Aubrey A Euteneuer, Misty A Radosevich, Toby N Weingarten, Troy G Seelhammer, Darrell Schroeder, Erica D Wittwer
{"title":"右美托咪定与异丙酚在心脏手术术后恢复中的对比:一项历史队列研究。","authors":"Aubrey A Euteneuer, Misty A Radosevich, Toby N Weingarten, Troy G Seelhammer, Darrell Schroeder, Erica D Wittwer","doi":"10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The impact of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on outcomes following cardiac surgery remains controversial. We sought to compare postoperative sedation techniques with dexmedetomidine vs propofol infusions on postoperative recovery outcomes following cardiac surgery to assess whether dexmedetomidine is associated with longer time to achieve recovery milestones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this historical cohort study, we abstracted the electronic medical records of a convenience sample of cardiac surgery patients either receiving dexmedetomidine (0.5-1.5 µg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·hr<sup>-1</sup>) or propofol (5-80 µg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) infusions for postoperative sedation. The study period included time periods where the standard postoperative sedation practice included dexmedetomidine (March 2019-January 2022) or propofol (January 2022-June 2022) infusions. Measured outcomes for both groups included time to tracheal extubation and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two thousand and sixty-five patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 510 patients receiving propofol were included. Postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine was associated with a 1.8-hr longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol (98.3% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dexmedetomidine administration for postoperative sedation in a convenience sample of over 2,000 cardiac surgery patients was associated with a longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol.</p>","PeriodicalId":56145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for postoperative recovery after cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Aubrey A Euteneuer, Misty A Radosevich, Toby N Weingarten, Troy G Seelhammer, Darrell Schroeder, Erica D Wittwer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The impact of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on outcomes following cardiac surgery remains controversial. We sought to compare postoperative sedation techniques with dexmedetomidine vs propofol infusions on postoperative recovery outcomes following cardiac surgery to assess whether dexmedetomidine is associated with longer time to achieve recovery milestones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this historical cohort study, we abstracted the electronic medical records of a convenience sample of cardiac surgery patients either receiving dexmedetomidine (0.5-1.5 µg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·hr<sup>-1</sup>) or propofol (5-80 µg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) infusions for postoperative sedation. The study period included time periods where the standard postoperative sedation practice included dexmedetomidine (March 2019-January 2022) or propofol (January 2022-June 2022) infusions. Measured outcomes for both groups included time to tracheal extubation and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two thousand and sixty-five patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 510 patients receiving propofol were included. Postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine was associated with a 1.8-hr longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol (98.3% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dexmedetomidine administration for postoperative sedation in a convenience sample of over 2,000 cardiac surgery patients was associated with a longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for postoperative recovery after cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study.
Purpose: The impact of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on outcomes following cardiac surgery remains controversial. We sought to compare postoperative sedation techniques with dexmedetomidine vs propofol infusions on postoperative recovery outcomes following cardiac surgery to assess whether dexmedetomidine is associated with longer time to achieve recovery milestones.
Methods: In this historical cohort study, we abstracted the electronic medical records of a convenience sample of cardiac surgery patients either receiving dexmedetomidine (0.5-1.5 µg·kg-1·hr-1) or propofol (5-80 µg·kg-1·min-1) infusions for postoperative sedation. The study period included time periods where the standard postoperative sedation practice included dexmedetomidine (March 2019-January 2022) or propofol (January 2022-June 2022) infusions. Measured outcomes for both groups included time to tracheal extubation and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.
Results: Two thousand and sixty-five patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 510 patients receiving propofol were included. Postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine was associated with a 1.8-hr longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol (98.3% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine administration for postoperative sedation in a convenience sample of over 2,000 cardiac surgery patients was associated with a longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol.
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal) is owned by the Canadian Anesthesiologists’
Society and is published by Springer Science + Business Media, LLM (New York). From the
first year of publication in 1954, the international exposure of the Journal has broadened
considerably, with articles now received from over 50 countries. The Journal is published
monthly, and has an impact Factor (mean journal citation frequency) of 2.127 (in 2012). Article
types consist of invited editorials, reports of original investigations (clinical and basic sciences
articles), case reports/case series, review articles, systematic reviews, accredited continuing
professional development (CPD) modules, and Letters to the Editor. The editorial content,
according to the mission statement, spans the fields of anesthesia, acute and chronic pain,
perioperative medicine and critical care. In addition, the Journal publishes practice guidelines
and standards articles relevant to clinicians. Articles are published either in English or in French,
according to the language of submission.