Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC) as an Alternative to General Anesthesia (GA): Prospective Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine and Ketamine Infusions with Ultrasonography (USG) Guided Pectoral Nerve Block (PECs) for Postoperative Analgesia in Breast Surgery.

A Dhanya, Shilpi Yadav, Charls Thomas, Vikram Vardhan, Ankita Kabi, Ravi Shankar Sharma, Vibha Rani Pipal, Seema Yadav, Dharmendra K Pipal, Aroop Mohanty, Rama Shankar Rath, Hira Lal Bhalla, Abhimanyu Vasudeva
{"title":"Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC) as an Alternative to General Anesthesia (GA): Prospective Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine and Ketamine Infusions with Ultrasonography (USG) Guided Pectoral Nerve Block (PECs) for Postoperative Analgesia in Breast Surgery.","authors":"A Dhanya, Shilpi Yadav, Charls Thomas, Vikram Vardhan, Ankita Kabi, Ravi Shankar Sharma, Vibha Rani Pipal, Seema Yadav, Dharmendra K Pipal, Aroop Mohanty, Rama Shankar Rath, Hira Lal Bhalla, Abhimanyu Vasudeva","doi":"10.26574/maedica.2024.19.2.283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>PECs blocks are usually combined for breast surgery under general anesthesia (GA) to provide postoperative analgesia rather than primary anesthesia technique.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A prospective, interventional, single-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled, Helsinki protocol-compliant clinical study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching center after obtaining the Ethics Committee's approval and patients' written informed consent. Forty-eight American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II patients aged 18-60 years, undergoing elective unilateral breast surgery were enrolled. Patients were block-randomized (computer-generated) to two equal groups (24 patients each), with one of them receiving Dexmedetomidine and the other one Ketamine. For concealment, sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes were used. The study was double-blinded for both the anesthesiologist and outcome assessor anesthesiologist. Obese patients (body mass index > 30), those with infection at block site, coagulopathy and known hypersensitivity to local anesthetics or study medications as well as individuals who refused participation in research were all excluded. The Dexmedetomidine group received a bolus of 0.5 mcg/kg over ten minutes, followed by an infusion of 0.3 mcg/kg/hour, while the Ketamine group received a bolus of 0.5 mg/kg over ten minutes, followed by an infusion of 0.3 mg/kg/hour. Postoperative analgesia was compared using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at regular intervals. When VAS exceeded four, 1 mg/kg intravenous Pethidine was administered as a rescue analgesic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sub-anesthetic low-dose Ketamine was more effective than low-dose Dexmedetomidine in prolonging PECs block analgesia, which was statistically significant (p value < 0.001). The Ketamine group had lower rescue analgesic Pethidine consumption and longer first-rescue analgesia demand time. There was no significant hemodynamic difference between the study groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ketamine was more efficient than Dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":74094,"journal":{"name":"Maedica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345049/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maedica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26574/maedica.2024.19.2.283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: PECs blocks are usually combined for breast surgery under general anesthesia (GA) to provide postoperative analgesia rather than primary anesthesia technique.

Material and methods: A prospective, interventional, single-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled, Helsinki protocol-compliant clinical study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching center after obtaining the Ethics Committee's approval and patients' written informed consent. Forty-eight American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II patients aged 18-60 years, undergoing elective unilateral breast surgery were enrolled. Patients were block-randomized (computer-generated) to two equal groups (24 patients each), with one of them receiving Dexmedetomidine and the other one Ketamine. For concealment, sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes were used. The study was double-blinded for both the anesthesiologist and outcome assessor anesthesiologist. Obese patients (body mass index > 30), those with infection at block site, coagulopathy and known hypersensitivity to local anesthetics or study medications as well as individuals who refused participation in research were all excluded. The Dexmedetomidine group received a bolus of 0.5 mcg/kg over ten minutes, followed by an infusion of 0.3 mcg/kg/hour, while the Ketamine group received a bolus of 0.5 mg/kg over ten minutes, followed by an infusion of 0.3 mg/kg/hour. Postoperative analgesia was compared using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at regular intervals. When VAS exceeded four, 1 mg/kg intravenous Pethidine was administered as a rescue analgesic.

Results: Sub-anesthetic low-dose Ketamine was more effective than low-dose Dexmedetomidine in prolonging PECs block analgesia, which was statistically significant (p value < 0.001). The Ketamine group had lower rescue analgesic Pethidine consumption and longer first-rescue analgesia demand time. There was no significant hemodynamic difference between the study groups.

Conclusion: Ketamine was more efficient than Dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia.

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
监测麻醉护理(MAC)作为全身麻醉(GA)的替代方案:前瞻性双盲随机对照研究:比较右美托咪定和氯胺酮输注与超声波(USG)引导下胸神经阻滞(PECs)用于乳房手术术后镇痛的有效性和安全性》(Prospective Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine and Ketamine Infusions with Ultrasonography (USG) Guided Pectoral Nerve Block (PECs) for Postoperative Analgesia in Breast Surgery)。
背景和目的:在全身麻醉(GA)下进行乳腺手术时,通常会合并使用PECs阻滞,以提供术后镇痛,而不是主要麻醉技术:在获得伦理委员会批准和患者书面知情同意后,在一家三级医疗教学中心开展了一项符合赫尔辛基协议的前瞻性、介入性、单中心、双盲、随机、平行组、主动对照临床研究。48名年龄在18-60岁之间、接受择期单侧乳房手术的美国麻醉医师协会体能状态I/II级患者被纳入研究。患者被整群随机(计算机生成)分为两组(每组 24 人),其中一组接受右美托咪定,另一组接受氯胺酮。为了掩人耳目,使用了按顺序编号、密封的不透明信封。麻醉师和结果评估者麻醉师均为双盲。肥胖患者(体重指数大于 30)、阻滞部位感染者、凝血功能障碍患者、已知对局麻药或研究药物过敏者以及拒绝参与研究者均被排除在外。右美托咪定组在十分钟内注射 0.5 微克/千克,然后每小时输注 0.3 微克/千克;氯胺酮组在十分钟内注射 0.5 毫克/千克,然后每小时输注 0.3 毫克/千克。术后镇痛采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行定时比较。当 VAS 超过 4 时,静脉注射 1 毫克/千克哌替啶作为解救镇痛剂:结果:亚麻醉低剂量氯胺酮比低剂量右美托咪定更有效地延长PECs阻滞镇痛时间,这在统计学上具有显著意义(P值<0.001)。氯胺酮组的抢救镇痛药哌替啶用量更少,首次抢救镇痛需求时间更长。研究组之间没有明显的血液动力学差异:结论:氯胺酮的术后镇痛效果优于右美托咪定。
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
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
High-Dose or Low-Dose Corticosteroids - Which Regimen is More Effective in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19? A Retrospective Study. Histological Chorioamnionitis - Experience from a Tertiary Care Center. Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Waitlisted Preoperative General Surgical Patients in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India - Problems and Probable Solutions: an Observational Study. Improvement of Mucoid Impaction with Dupilumab in a Severe Asthma Patient. Incidence of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after COVID-19 Vaccination: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
×
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