BACKGROUND: Although no ideal sedative exists, dexmedetomidine is unique because it produces sedation and analgesia without decreasing the respiratory drive. Hemodynamic responses to dexmedetomidine are variable and dependent on the patient population. Our initial experience was associated with an unacceptable incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. We evaluated occurrence of hypotension and bradycardia in critically ill surgical patients receiving dexmedetomidine before and after implementation of a dosing protocol. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of all admissions to a university medical center-based, 44-bed surgical intensive care unit pre and post protocol implementation. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received dexmedetomidine including 19 historic controls and 25 dosed via protocol. Both groups had comparable demographics and initial and maximum dosages of dexmedetomidine. Use of the dosing protocol resulted in fewer dosage changes (mean +/- standard deviation, 4.8 +/- 3.8 compared to 7.8 +/- 3.9; P = .014) and fewer episodes of hypotension (16% vs 68.4%; P = .0006) but did not influence bradycardic episodes (20% vs 15.5%; P > .99). CONCLUSION: We found that use of a protocol that increases the time interval between dosage adjustments may reduce dexmedetomidine-associated hypotension.
BACKGROUND: Although no ideal sedative exists, dexmedetomidine is unique because it produces sedation and analgesia without decreasing the respiratory drive. Hemodynamic responses to dexmedetomidine are variable and dependent on the patient population. Our initial experience was associated with an unacceptable incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. We evaluated occurrence of hypotension and bradycardia in critically ill surgical patients receiving dexmedetomidine before and after implementation of a dosing protocol. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of all admissions to a university medical center-based, 44-bed surgical intensive care unit pre and post protocol implementation. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received dexmedetomidine including 19 historic controls and 25 dosed via protocol. Both groups had comparable demographics and initial and maximum dosages of dexmedetomidine. Use of the dosing protocol resulted in fewer dosage changes (mean +/- standard deviation, 4.8 +/- 3.8 compared to 7.8 +/- 3.9; P = .014) and fewer episodes of hypotension (16% vs 68.4%; P = .0006) but did not influence bradycardic episodes (20% vs 15.5%; P > .99). CONCLUSION: We found that use of a protocol that increases the time interval between dosage adjustments may reduce dexmedetomidine-associated hypotension.
Authors: Stephanie Mallow Corbett; Jill A Rebuck; Christopher M Greene; Peter W Callas; Bruce W Neale; Mark A Healey; Bruce J Leavitt Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Richard R Riker; Yahya Shehabi; Paula M Bokesch; Daniel Ceraso; Wayne Wisemandle; Firas Koura; Patrick Whitten; Benjamin D Margolis; Daniel W Byrne; E Wesley Ely; Marcelo G Rocha Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pratik P Pandharipande; Brenda T Pun; Daniel L Herr; Mervyn Maze; Timothy D Girard; Russell R Miller; Ayumi K Shintani; Jennifer L Thompson; James C Jackson; Stephen A Deppen; Renee A Stiles; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272