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

IF 3.9 4区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY World Journal of Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.5498/wjp.v14.i3.370
Hong-Xun Yuan, Li-Na Zhang, Gang Li, Li Qiao
{"title":"Brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine vs propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in non-brain injured patients","authors":"Hong-Xun Yuan, Li-Na Zhang, Gang Li, Li Qiao","doi":"10.5498/wjp.v14.i3.370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n 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.\n AIM\n To compare the neuroprotective effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.\n METHODS\n 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-β 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.\n RESULTS\n 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) μg/kg/h vs 4.6 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) μg/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-β 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).\n CONCLUSION\n Dexmedetomidine demonstrated stronger protective effects on the brain compared to propofol for long-term mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.","PeriodicalId":23896,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v14.i3.370","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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-β 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) μg/kg/h vs 4.6 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) μg/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-β 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
右美托咪定与异丙酚在非脑损伤患者长期机械通气期间的镇静作用对大脑的保护作用
背景 右美托咪定和异丙酚是两种用于长期镇静的镇静剂。目前尚不清楚右美托咪定是否能为长期接受机械通气的患者提供更好的脑保护。目的 比较右美托咪定和丙泊酚在无脑损伤患者长期机械通气期间镇静对神经的保护作用。方法 随机分配接受机械通气超过 72 小时的患者接受右美托咪定或丙泊酚镇静。主要结果为每 24 小时血清中 S100-β 和神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)的水平,次要结果为瑞芬太尼用量、需要抢救镇静的患者比例以及 RASS 评分在目标范围内的时间和频率。结果 分别有 52 名和 63 名患者被分配到右美托咪定组和丙泊酚组。各组的基线数据具有可比性。研究药物输注持续时间中位数[52.0(IQR:36.0-73.5)小时 vs 53.0(IQR:37.0-72.0)小时,P = 0.958]、瑞芬太尼剂量中位数[4.5(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h vs 4.6(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h,P = 0.395]、时间中位数百分比[4.5(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h vs 4.6(IQR:4.0-5.0)μg/kg/h,P = 0.395]均无明显差异。395]、在目标 RASS 范围内未使用抢救镇静剂的时间百分比中位数[85.6% (IQR: 65.8%-96.6%) vs 86.7% (IQR: 72.3%-95.3), P = 0.592]、在目标 RASS 范围内未使用抢救镇静剂的频率中位数[72.2% (60.8%-91.7%) vs 73.3% (60.0%-100.0%), P = 0.880]。右美托咪定组需要抢救镇静的患者比例高于异丙酚组,差异有统计学意义(69.2% vs 50.8%,P = 0.045)。在机械通气的前六天和五天,异丙酚组的血清 S100-β 和 NSE 水平分别高于右美托咪定组,差异有统计学意义(均 P < 0.05)。结论 在无脑损伤患者的长期机械通气中,右美托咪定对大脑的保护作用强于异丙酚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
6.50%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Psychiatry (WJP) is a high-quality, peer reviewed, open-access journal. The primary task of WJP is to rapidly publish high-quality original articles, reviews, editorials, and case reports in the field of psychiatry. In order to promote productive academic communication, the peer review process for the WJP is transparent; to this end, all published manuscripts are accompanied by the anonymized reviewers’ comments as well as the authors’ responses. The primary aims of the WJP are to improve diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive modalities and the skills of clinicians and to guide clinical practice in psychiatry.
期刊最新文献
Alzheimer's disease with depressive symptoms: Clinical effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Botulinum toxin type A-targeted SPP1 contributes to neuropathic pain by the activation of microglia pyroptosis. Challenges and prospects in bridging precision medicine and artificial intelligence in genomic psychiatric treatment. Cognitive impairment in patients with bipolar disorder alone versus those with bipolar disorder comorbid with borderline personality disorder. Correlation between psychological traits and the use of smart medical services in young and middle-aged adults: An observational study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1