Dexmedetomidine versus ketamine in improving tolerance to noninvasive ventilation after blunt chest trauma: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-26 DOI:10.4103/joacp.joacp_145_23
Huda F Ghazaly, Mohamed M Elansary, Ahmed A Mahmoud, Mohamed K Hasanen, Mahmoud M Hassan
{"title":"Dexmedetomidine versus ketamine in improving tolerance to noninvasive ventilation after blunt chest trauma: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.","authors":"Huda F Ghazaly, Mohamed M Elansary, Ahmed A Mahmoud, Mohamed K Hasanen, Mahmoud M Hassan","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_145_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Even though patient tolerance is critical to the success of noninvasive ventilation (NIV), research on using sedation to improve tolerance to NIV after traumatic chest injuries is limited. We hypothesized that dexmedetomidine would be superior to ketamine in terms of patient tolerance and lengthening the NIV sessions after blunt chest trauma.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial included 45 patients of both genders aged 18-60 who needed NIV after blunt chest trauma. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups (<i>n</i> = 15) for receiving dexmedetomidine, ketamine, or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) infusion to maintain a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score between 0 and - 3 during two successive NIV sessions. Patients were evaluated for the duration of the NIV sessions, RASS, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the total amount of rescue analgesia consumed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean duration of the NIV sessions was significantly longer in patients who received dexmedetomidine (<i>P</i> < 0.001) or ketamine (<i>P</i> < 0.001) compared to placebo. However, the NIV durations did not differ significantly between the dexmedetomidine and ketamine groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05). The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly lower RASS score compared to the ketamine (<i>P</i> < 0.001) and placebo (<i>P</i> < 0.001) groups, whereas the ketamine group had a significantly lower VAS compared to the dexmedetomidine (<i>P</i> = 0.005) and placebo (<i>P</i> = 0.022) groups and required significantly less total morphine (<i>P</i> = 0.001) compared to the other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The duration of the NIV sessions for patients with blunt chest trauma did not differ significantly between the dexmedetomidine and ketamine groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"40 4","pages":"619-625"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_145_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Even though patient tolerance is critical to the success of noninvasive ventilation (NIV), research on using sedation to improve tolerance to NIV after traumatic chest injuries is limited. We hypothesized that dexmedetomidine would be superior to ketamine in terms of patient tolerance and lengthening the NIV sessions after blunt chest trauma.

Material and methods: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial included 45 patients of both genders aged 18-60 who needed NIV after blunt chest trauma. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 15) for receiving dexmedetomidine, ketamine, or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) infusion to maintain a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score between 0 and - 3 during two successive NIV sessions. Patients were evaluated for the duration of the NIV sessions, RASS, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the total amount of rescue analgesia consumed.

Results: The mean duration of the NIV sessions was significantly longer in patients who received dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001) or ketamine (P < 0.001) compared to placebo. However, the NIV durations did not differ significantly between the dexmedetomidine and ketamine groups (P > 0.05). The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly lower RASS score compared to the ketamine (P < 0.001) and placebo (P < 0.001) groups, whereas the ketamine group had a significantly lower VAS compared to the dexmedetomidine (P = 0.005) and placebo (P = 0.022) groups and required significantly less total morphine (P = 0.001) compared to the other groups.

Conclusion: The duration of the NIV sessions for patients with blunt chest trauma did not differ significantly between the dexmedetomidine and ketamine groups.

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
右美托咪定与氯胺酮改善钝性胸外伤后无创通气耐受性:一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验
背景和目的:尽管患者耐受性对无创通气(NIV)的成功至关重要,但创伤性胸部损伤后使用镇静提高无创通气耐受性的研究有限。我们假设右美托咪定在患者耐受性和延长钝性胸部创伤后的NIV时间方面优于氯胺酮。材料和方法:这项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照的试验包括45名年龄在18-60岁的男女患者,他们在钝性胸部创伤后需要使用NIV。患者被随机分为三组(n = 15),分别接受右美托咪定、氯胺酮或安慰剂(0.9%氯化钠溶液)输注,在连续两次NIV治疗期间保持里士满搅拌镇静量表(RASS)评分在0到- 3之间。评估患者的NIV持续时间、RASS、视觉模拟量表(VAS)和抢救镇痛的总用量。结果:与安慰剂相比,接受右美托咪定(P < 0.001)或氯胺酮(P < 0.001)治疗的患者,NIV疗程的平均持续时间明显更长。然而,右美托咪定组和氯胺酮组的NIV持续时间无显著差异(P < 0.05)。右美托咪定组的RASS评分明显低于氯胺酮组(P < 0.001)和安慰剂组(P < 0.001),而氯胺酮组的VAS评分明显低于右美托咪定组(P = 0.005)和安慰剂组(P = 0.022),所需总吗啡量明显低于其他组(P = 0.001)。结论:右美托咪定组和氯胺酮组钝性胸外伤患者的NIV持续时间无显著差异。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
129
期刊介绍: The JOACP publishes original peer-reviewed research and clinical work in all branches of anaesthesiology, pain, critical care and perioperative medicine including the application to basic sciences. In addition, the journal publishes review articles, special articles, brief communications/reports, case reports, and reports of new equipment, letters to editor, book reviews and obituaries. It is international in scope and comprehensive in coverage.
期刊最新文献
A new device, LMA Gastro™, on the horizon for endoscopy procedures: A narrative review. Acute unilateral swelling of parotid gland after lateral decubitus position under general anesthesia: Anesthesia Mumps. Comparative evaluation of oral premedication with clonidine and metoprolol on surgical field conditions and intraoperative hemodynamics during functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Comparison of discussion-based and simulation-based learning methods using the Gas Man® on knowledge of the uptake and distribution of inhalation anesthetics of anesthesia resident: A randomized controlled trial. Comparison of hemodynamic responses to nasal intubation in cancer patients receiving opioid-free general anesthesia versus standard regimen.
×
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