Frontiers in medicine · 2026
Differential effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine on explicit and implicit memory after sedation: a retrospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Bojun, Jia Fang, Li Ping
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on early postoperative cognitive function and safety in patients undergoing short-term surgical sedation.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 295 adult patients who received intravenous sedation during non-cardiac surgery (January 2023-January 2025). Patients were divided into dexmedetomidine (n = 150) and propofol (n = 145) groups. Postoperative day 1 outcomes included explicit memory (RAVLT delayed recall) and processing speed (picture naming reaction time). Perioperative hemodynamics, recovery time, and adverse events were recorded.
RESULTS: On postoperative day 1, the dexmedetomidine group showed higher RAVLT delayed recall scores (8.08 ± 3.06 vs. 7.24 ± 2.82, p = 0.015) but longer picture naming reaction time (881.42 ± 125.34 ms vs. 847.53 ± 118.76 ms, p = 0.037) compared to propofol. Median recovery time was longer with dexmedetomidine (18.00 vs. 14.00 min, p < 0.001). Dexmedetomidine was associated with more bradycardia requiring intervention (p = 0.034), while propofol had more injection pain (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in hypoxemia or hypotension (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified dexmedetomidine use as an independent factor for higher postoperative RAVLT scores (p = 0.007).
CONCLUSION: In this short-term sedation cohort, dexmedetomidine was associated with better explicit memory but slower processing speed and longer recovery versus propofol, with distinct safety profiles. The clinical significance of these small cognitive differences remains uncertain, and prospective validation is needed.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 295 adult patients who received intravenous sedation during non-cardiac surgery (January 2023-January 2025). Patients were divided into dexmedetomidine (n = 150) and propofol (n = 145) groups. Postoperative day 1 outcomes included explicit memory (RAVLT delayed recall) and processing speed (picture naming reaction time). Perioperative hemodynamics, recovery time, and adverse events were recorded.
RESULTS: On postoperative day 1, the dexmedetomidine group showed higher RAVLT delayed recall scores (8.08 ± 3.06 vs. 7.24 ± 2.82, p = 0.015) but longer picture naming reaction time (881.42 ± 125.34 ms vs. 847.53 ± 118.76 ms, p = 0.037) compared to propofol. Median recovery time was longer with dexmedetomidine (18.00 vs. 14.00 min, p < 0.001). Dexmedetomidine was associated with more bradycardia requiring intervention (p = 0.034), while propofol had more injection pain (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in hypoxemia or hypotension (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified dexmedetomidine use as an independent factor for higher postoperative RAVLT scores (p = 0.007).
CONCLUSION: In this short-term sedation cohort, dexmedetomidine was associated with better explicit memory but slower processing speed and longer recovery versus propofol, with distinct safety profiles. The clinical significance of these small cognitive differences remains uncertain, and prospective validation is needed.