 2004; 98(1): 153–8, table of contents.
  14. Arain SR, Ebert TJ. The efficacy, side effects, and recovery characteristics of dexmedetomidine versus propofol when used for intraoperative sedation. Anesth Analg. 2002; 95(2): 461–6, table of contents.
  15. West A, Fiorenza M. 576. Critical Care Medicine. 2015; 43: 145.
  16. Erdman M, Doepker B, Gerlach A, et al. A Comparison of Severe Hemodynamic Disturbances Between Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation in Neurocritical Care Patients. Critical Care Medicine. 2014; 42(7): 1696–1702.
  17. Sheikh T, Dar B, Akhter N, et al. A comparative study evaluating effects of intravenous sedation by dexmedetomidine and propofol on patient hemodynamics and postoperative outcomes in cardiac surgery. Anesthesia: Essays and Researches. 2018; 12(2): 555.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

VM Media sp. z o.o. VM Group sp.k., Grupa Via Medica, Świętokrzyska 73 St., 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl