Assessment Of Alertness Score Research Articles

Effect of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamics in patients undergoing hysterectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

ObjectiveWe conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine on the hemodynamics of patients undergoing hysterectomy.MethodsWe searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that allowed direct or indirect comparisons of hemodynamic indicators. We also searched nine English-language databases up to April 2021 to identify relevant research. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs was applied to assess the methodological quality of the eligible studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsNine trials were included in this systematic review. The effect of dexmedetomidine on heart rate during surgery was significantly smaller than that of other sedatives. Intraoperative systolic and diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure were more stable in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the control group. The postoperative modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness Score was also better in the dexmedetomidine compared with the control group.ConclusionsDexmedetomidine increases hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing hysterectomy, reduces the cardiovascular stress response during surgery, and effectively prevents postoperative adverse reactions, with good safety.

A Response Surface Model Exploration of Dosing Strategies in Gastrointestinal Endoscopies Using Midazolam and Opioids.

Classical midazolam–opioid combination for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation has been adopted for decades. Dosing regimens have been studied but most require fixed dosing intervals. We intend to use a sophisticated pharmacodynamic tool, response surface model (RSM), to simulate sedation using different regimens. RSM can predict patient's response during different phases of the examination and predict patient's wake-up time with precision and without the need for fixed dosing intervals. We believe it will aid physicians in guiding their dosing strategy and timing.The study is divided into 2 parts. The first part is the full Greco RSMs development for 3 distinct phases: esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and intersession (the time lapse between procedures). Observer's Assessment of Alertness Score (OAA/S) is used to assess patient response. The second part simulates 6 regimens with different characteristics using the RSMs: midazolam only, balanced midazolam and opioids, high-dose opioids and midazolam, low-dose midazolam with high-dose opioids, high-dose midazolam and low-dose opioids, and finally midazolam with continuous opioid infusion. Loss of response at 95% probability for adequate anesthesia during examination and return of consciousness at 50% probability during intersession was selected for simulation purposes.The average age of the patient population is 49.3 years. Mean BMI is 21.9 ± 2.3 kg/m2. About 56.7% were females and none received prior abdominal surgery. The cecal intubation rate was 100%. Only 1 patient (3%) developed temporary hypoxemia, which was promptly managed with simple measures. The RSMs for each phase showed significant synergy between midazolam and alfentanil. The balanced midazolam and alfentanil combination provided adequate anesthesia and most rapid return of consciousness. The awakening time from the final drug bolus was 7.4 minutes during EGD and colonoscopy stimulation, and 9.1 minutes during EGD simulation.Simulation of regimens with different characteristics gives insights on dosing strategies. A balanced midazolam–alfentanil regimen is adequate in providing good anesthetic depth and most rapid return of consciousness. We believe with the aid of our RSM, clinicians can perform sedation with more flexibility and precision.

Efficacy and safety of propofol versus midazolam in fiberoptic endotracheal intubation.

Background:Fiberoptic intubation is a technique commonly used for difficult airways. Conscious sedation is desirable to make this procedure tolerable, and it is essential that patients are cooperative, relaxed, and comfortable especially when difficult airway anatomy or pathology is encountered.Objective:To compare the safety and efficacy of propofol versus midazolam in oral fiberoptic endotracheal intubation in terms of hemodynamic changes, level of sedation, ease of intubation, and patient comfort and complications.Materials and Methods:In a prospective randomized study, 60 patients of age group 18–60 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists health classification of I and II with anticipated difficult intubation were randomly allocated into two groups. Both the groups were premedicated with injection glycopyrrolate 0.005 mg/kg and injection butorphanol 1 mg and nebulized with 4 ml of 4% lignocaine starting 20 min before the surgery. After that patients in Group I received intravenous propofol 1–2 mg/kg to a maximum of 2 mg/kg followed by 20 mg increments if needed and Group II received 0.05 mg/kg midazolam followed by 2 mg increments till the adequate level of sedation was reached. Patients were monitored for hemodynamic parameters, sedation according to observer's assessment of alertness score, intubation score, intubation time, patient comfort, satisfaction score, and complications, if any. Results were statistically analyzed.Results:The mean sedation score, patient comfort score, and patient satisfaction were greater in propofol group (P < 0.05) but there were no significant differences in hemodynamics, intubating conditions, and complications.Conclusion:We conclude that compared with midazolam, propofol provides better sedation for fiberoptic endotracheal intubation and better patient comfort and satisfaction.

Correlation between Bispectral Index, Observational Sedation Scale, and Lower Esophageal Sphincter Pressure in volunteers using dexmedetomidine or propofol

SummaryBackgroundMany anesthetics reduce lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) and consequently the gastro-esophageal pressure gradient (GEPG); thus they may promote gastro-esophageal reflux and contribute to aspiration pneumonia. Our goals were to evaluate the association between LESP and 2 measures of sedation: bispectral index (BIS) and the responsiveness component of the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness score (OAA/S).Material/MethodsEleven healthy volunteers were each sedated on 2 separate days. Subjects were given sedative infusions of increasing target plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine or propofol. LESP and GEPG were recorded after starting each infusion phase. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to assess the relationship between LESP and, respectively, BIS and OAA/S. The existence of a drug-dependent association was evaluated within these models by testing an interaction term. Wald tests were used to evaluate the relationships within the models.ResultsWe found a significant relationship between LESP and BIS (P=0.0043) after adjusting for the main effect of sedative type – a deepening of sedation as measured by a decrease in BIS of 10% was associated with a decrease [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% CI] in LESP of −1.34 [−2.39, −0.29] mmHg. After adjusting for the main effect of sedative drug, LESP significantly declined with declining OAA/S (P=0.001); a unit decrease of OAA/S was associated with a decrease [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% CI] in LESP of −2.01 [−3.20, −0.81] mmHg.ConclusionsDeeper sedation, as measured by either BIS or OAA/S, significantly reduces LESP.

Comparison of an Intraoperative Infusion of Dexmedetomidine or Remifentanil on Perioperative Haemodynamics, Hypnosis and Sedation, and Postoperative Pain Control

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on haemodynamic stability, sedation and postoperative pain control in the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU). Fifty consecutive patients scheduled for total laparoscopic hysterectomy were randomly assigned to receive infusions of either dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) i.v. over 10 min followed by 0.2 - 0.7 μg/kg per h continuous i.v. infusion or remifentanil (0.8 - 1.2 μg/kg) i.v. over 1 min followed by 0.05 - 0.1 μg/kg i.v. per min, starting at the end of surgery to the time in the PACU. Modified observer's assessment of alertness scores were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the remifentanil group at 0, 5 and 10 min after arrival in the PACU. Blood pressure and heart rate in the dexmedetomidine group were significantly lower than that recorded in the remifentanil group in the PACU. Dexmedetomidine, at the doses used in this study, had a significant advantage over remifentanil in terms of postoperative haemodynamic stability.