Dexmedetomidine causes prolonged recovery when compared with midazolam/fentanyl combination in outpatient shock wave lithotripsy

被引:36
作者
Zeyneloglu, P. [1 ]
Pirat, A. [1 ]
Candan, S. [1 ]
Kuyumcu, S. [1 ]
Tekin, I. [2 ]
Arslan, G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Baskent Univ, Fac Med, Dept Anaesthesiol, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey
[2] Baskent Univ, Fac Med, Dept Urol, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey
关键词
DEXMEDETOMIDINE; ANAESTHESIA RECOVERY PERIOD; LITHOTRIPSY; SEDATION; AMBULATORY CARE;
D O I
10.1017/S0265021508004699
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background and objectives: Analgesia and sedation are usually required during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. In the present study, the recovery time and effectiveness of sedation and analgesia of dexmedetomidine me was compared with a midazolam/fentanyl combination in outpatient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Methods: Forty-nine patients scheduled for outpatient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy were randomly assigned to two groups: a dex group (n = 25; dexmedetomidine 1 mu g kg(-1) loading dose followed by dexmedetomidine 0.2 mu g kg(-1) h(-1)) and a control group (n = 24; midazolam 0.05 mg kg(-1) and fentanyl 1 mu g k(-1) h(-1)) and a control group (n = 24; midazolam 1 mg), and patients' satisfaction rates were recorded. Results: The two groups were similar regarding patient characteristics and procedure-related details (P>0.05). Recovery time was significantly prolonged in the dex group when compared with the control group (116.4 +/- 39.3 vs. 50.8 +/- 19.8 min, respectively, P < 0.001). The percentage of patients requiring rescue doses of fentanyl and the applied doses were significantly higher in the dex group than in the control group (96% vs. 67%, P = 0.01; and 69.0 +/- 31.7 vs. 38.8 +/- 42.9 mu g, respectively, P = 0.007). More patients in the dex group received rescue midazolam (96% vs. 58%, P = 0.002). More patients in the control group were highly satisfied with their sedarion/analgesia (83% vs. 56%, P = 0.038). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine was associated with a longer recovery time than a midazolam/fentanyl combination when used for sedation and analgesia during Outpatient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in this study. The incidence of rescue sedative and analgesic need was also significantly higher when demedetomidine was used.
引用
收藏
页码:961 / 967
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
ALDRETE JA, 1970, ANESTH ANAL CURR RES, V49, P924
[2]   Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for monitored anaesthesia care during cataract surgery [J].
Alhashemi, JA .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2006, 96 (06) :722-726
[3]  
Alhashemi JA, 2006, CAN J ANAESTH, V53, P449, DOI 10.1007/BF03022616
[4]  
Alhashemi JA, 2004, CAN J ANAESTH, V51, P342, DOI 10.1007/BF03018237
[5]   The efficacy, side effects, and recovery characteristics of dexmedetomidine versus propofol when used for intraoperative sedation [J].
Arain, SR ;
Ebert, TJ .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2002, 95 (02) :461-466
[6]   Remifentanil compared with sufentanil during extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy with spontaneous ventilation: a double-blind, randomized study [J].
Beloeil, H ;
Corsia, G ;
Coriat, P ;
Riou, B .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2002, 89 (04) :567-570
[7]   Dexmedetomidine [J].
Bhana, N ;
Goa, KL ;
McClellan, KJ .
DRUGS, 2000, 59 (02) :263-268
[8]   The effects of pre-operative dexmedetomidine infusion on hemodynamics in patients with pulmonary hypertension undergoing mitral valve replacement surgery [J].
But, A. K. ;
Ozgul, U. ;
Erdil, F. ;
Gulhas, N. ;
Toprak, H. I. ;
Durmus, M. ;
Ersoy, M. O. .
ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2006, 50 (10) :1207-1212
[9]  
CHERNIK DA, 1990, J CLIN PSYCHOPHARM, V10, P244
[10]  
Coursin D B, 2001, Curr Opin Crit Care, V7, P221, DOI 10.1097/00075198-200108000-00002