Yasutomo Kumakura1, Tadahiko Ishiyama2, Toru Matsuoka3, Tetsuya Iijima3, Takashi Matsukawa3. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan. ykurakuma@yamanashi.ac.jp. 2. Surgical Center, University of Yamanashi Hospital, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in cerebral regional oxygen saturation (rSO2) after spinal anesthesia and compare the changes in rSO2 and systemic oxygenation between dexmedetomidine sedation and propofol sedation. METHODS: Thirty-six patients scheduled to undergo transurethral surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned to the dexmedetomidine (n = 18) and propofol groups (n = 18). We used near-infrared spectroscopy sensors to measure rSO2, and obtained data from each side were averaged. After oxygen insufflation, baseline measurements of mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), heart rate, rSO2, pulse oximetry saturation (SpO2), bispectral index, and body temperature were made. After spinal anesthesia, we measured these parameters every 5 min. Twenty minutes after spinal injection, dexmedetomidine or propofol administration was started. We measured each parameter at 10, 25, and 40 min after the administration of dexmedetomidine or propofol. RESULTS: The baseline rSO2 in the dexmedetomidine group was 71.3 ± 7.3%, and that in the propofol group was 71.8 ± 5.6%. After spinal anesthesia, rSO2 in both groups decreased significantly (dexmedetomidine group: 65.4 ± 6.9%; propofol group: 64.3 ± 7.4%). After administering sedatives, rSO2 was equivalent after spinal anesthesia. rSO2 was comparable between the two groups. MAP and SpO2 were significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group. CONCLUSION: Spinal anesthesia decreased rSO2; however, the decline was not severe. Dexmedetomidine and propofol did not compromise cerebral oxygenation under spinal anesthesia. Nevertheless, MAP and SpO2 were more stable in dexmedetomidine sedation than in propofol sedation. Dexmedetomidine may be suitable for spinal anesthesia.
PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in cerebral regional oxygen saturation (rSO2) after spinal anesthesia and compare the changes in rSO2 and systemic oxygenation between dexmedetomidine sedation and propofol sedation. METHODS: Thirty-six patients scheduled to undergo transurethral surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned to the dexmedetomidine (n = 18) and propofol groups (n = 18). We used near-infrared spectroscopy sensors to measure rSO2, and obtained data from each side were averaged. After oxygen insufflation, baseline measurements of mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), heart rate, rSO2, pulse oximetry saturation (SpO2), bispectral index, and body temperature were made. After spinal anesthesia, we measured these parameters every 5 min. Twenty minutes after spinal injection, dexmedetomidine or propofol administration was started. We measured each parameter at 10, 25, and 40 min after the administration of dexmedetomidine or propofol. RESULTS: The baseline rSO2 in the dexmedetomidine group was 71.3 ± 7.3%, and that in the propofol group was 71.8 ± 5.6%. After spinal anesthesia, rSO2 in both groups decreased significantly (dexmedetomidine group: 65.4 ± 6.9%; propofol group: 64.3 ± 7.4%). After administering sedatives, rSO2 was equivalent after spinal anesthesia. rSO2 was comparable between the two groups. MAP and SpO2 were significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group. CONCLUSION: Spinal anesthesia decreased rSO2; however, the decline was not severe. Dexmedetomidine and propofol did not compromise cerebral oxygenation under spinal anesthesia. Nevertheless, MAP and SpO2 were more stable in dexmedetomidine sedation than in propofol sedation. Dexmedetomidine may be suitable for spinal anesthesia.
Authors: Andrea Rigamonti; Mara Scandroglio; Francesco Minicucci; Silvio Magrin; Andrea Carozzo; Andrea Casati Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 9.452
Authors: Luciana Boavista Barros Heil; Cíntia L Santos; Raquel S Santos; Cynthia S Samary; Vinicius C M Cavalcanti; Mariana M P N Araújo; Hananda Poggio; Lígia de A Maia; Isis Hara Trevenzoli; Paolo Pelosi; Fatima C Fernandes; Nivaldo R Villela; Pedro L Silva; Patricia R M Rocco Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 5.108