Methods: Sixty-four patients aged 18-60 years, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class I-II who underwent elective surgery were randomised to a Marsh group (n= 32) or Schnider group (n= 32). All the patients received a 1 μg/kg loading dose of dexmedetomidine, followed by TCI anaesthesia with remifentanil at 2 ng/mL. After the effect-site concentration (Ce) of remifentanil reached 2 ng/mL, propofol TCI induction was started. Anaesthesia induction commenced in the Marsh group at a target plasma concentration (Cpt) of 2 μg/mL, whereas it started in the Schnider group at a target effect-site concentration (Cet) of 2 μg/mL. If induction was delayed after 3 min, the target concentration (Ct) was gradually increased to 0.5 μg/mL every 30 sec until successful induction. The Ct at successful induction, induction time, Ce at successful induction and haemodynamic parameters were recorded.
Results: The Ct for successful induction in the Schnider group was significantly lower than in the Marsh group (3.48 [0.90] versus 4.02 [0.67] μg/mL;P= 0.01). The induction time was also shorter in the Schnider group as compared with the Marsh group (134.96 [50.91] versus 161.59 [39.64]) sec;P= 0.02). There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters and Ce at successful induction.
Conclusion: In the between-group comparison, dexmedetomidine reduced the Ct requirement for induction and shortened the induction time in the Schnider group. The inclusion of baseline groups without dexmedetomidine in a four-arm comparison of the two models would enhance the validity of the findings.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether combined total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) technique with propofol/remifentanil is associated with less SSEP suppression when compared to combined volatile agent desflurane/remifentanil anesthesia during corrective scoliosis surgery at a comparable depth of anesthesia.
DESIGN: It is a randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: The study was conducted at the Single tertiary University Hospital during October 2014 to June 2015.
PATIENTS: Patients who required SSEP and had no neurological deficits, and were of American Society of Anesthesiologist I and II physical status, were included. Patients who had sensory or motor deficits preoperatively and significant cardiovascular and respiratory disease were excluded. A total of 72 patients were screened, and 67 patients were randomized and allocated to two groups: 34 in desflurane/remifentanil group and 33 in TIVA group. Four patients from desflurane/remifentanil group and three from TIVA group were withdrawn due to decrease in SSEP amplitude to <0.3 µV after induction of anesthesia. Thirty patients from each group were analyzed.
INTERVENTIONS: Sixty-seven patients were randomized to receive TIVA or desflurane/remifentanil anesthesia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The measurements taken were the amplitude and latency of SSEP monitoring at five different time points during surgery: before and after the induction of anesthesia, at skin incision, at pedicle screw insertion, and at rod insertion.
RESULTS: Both anesthesia techniques, TIVA and desflurane/remifentanil, resulted in decreased amplitude and increased latencies of both cervical and cortical peaks. The desflurane/remifentanil group had a significantly greater reduction in the amplitude ( p = 0.004) and an increase in latency ( p = 0.002) of P40 compared with the TIVA group. However, there were no differences in both amplitude ( p = 0.214) and latency ( p = 0.16) in cervical SSEP between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TIVA technique, desflurane/remifentanil anesthesia caused more suppression in cortical SSEP, but not in cervical SSEP, at a comparable depth of anesthesia.
Methods: A total of 110 severe TBI patients, aged 18-60, who underwent emergency brain surgery were randomised into Group T (TCI) (n = 55) and Group S (sevoflurane) (n = 55). Anaesthesia was maintained in Group T with propofol target plasma concentration of 3-6 μg/mL and in Group S with minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane 1.0-1.5. Both groups received TCI remifentanil 2-8 ng/mL for analgesia. After the surgery, patients were managed in the intensive care unit and were followed up until discharge for the outcome parameters.
Results: Demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups. Differences in Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at discharge were not significant between Group T and Group S (P = 0.25): the percentages of mortality (GOS 1) [27.3% versus 16.4%], vegetative and severe disability (GOS 2-3) [29.1% versus 41.8%] and good outcome (GOS 4-5) [43.6% versus 41.8%] were comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in other outcome parameters.
Conclusion: TCI propofol and sevoflurane anaesthesia were comparable in the outcomes of TBI patients after emergency surgery.
METHODS: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days.
RESULTS: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.).