BACKGROUND:Lidocaine and Dexmedetomidine are known to blunt the stress response to surgery, and have anesthetic sparing activity. This study was designed to evaluate and compare the anesthetic sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine with Dexmedetomidine infusion during sevoflurane based general anesthesia and also to assess their effects on hemodynamic parameters. METHODS:Forty-eightASA I-II patients aged between 18-55 yr, scheduled for abdominal surgery lasting less than 2 h, performed under general anesthesia were enrolled and they were randomly allocated to Lidocaine(L), Dexmedetomidine (D) and Saline (S) groups of 16 each. Group L received Inj. Lidocaine at 1.5 mg/kg bolus over 10 min followed by infusion at 1.5 mg/ kg/hr, and Group D received Inj. Dexmedetomidine at 1 μg/kg over 10 min, followed by 0.5 μg/ kg/hr infusion till the end of surgery. Group S received similar volume of normal saline. Anesthesia was induced with Inj. Propofol and maintained with N2O in O2 and sevoflurane, keeping entropy between 40-60. The hourly sevoflurane requirements and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. Results:Demographic parameters, entropy and duration of surgery were comparable. Mean sevoflurane requirement at 1st h in group L and D were 11.6 ± 1.5 ml, and 10.2 ± 1.3 ml respectively, while it was 16.7 ± 4.1 ml in Saline group (P < 0.001). Sevoflurane requirements were significantly lesser in group D compared to group L (P = 0.009). The Mean ET(sevo) concentrations in Group L, D and S were 0.8 ± 0.3, 0.8 ± 0.4 and 1.2 ± 0.5 (P = 0.021), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both drugs produce significant anesthetic sparing effect during sevoflurane based general anesthesia, but dexmedetomidine has better sparing effect than lignocaine.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Lidocaine and Dexmedetomidine are known to blunt the stress response to surgery, and have anesthetic sparing activity. This study was designed to evaluate and compare the anesthetic sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine with Dexmedetomidine infusion during sevoflurane based general anesthesia and also to assess their effects on hemodynamic parameters. METHODS: Forty-eight ASA I-II patients aged between 18-55 yr, scheduled for abdominal surgery lasting less than 2 h, performed under general anesthesia were enrolled and they were randomly allocated to Lidocaine(L), Dexmedetomidine (D) and Saline (S) groups of 16 each. Group L received Inj. Lidocaine at 1.5 mg/kg bolus over 10 min followed by infusion at 1.5 mg/ kg/hr, and Group D received Inj. Dexmedetomidine at 1 μg/kg over 10 min, followed by 0.5 μg/ kg/hr infusion till the end of surgery. Group S received similar volume of normal saline. Anesthesia was induced with Inj. Propofol and maintained with N2O in O2 and sevoflurane, keeping entropy between 40-60. The hourly sevoflurane requirements and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. Results: Demographic parameters, entropy and duration of surgery were comparable. Mean sevoflurane requirement at 1st h in group L and D were 11.6 ± 1.5 ml, and 10.2 ± 1.3 ml respectively, while it was 16.7 ± 4.1 ml in Saline group (P < 0.001). Sevoflurane requirements were significantly lesser in group D compared to group L (P = 0.009). The Mean ET(sevo) concentrations in Group L, D and S were 0.8 ± 0.3, 0.8 ± 0.4 and 1.2 ± 0.5 (P = 0.021), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both drugs produce significant anesthetic sparing effect during sevoflurane based general anesthesia, but dexmedetomidine has better sparing effect than lignocaine.
Authors: Maud A S Weerink; Michel M R F Struys; Laura N Hannivoort; Clemens R M Barends; Anthony R Absalom; Pieter Colin Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.447