OPEN IN READ APP
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

The effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine infusion on fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients

Tao Yu, Yingzi Huang, Fengmei Guo, Yi Yang, Jean-Louis Teboul, Haibo Qiu
Journal of Surgical Research 2013, 185 (2): 763-73
23953789

BACKGROUND: We studied the effects of propofol or dexmedetomidine on preload dependency and fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients.

METHODS: In the study, we included 91 patients with acute circulatory failure (70 ± 15 y) who received propofol (n = 45 patients, PROP group) or dexmedetomidine (n = 46 patients, DEX group). An initial passive leg-raising (PLR 1) test was performed in all patients to evaluate preload dependency at baseline. Propofol and dexmedetomidine were infused and titrated according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale; the results ranged from -2 to -1, and the bispectral index values ranged from 60-75. A second PLR test (PLR 2) was performed before administration of a 250-mL normal saline fluid challenge over a 5-min period. We obtained central venous pressure and cardiac index (CI) measurements before and after the two PLR tests and volume expansion. An increase of ≥10% in CI during PLR was considered to be a positive test finding that was indicative of preload dependency, whereas an increase of <10% in CI during PLR was considered to be a negative test finding.

RESULTS: At baseline, 22 of 45 patients had negative PLR 1 in the PROP group, whereas 20 of 46 patients had negative PLR 1 in the DEX group. After propofol or dexmedetomidine sedation, there were significant decreases in CI (-9.5% [±6.6%] versus -16.4% [±8.5%], P < 0.001) in the PROP and DEX groups, respectively. In the PROP group, there were significant increases in CI (+18.4% [±9.5%] versus +10.7% [±12.3%], P < 0.05) induced by PLR 2 compared with that induced by PLR 1. In the DEX group, there were no significant increases in CI (+13.2% [±14.9%] versus +12.8% [±17.7%]) induced by PLR 2 compared with that induced by PLR 1. Although the mean arterial pressure values increased comparably with the volume expansion observed in both groups, the volume expansion resulted in a significantly higher increase in CI compared with the baseline values in the PROP group (3.2 ± 0.8 versus 3.2 ± 0.7 L/min/m(2)) but not in the DEX group (2.9 ± 0.7 versus 3.1 ± 0.8 L/min/m(2), P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: We observed that propofol infusion, but not dexmedetomidine infusion, can increase preload dependency and fluid responsiveness in patients with circulatory failure.

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
23953789
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"