We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Impact of dexmedetomidine on analgesic requirements in patients after cardiac surgery in a fast-track recovery room setting.
Pharmacotherapy 2009 December
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative opioid requirements in patients who received dexmedetomidine versus propofol after cardiac surgery.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Large, community teaching hospital that uses a fast-track cardiovascular recovery unit (CVRU) model.
PATIENTS: One hundred adults who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery and/or valvular surgery, and who received either dexmedetomidine (50 patients) or propofol (50 patients) for perioperative sedation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were matched according to surgery type and left ventricular ejection fraction. Opioid requirements were assessed over two time intervals: from arrival in the CVRU to discontinuation of the sedative infusion, and from CVRU arrival to CVRU discharge, up to a maximum of 72 hours if admission to the intensive care unit was necessary. All postoperative opioid doses were converted to morphine equivalents. Length of mechanical ventilation, quality of sedation, adverse drug events, and sedation-related costs were determined. Opioid requirements were significantly lower during the sedative infusion period for dexmedetomidine-treated patients than for propofol-treated patients (median [range] 0 [0-10 mg] vs 4 mg [0-33 mg], p<0.001), but not through the entire CVRU admission (median [range] 26 mg [0-119 mg] vs 30 mg (0-100 mg], p=0.284). The proportion of patients who did not require opioids during the infusion was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the propofol group (32 [64%] vs 13 [26%], p<0.001). No significant differences were noted between the groups for length of mechanical ventilation, quality of sedation, or adverse events. Sedation-related costs were significantly higher (approximately $50/patient higher) with dexmedetomidine (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine resulted in lower opioid requirements in patients after cardiac surgery versus those receiving propofol, but this did not result in shorter durations of mechanical ventilation, using a fast-track CVRU model.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Large, community teaching hospital that uses a fast-track cardiovascular recovery unit (CVRU) model.
PATIENTS: One hundred adults who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery and/or valvular surgery, and who received either dexmedetomidine (50 patients) or propofol (50 patients) for perioperative sedation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were matched according to surgery type and left ventricular ejection fraction. Opioid requirements were assessed over two time intervals: from arrival in the CVRU to discontinuation of the sedative infusion, and from CVRU arrival to CVRU discharge, up to a maximum of 72 hours if admission to the intensive care unit was necessary. All postoperative opioid doses were converted to morphine equivalents. Length of mechanical ventilation, quality of sedation, adverse drug events, and sedation-related costs were determined. Opioid requirements were significantly lower during the sedative infusion period for dexmedetomidine-treated patients than for propofol-treated patients (median [range] 0 [0-10 mg] vs 4 mg [0-33 mg], p<0.001), but not through the entire CVRU admission (median [range] 26 mg [0-119 mg] vs 30 mg (0-100 mg], p=0.284). The proportion of patients who did not require opioids during the infusion was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the propofol group (32 [64%] vs 13 [26%], p<0.001). No significant differences were noted between the groups for length of mechanical ventilation, quality of sedation, or adverse events. Sedation-related costs were significantly higher (approximately $50/patient higher) with dexmedetomidine (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine resulted in lower opioid requirements in patients after cardiac surgery versus those receiving propofol, but this did not result in shorter durations of mechanical ventilation, using a fast-track CVRU model.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app