Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2023
Hemodynamic Safety and Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Superficial Cervical Block Quality for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Prospective Study.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Skrtic Matteo, Lijovic Lada, Pazur Iva, Perisa Nikola, Radocaj Tomislav
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics (LAs) in regional anesthesia has demonstrated a positive effect on the quality of regional blocks, but there are no studies on usage in superficial cervical block (SCB) for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), in which the management of mean arterial pressure is essential. The authors designed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study to investigate the effects of the addition of dexmedetomidine on the hemodynamic management and quality of SCB.
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.
SETTING: A single-center study at a university hospital center.
PARTICIPANTS: Ultrasound-guided SCB was performed on 60 patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists Grades II and III undergoing elective CEA surgery who were assigned into 2 groups randomly.
INTERVENTION(S): Both groups received 2 mg/kg of 0.5% levobupivacaine with 2 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine. The intervention group additionally received 50 μg of dexmedetomidine.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The onset and duration of sensory block and analgesia, hemodynamic parameters, and adverse effects were recorded. There were minimum effects on hemodynamic parameters and no differences in the incidence of adverse effects. The time to first analgesia was longer in the intervention group than in the control group (N = 30). There was no difference in the duration of the sensory block between groups. The log-rank test indicated a significant difference in the probability of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale <3.
CONCLUSION: The addition of 50 μg of dexmedetomidine to 0.5% levobupivacaine and 2% lidocaine for SCB did not influence the hemodynamics and frequency of adverse effects. The median sensory block duration time showed no statistical difference between the groups, but the quality of analgesia postoperatively was much improved in the study group.
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.
SETTING: A single-center study at a university hospital center.
PARTICIPANTS: Ultrasound-guided SCB was performed on 60 patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists Grades II and III undergoing elective CEA surgery who were assigned into 2 groups randomly.
INTERVENTION(S): Both groups received 2 mg/kg of 0.5% levobupivacaine with 2 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine. The intervention group additionally received 50 μg of dexmedetomidine.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The onset and duration of sensory block and analgesia, hemodynamic parameters, and adverse effects were recorded. There were minimum effects on hemodynamic parameters and no differences in the incidence of adverse effects. The time to first analgesia was longer in the intervention group than in the control group (N = 30). There was no difference in the duration of the sensory block between groups. The log-rank test indicated a significant difference in the probability of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale <3.
CONCLUSION: The addition of 50 μg of dexmedetomidine to 0.5% levobupivacaine and 2% lidocaine for SCB did not influence the hemodynamics and frequency of adverse effects. The median sensory block duration time showed no statistical difference between the groups, but the quality of analgesia postoperatively was much improved in the study group.