Literature DB >> 24683230

Controlled hypotension with desflurane combined with esmolol or dexmedetomidine during tympanoplasty in adults: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

Iclal Ozdemir Kol1, Kenan Kaygusuz1, Altan Yildirim2, Mansur Dogan2, Sinan Gursoy1, Evren Yucel1, Caner Mimaroglu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Controlled hypotension is a technique that is used to limit intraoperative blood loss to provide the best possible surgical field during surgery.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this double-blind, randomized, controlled study was to compare the effects of desflurane combined with esmolol or dexmedetomidine on the amount of blood in the surgical field, recovery time, and tolerability in adult patients undergoing tympanoplasty.
METHODS: Turkish patients aged 18 to 60 years, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, who were scheduled for tympanoplasty were randomly divided into 2 groups: the esmolol group or the dexmedetomidine group. After the anesthesia induction in the esmolol group, a loading dose of esmolol was infused intravenously over 1 minute at 1 mg/kg, followed by a maintenance rate of 0.4 to 0.8 mg/ kg/h. In the dexmedetomidine group, a loading dose of dexmedetomidine was infused intravenously over 10 minutes at a rate of 1 μg/kg, followed by a maintenance rate of 0.4 to 0.8 μg/kg/h. The infusion rates were then titrated to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 to 75 mm Hg. General anesthesia was maintained with desflurane 4% to 6%. Heart rate (HR) and MAP were recorded during anesthesia. The following 6-point scale was used to assess the amount of bleeding in the operative field: 0 = no bleeding, a virtually bloodless field; 1 = bleeding that was so mild that it was not a surgical nuisance; 2 = moderate bleeding that was a nuisance but did not interfere with accurate dissection; 3 = moderate bleeding that moderately compromised surgical dissection; 4 = bleeding that was heavy but controllable and that significantly interfered with surgical dissection; and 5 = massive bleeding that was uncontrollable and made dissection impossible. Scores ≤2 were considered to be optimal surgical conditions. The sedation score was determined at 15, 30, and 60 minutes after tracheal extubation using the following scale: 1 = anxious, agitated, or restless; 2 = cooperative, oriented, and tranquil; 3 = responsive to commands; 4 = asleep, but with brisk response to light, glabellar tap, or loud auditory stimulus; 5 = asleep, sluggish response to glabellar tap or auditory stimulus; and 6 = asleep, no response. Time to extubation and to total recovery from anesthesia (Aldrete score ≥9 on a scale of 0-10), adverse effects (eg, intraoperative hypotension [blood pressure <65 mm Hg], bradycardia [HR <50 beats/min]), intraoperative fentanyl consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were recorded. Arterial blood gas analysis and kidney and liver function tests were conducted. All patients were evaluated by the same attending surgeon and anesthesiologist, both of whom were blinded to the administered study drugs.
RESULTS: Fifty-two consecutive white patients undergoing tympanoplasty were identified. Two patients had to be excluded because of hypertension and 2 refused to participate. Forty-eight patients were equally randomized to either the esmolol group (n = 24 [16 women, 8 men]; mean [SD] age, 38.4 [10.5] years) or the dexmedetomi-dine group (n = 24 [17 women, 7 men]; mean age, 35.5 [14.7] years). Sedation scores were not collected for 1 patient in the esmolol group; therefore, analysis was conducted for 23 patients. The median (range) of the scores for the amount of blood in the surgical field in the esmolol and dexmedetomidine groups was 1 (0-3) and 1 (0-2), respectively (P = NS). Mean intraoperative fentanyl consumption in the esmolol group was significantly higher than in the dexmedetomidine group (50.0 [3.0] vs 25.0 [2.5] μg/min; P = 0.002). In the esmolol group, the mean times to extubation and to recovery from anesthesia were significantly shorter than those of the dexmedetomidine group (7.0 [1.4] vs 9.1 [1.9] minutes, respectively; 5.9 [2.1] vs 7.9 [2.3] minutes; both, P = 0.001). The mean sedation scores were significantly lower in the esmolol group (n = 23, because of intent-to-treat analysis) compared with the dexmedetomidine group at 15 minutes (2.5 [0.6] vs 3.6 [0.5]; P = 0.001) and 30 minutes (2.6 [0.6] vs 3.3 [0.6]; P = 0.001) postoperatively. No significant differences were found between the study groups in regard to blood urea nitrogen or creatinine concentration, aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase activities, pH, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, or bicarbonate, before or after the operation.
CONCLUSIONS: Both esmolol and dexmedetomidine, combined with desflurane, provided an effective and well-tolerated method of achieving controlled hypotension to limit the amount of blood in the surgical field in these adult patients undergoing tympanoplasty. Esmolol was associated with significantly shorter extubation and recovery times and significantly less postoperative sedation compared with dexmedetomidine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  controlled hypotension; desflurane; dexmedetomidine; esmolol; tympanoplasty

Year:  2009        PMID: 24683230      PMCID: PMC3967361          DOI: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2009.06.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Ther Res Clin Exp        ISSN: 0011-393X


  27 in total

1.  The history of controlled hypotension.

Authors:  J M Leigh
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 9.166

2.  Propofol versus isoflurane for endoscopic sinus surgery.

Authors:  J D Pavlin; P S Colley; E A Weymuller; G Van Norman; H C Gunn; M E Koerschgen
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.808

3.  Effect of dexmedetomidine on bleeding during tympanoplasty or septorhinoplasty.

Authors:  M Durmus; A K But; Z Dogan; A Yucel; M C Miman; M O Ersoy
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  Comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for monitored anesthesia care combined with tramadol via patient-controlled analgesia in endoscopic nasal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study.

Authors:  Kazim Karaaslan; Fahrettin Yilmaz; Nebahat Gulcu; Cemil Colak; Murat Sereflican; Hasan Kocoglu
Journal:  Curr Ther Res Clin Exp       Date:  2007-03

5.  Effects of posture, hypotension and locally applied vasoconstriction on the middle ear microcirculation in anaesthetized humans.

Authors:  C S Degoute; C Dubreuil; M J Ray; J Guitton; M Manchon; V Banssillon; J L Saumet
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1994

6.  Hypotensive anaesthesia with remifentanil combined with desflurane or isoflurane in tympanoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  K Kaygusuz; A Yildirim; I Ozdemir Kol; S Gursoy; C Mimaroglu
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 1.469

Review 7.  Controlled hypotension: a guide to drug choice.

Authors:  Christian-Serge Degoute
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.546

8.  Clinical trial of esmolol-induced controlled hypotension with or without acute normovolemic hemodilution in spinal surgery.

Authors:  Y J Lim; C S Kim; J H Bahk; B M Ham; S H Do
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.105

9.  Comparison of sodium nitroprusside- and esmolol-induced controlled hypotension for functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Authors:  A P Boezaart; J van der Merwe; A Coetzee
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 5.063

Review 10.  Controlled hypotension in children: a critical review of available agents.

Authors:  Joseph D Tobias
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.022

View more
  8 in total

1.  Nitroglycerine, esmolol and dexmedetomidine for induced hypotension during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: A comparative evaluation.

Authors:  Sukhminder Jit Singh Bajwa; Jasleen Kaur; Ashish Kulshrestha; Rudrashish Haldar; Rakesh Sethi; Amarjit Singh
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun

2.  Magnesium sulphate optimises surgical field without attenuation of the stapaedius reflex in paediatric cochlear implant surgery.

Authors:  Wahba Z Bakhet; Hassan A Wahba; Lobna M El Fiky; Hossam Debis
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2019-04

3.  Randomized Open-Labelled Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Nitroglycerine, Esmolol and Dexmedetomidine in Producing Controlled Hypotension in Spine Surgeries.

Authors:  Rumani Ruku; Anju Jamwal; Naine Bhadrala; Smriti Gulati
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep

4.  Different effects of propofol and isoflurane on cochlear blood flow and hearing function in Guinea pigs.

Authors:  Ying Xiao; Jian Wen; Yanxia Bai; Na Duan; G X Jing
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Controlled hypotension in day care functional endoscopic sinus surgery: A comparison between esmolol and dexmedetomidine: A prospective, double-blind, and randomized study.

Authors:  A Das; S Chhaule; S Bhattacharya; S R Basunia; T Mitra; P S Halder; S Chattopadhyay; S K Mandal
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep

6.  Controlled Hypotension During Rhinoplasty: A Comparison of Dexmedetomidine with Magnesium Sulfate.

Authors:  Faranak Rokhtabnak; Soudabeh Djalali Motlagh; Mohamadreza Ghodraty; Alireza Pournajafian; Mojtaba Maleki Delarestaghi; Arash Tehrani Banihashemi; Zeinab Araghi
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2017-12-26

7.  Effects of esmolol continuous infusion on blood loss in patients undergoing posterior lumbar internal fixation surgery: A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Young Eun Moon; Min A Joo; Jin Joo
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 1.671

8.  Evaluation of the efficacy of desflurane with or without labetalol for hypotensive anesthesia in middle ear microsurgery.

Authors:  Neha Gupta; Vandana Talwar; Smita Prakash; Achyut Deuri; Anoop Raj Gogia
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.