Background:Alpha2-adrenergic agonists have synergistic action with local anesthetics and may prolong the duration of sensory, motor blockade and postoperative analgesia obtained with spinal anesthesia.Aim:The objectives of this study are to compare and evaluate the efficacy of intravenous dexmedetomidine premedication with clonidine and placebo on spinal blockade duration, postoperative analgesia and sedation in patients undergoing surgery under bupivacaine intrathecal block.Materials and Methods:In this prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study, 75 patients of the American Society of Anesthesiologists status I or II, scheduled for orthopedic lower limb surgery under spinal anesthesia, were randomly allocated into three groups of 25 each. Group DE received dexmedetomidine 0.5 μgkg−1, group CL received clonidine 1.0 μgkg−1 and placebo group PL received 10 ml of normal saline intravenously before subarachnoid anesthesia with 15 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Onset time and regression times of sensory and motor blockade, the maximum upper level of sensory blockade were recorded. Duration of postoperative analgesia and sedation scores along with side effects were also recorded. Data was analyzed using analysis of variance or Chi-square test, and the value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:The sensory block level was higher with dexmedetomidine (T4 ± 1) than clonidine (T6 ± 1) or placebo (T6 ± 2). Dexmedetomidine also increased the time (243.35 ± 56.82 min) to first postoperative analgesic request compared with clonidine (190.93 ± 42.38 min, P < 0.0001) and placebo (140.75 ± 28.52 min, P < 0.0001). The maximum Ramsay sedation score was greater in the dexmedetomidine group than other two groups (P < 0.0001).Conclusion:Premedication with intravenous dexmedetomidine is better than intravenous clonidine to provide intraoperative sedation and postoperative analgesia during bupivacaine spinal anesthesia.
Context:Sympathoadrenal response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation manifests as transient, but distinct tachycardia and hypertension.Aims:The objective of this study is to compare the clinical effects of dexmedetomidine with esmolol and control in attenuating the presser response during laryngoscopy.Settings and Design:A randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled study.Subjects and Methods:We studied consented, 90 adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II patients of either sex, scheduled for non-cardiac surgery requiring intubation. The patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 30). Group C received placebo, Group E received 2.0 mg/kg of esmolol and Group D received 1.0 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine, intravenously over 10 min and 3 min before induction of general anesthesia. All patients were uniformly pre-medicated, induced and intubated using thiopentone and succinylcholine as per standard protocol. Heart rate (HR), systemic arterial pressures were recorded at baseline, after study drug infusion, after induction, immediately and 3, 5, 7, 10 min after intubation.Statistical Analysis:Analysis of variance and t-test as appropriate.Results:The mean arterial pressure was significantly increased in patients receiving placebo (P < 0.0001) and esmolol (P < 0.0001) after laryngoscopy and intubation compared with baseline value and Group D (P = 0.6294). The rise in HR (P = 0.08481) and rate pressure product (P = 0.0666) at the time of intubation were minimal and was statistically significant up to 15 min in Group D.Conclusions:Both the drugs attenuated the pressure response. Of the two drugs administered, dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg/kg provides a consistent, reliable and effective attenuation of pressure responses when compared to esmolol 2.0 mg/kg.
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.