Background:During the lead implantation of most spinal cord neurostimulators, the patient has to be comfortable and without pain. However, the patient is expected to provide feedback during electrical mapping. Titrating sedatives and analgesics for this double goal can be challenging. In comparison with our standard sedative agent propofol, the pharmacological profile of dexmedetomidine is more conducive to produce arousable sedation. The latter, however, is associated with hemodynamic side effects. We investigated whether dexmedetomidine is preferable over propofol during neurostimulator implantation.Methods: This single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial included 72 patients with an indication for a neurostimulator, randomized to sedation with either propofol (0.5 mg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 2.0 mg/kg/h) or dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the sedation. The secondary outcomes were patient's and operator's comfort, number of titration adjustments, standard intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and side effects. Results: Data of 69 patients (dexmedetomidine n = 35; propofol n = 34) were analyzed. Those receiving dexmedetomidine were more satisfied with the sedation than those receiving propofol; i.e. with sedation delivery (median 100.0 vs 83.3, P < .01), procedural recall (median 95.8 vs 83.3, P = .03), and sedation side effects (median 90.0 vs 83.3, P = .01). Fewer changes in the dexmedetomidine titration were necessary to maintain arousable sedation. Over time, mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group. Hemodynamic side effects were comparable across groups.Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine sedation resulted in higher patient satisfaction and allowed for better arousable sedation than sedation with propofol. Although differences in hemodynamic parameters were found between the groups, these differences were not regarded as clinically relevant. 1322 | ter BrUGGeN et al. S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. How to cite this article: ter Bruggen FFJA, Ceuppens C, Leliveld L, Stronks DL, Huygen FJPM. Dexmedetomidine vs propofol as sedation for implantation of neurostimulators: A single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Acta
Background: The high and increasing rate of opioid use is a serious issue in the Western world affecting the population's physical and mental health. In most cases, opioid dependency starts with prescriptions by medical professionals, so efforts aimed at reducing inhospital opioid use should result in less long-term dependency. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an opioid-scarce protocol as part of a new online modifiable Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (mERAS) programme. Methods: A single-centre retrospective study was conducted comparing a cohort treated under the new opioid-scarce mERAS protocol (n = 96; May 2018-Nov 2018) to those treated under the original ERAS protocol (n = 84; November 2017-April 2018). The primary outcome was the quantity and duration of opioid use. Results: Fewer patients used fentanyl via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia in the mERAS group (54% versus 70%; P = 0.03). The mERAS group was also less likely to use oral oxycodone (80% versus 99%; P < 0.0001) and for a shorter duration (median 3 versus 5 days; P = 0.0002). More local anaesthetic transversus abdominis plane catheters were used in the mERAS group (34% versus 6% in the control group; P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Opioid use can be significantly reduced after elective colorectal surgery by employing an opioid-scarce ERAS protocol. Further data is required to confirm the clinical benefits of this approach.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.