Brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine vs propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in non-brain injured patients

被引:1
|
作者
Yuan, Hong-Xun [1 ]
Zhang, Li-Na [2 ]
Li, Gang [1 ,3 ]
Qiao, Li [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ, Intens Care Unit, Int Hosp, Beijing 102206, Peoples R China
[2] Capital Med Univ, Affiliated Beijing Chaoyang Hosp, Cent Operating Room, Beijing 100020, Peoples R China
[3] Peking Univ, Int Hosp, Intens Care Unit, 1 Life Pk Rd,Zhongguancun Life Sci Pk, Beijing 102206, Peoples R China
来源
WORLD JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY | 2024年 / 14卷 / 03期
关键词
Dexmedetomidine; Propofol; Sedation; Prolonged mechanical ventilation; Brain protective; MIDAZOLAM;
D O I
10.5498/wjp.v14.i3.370
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND Dexmedetomidine and propofol are two sedatives used for long-term sedation. It remains unclear whether dexmedetomidine provides superior cerebral protection for patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation. AIM To compare the neuroprotective effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury. METHODS Patients who underwent mechanical ventilation for > 72 h were randomly assigned to receive sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was used to evaluate sedation effects, with a target range of -3 to 0. The primary outcomes were serum levels of S100-beta and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) every 24 h. The secondary outcomes were remifentanil dosage, the proportion of patients requiring rescue sedation, and the time and frequency of RASS scores within the target range. RESULTS A total of 52 and 63 patients were allocated to the dexmedetomidine group and propofol group, respectively. Baseline data were comparable between groups. No significant differences were identified between groups within the median duration of study drug infusion [52.0 (IQR: 36.0-73.5) h vs 53.0 (IQR: 37.0-72.0) h, P = 0.958], the median dose of remifentanil [4.5 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) mu g/kg/h vs 4.6 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) mu g/kg/h, P = 0.395], the median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation [85.6% (IQR: 65.8%-96.6%) vs 86.7% (IQR: 72.3%-95.3), P = 0.592], and the median frequency within the target RASS range without rescue sedation [72.2% (60.8%-91.7%) vs 73.3% (60.0%-100.0%), P = 0.880]. The proportion of patients in the dexmedetomidine group who required rescue sedation was higher than in the propofol group with statistical significance (69.2% vs 50.8%, P = 0.045). Serum S100-beta and NSE levels in the propofol group were higher than in the dexmedetomidine group with statistical significance during the first six and five days of mechanical ventilation, respectively (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION Dexmedetomidine demonstrated stronger protective effects on the brain compared to propofol for long-term mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] A pilot study of cerebral and haemodynamic physiological changes during sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol in patients with acute brain injury
    James, M. L.
    Olson, D. M.
    Graffagnino, C.
    ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 2012, 40 (06) : 949 - 957
  • [2] Sedation with midazolam worsens the diaphragm function than dexmedetomidine and propofol during mechanical ventilation in rats
    Li, Shao-Ping
    Zhou, Xian-Long
    Zhao, Yan
    BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2020, 121
  • [3] Dexmedetomidine versus propofol/midazolam for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation
    Ruokonen, Esko
    Parviainen, Ilkka
    Jakob, Stephan M.
    Nunes, Silvia
    Kaukonen, Maija
    Shepherd, Stephen T.
    Sarapohja, Toni
    Bratty, J. Raymond
    Takala, Jukka
    INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2009, 35 (02) : 282 - 290
  • [4] Comparison of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in patients with traumatic brain injury
    O Tarabrin
    S Shcherbakov
    D Gavrychenko
    G Mazurenko
    Critical Care, 18 (Suppl 1):
  • [5] Dexmedetomidine versus propofol/midazolam for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation
    Esko Ruokonen
    Ilkka Parviainen
    Stephan M. Jakob
    Silvia Nunes
    Maija Kaukonen
    Stephen T. Shepherd
    Toni Sarapohja
    J. Raymond Bratty
    Jukka Takala
    Intensive Care Medicine, 2009, 35 : 282 - 290
  • [6] The effect of dexmedetomidine on agitation during weaning of mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients
    Shehabi, Y.
    Nakae, H.
    Hammond, N.
    Bass, F.
    Nicholson, L.
    Chen, J.
    ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 2010, 38 (01) : 82 - 90
  • [7] Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol sedation reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery - a randomized controlled trial
    Preveden, M.
    Zdravkovic, R.
    Vickovic, S.
    Vujic, V.
    Todic, M.
    Mladenovic, N.
    Dracina, N.
    Todic, V. Drljevic
    Pantic, T.
    Okiljevic, B.
    Markovic, N.
    Kovac, A.
    Zec, R.
    Preveden, A.
    Tatic, M.
    EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 27 (16) : 7644 - 7652
  • [8] Sedation With Dexmedetomidine in Critically Ill Burn Patients Reduced Delirium During Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation
    Stangaciu, Bianca
    Tsotsolis, Stavros
    Papadopoulou, Sophia
    Lavrentieva, Athina
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2022, 14 (11)
  • [9] The brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine during surgery for paediatric patients with congenital heart disease
    Gong, Jin
    Zhang, Rufang
    Shen, Li
    Xie, Yewei
    Li, Xiaobing
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 47 (04) : 1677 - 1684
  • [10] Effects of dexmedetomidine vs sufentanil during percutaneous tracheostomy for traumatic brain injury patients A prospective randomized controlled trial
    Gao, Jian
    Wei, Limin
    Xu, Guangjun
    Ren, Chunguang
    Zhang, Zongwang
    Liu, Yanchao
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (35) : e17012