Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for controlled hypotension under general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:1
作者
Xu, Ning [1 ]
Chen, Linmu [2 ]
Liu, Lulu [3 ]
Rong, Wei [1 ]
机构
[1] Qingdao Univ, Dept Anesthesiol, Weihai Cent Hosp, Weihai, Shandong, Peoples R China
[2] Qingdao Univ, Dept Pain Med, Weihai Cent Hosp, Weihai, Shandong, Peoples R China
[3] Qingdao Univ, Dept Resp & Crit Care Med, Weihai Cent Hosp, Weihai, Shandong, Peoples R China
来源
PLOS ONE | 2023年 / 18卷 / 01期
关键词
RECOVERY;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0278846
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
This meta-analysis aimed to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension under general anesthesia. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP databases, as well as dissertations and conference papers, to obtain randomized controlled trials comparing remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension before August 23, 2021. The primary outcomes included hemodynamic profiles, surgical field score, and blood loss. Extubation time, sedation and pain score at the PACU, and perioperative adverse events were the secondary outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials with 543 patients (272 in the dexmedetomidine group and 271 in the remifentanil group) were eventually included. This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between dexmedetomidine and remifentanil in terms of surgical field score, blood loss, minimum values of mean arterial pressure (MD 0.24 with 95% CI [-1.65, 2.13], P = 0.80, I-2 = 66%) and heart rate (MD 0.42 [-1.33, 2.17], P = 0.64, I-2 = 40%), sedation scores at the PACU (MD -0.09 [-0.69, 0.50], P = 0.76, I-2 = 92%), and incidence of bradycardia (OR 2.24 [0.70, 7.15], P = 0.17, I-2 = 0%). Compared with remifentanil, dexmedetomidine as the controlled hypotensive agent showed a lower visual analogue score at the PACU (MD -1.01 [-1.25, -0.77], P<0.00001, I-2 = 0%) and incidence of shivering (OR 0.22 [0.08, 0.60], P = 0.003, I-2 = 0%), nausea, and vomiting (OR 0.34 [0.13, 0.89], P = 0.03, I-2 = 0%). However, extubation time was shorter in the remifentanil group (MD 3.34 [0.75, 5.93], P = 0.01, I-2 = 90%). In conclusion, dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are both effective in providing satisfactory controlled hypotension and surgical conditions. Dexmedetomidine is better in easing postoperative pain at the PACU and reducing the occurrence of shivering, nausea, and vomiting. Meanwhile, remifentanil is a fast-track anesthesia with a shorter extubation time. Given the limitations of this meta-analysis, further studies are needed for a more definitive comparison of the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [31] Comparison of sedation with dexmedetomidine vs propofol during hysteroscopic surgery: Single-centre randomized controlled trial
    Tanriverdi, Tugba Bingol
    Koceroglu, Ikbal
    Devrim, Sibel
    Celik, Melek Gura
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2019, 44 (02) : 312 - 317
  • [32] Upadhyay SP., 2015, Int J Biol Pharm Res, V6, P532
  • [33] Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Dexmedetomidine
    Weerink, Maud A. S.
    Struys, Michel M. R. F.
    Hannivoort, Laura N.
    Barends, Clemens R. M.
    Absalom, Anthony R.
    Colin, Pieter
    [J]. CLINICAL PHARMACOKINETICS, 2017, 56 (08) : 893 - 913
  • [34] Xu K., 2014, J PRACT MED, V14, P2305, DOI [10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2014.14.044, DOI 10.3969/J.ISSN.1006-5725.2014.14.044]
  • [35] Effect of remifentanil-based fast-track anesthesia on postoperative analgesia and sedation in adult patients undergoing transthoracic device closure of ventricular septal defect
    Xu, Ning
    Huang, Shu-Ting
    Sun, Kai-Peng
    Chen, Liang-Wan
    Chen, Qiang
    Cao, Hua
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY, 2020, 15 (01)
  • [36] Zamani Farzad, 2021, Int Tinnitus J, V24, P60, DOI 10.5935/0946-5448.20200013
  • [37] Zhan WG., 2017, JIANGXI MED, V52, P1048, DOI [10.3969/j.issn.1006-2238.2017.10.039, DOI 10.3969/J.ISSN.1006-2238.2017.10.039]
  • [38] Zhang ZM., 2021, CHINESE MED J-PEKING, V56, P779, DOI [10.3969/j.issn.1008-1070.2021.07.025, DOI 10.3969/J.ISSN.1008-1070.2021.07.025]
  • [39] Efficacy and safety of sevoflurane vs propofol in combination with remifentanil for anesthesia maintenance during craniotomy A meta-analysis
    Zhou, Zheng
    Ying, Miaofa
    Zhao, Rui
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2021, 100 (51)