International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology · 2019
Sedation withdrawal following single stage laryngotracheal reconstruction: Does dexmedetomidine help?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Li Lilun, Strum David, Pestieau Sophie R, Zalzal George, Preciado Diego
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Single-stage laryngotracheal reconstruction (SS-LTR) requires a period of post-operative intubation, during which time adequate sedation is needed to ensure graft healing. Commonly used agents include benzodiazepines, opioids, and more recently, dexmedetomidine, a centrally-acting α2 adrenoreceptor. This study aims to compare withdrawal outcomes between various sedation regimens following SS-LTR.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 56 patients who underwent SS-LTR between 2008 and 2018 at a tertiary free-standing children's hospital was performed. Of 47 patients with complete records, 18 patients received dexmedetomidine for >75% of their intubation period with midazolam (DexWM), 9 received dexmedetomidine for >75% without midazolam (DexWOM), and 20 received dexmedetomidine for <75% with midazolam (noDex).
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in length of PICU or hospital stay between the groups. The noDex group trended toward a higher re-intubation rate of 25%, as compared with 11% of DexWOM and 5.6% of DexWM (p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in days of oral sedation taper required or Withdrawal Assessment Tool (WAT-1) score for post-extubation days 1 and 3. By post-extubation day 5, 100% of the DexWM group had WAT-1 scores <3 as compared with 71.4% of the noDex group (p = 0.037). Notably, lower average daily doses of dexmedetomidine and midazolam were used in the DexWM group, as compared with the DexWOM and noDex groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine as a primary sedation agent with midazolam allows for adequate sedation following SS-LTR. The combination of the two drugs in the DexWM group not only reduced the dosage of each drug needed, but also significantly improved WAT-1 scores by post-extubation day 5, as compared with the alternative sedation regimens.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 56 patients who underwent SS-LTR between 2008 and 2018 at a tertiary free-standing children's hospital was performed. Of 47 patients with complete records, 18 patients received dexmedetomidine for >75% of their intubation period with midazolam (DexWM), 9 received dexmedetomidine for >75% without midazolam (DexWOM), and 20 received dexmedetomidine for <75% with midazolam (noDex).
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in length of PICU or hospital stay between the groups. The noDex group trended toward a higher re-intubation rate of 25%, as compared with 11% of DexWOM and 5.6% of DexWM (p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in days of oral sedation taper required or Withdrawal Assessment Tool (WAT-1) score for post-extubation days 1 and 3. By post-extubation day 5, 100% of the DexWM group had WAT-1 scores <3 as compared with 71.4% of the noDex group (p = 0.037). Notably, lower average daily doses of dexmedetomidine and midazolam were used in the DexWM group, as compared with the DexWOM and noDex groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine as a primary sedation agent with midazolam allows for adequate sedation following SS-LTR. The combination of the two drugs in the DexWM group not only reduced the dosage of each drug needed, but also significantly improved WAT-1 scores by post-extubation day 5, as compared with the alternative sedation regimens.