Departments of Pharmacy, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503, USA.
Pharmacotherapy. 2009 Dec;29(12):1427-32. doi: 10.1592/phco.29.12.1427.
To compare postoperative opioid requirements in patients who received dexmedetomidine versus propofol after cardiac surgery.
Retrospective cohort study.
Large, community teaching hospital that uses a fast-track cardiovascular recovery unit (CVRU) model.
One hundred adults who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery and/or valvular surgery, and who received either dexmedetomidine (50 patients) or propofol (50 patients) for perioperative sedation.
Patients were matched according to surgery type and left ventricular ejection fraction. Opioid requirements were assessed over two time intervals: from arrival in the CVRU to discontinuation of the sedative infusion, and from CVRU arrival to CVRU discharge, up to a maximum of 72 hours if admission to the intensive care unit was necessary. All postoperative opioid doses were converted to morphine equivalents. Length of mechanical ventilation, quality of sedation, adverse drug events, and sedation-related costs were determined. Opioid requirements were significantly lower during the sedative infusion period for dexmedetomidine-treated patients than for propofol-treated patients (median [range] 0 [0-10 mg] vs 4 mg [0-33 mg], p<0.001), but not through the entire CVRU admission (median [range] 26 mg [0-119 mg] vs 30 mg (0-100 mg], p=0.284). The proportion of patients who did not require opioids during the infusion was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the propofol group (32 [64%] vs 13 [26%], p<0.001). No significant differences were noted between the groups for length of mechanical ventilation, quality of sedation, or adverse events. Sedation-related costs were significantly higher (approximately $50/patient higher) with dexmedetomidine (p<0.001).
Dexmedetomidine resulted in lower opioid requirements in patients after cardiac surgery versus those receiving propofol, but this did not result in shorter durations of mechanical ventilation, using a fast-track CVRU model.
比较心脏手术后接受右美托咪定和丙泊酚的患者术后阿片类药物需求。
回顾性队列研究。
使用快速通道心血管恢复单元 (CVRU) 模型的大型社区教学医院。
100 名接受冠状动脉旁路移植术和/或瓣膜手术的成年人,他们在围手术期接受右美托咪定(50 名患者)或丙泊酚(50 名患者)镇静。
根据手术类型和左心室射血分数对患者进行匹配。评估了两个时间段的阿片类药物需求:从到达 CVRU 到镇静输注停止,以及从到达 CVRU 到 CVRU 出院,如果需要入住重症监护病房,则最多 72 小时。所有术后阿片类药物剂量均转换为吗啡等效剂量。确定了机械通气时间、镇静质量、药物不良事件和镇静相关费用。与丙泊酚治疗的患者相比,右美托咪定治疗的患者在镇静输注期间的阿片类药物需求明显更低(中位数 [范围] 0 [0-10 mg] 与 4 mg [0-33 mg],p<0.001),但在整个 CVRU 入院期间并非如此(中位数 [范围] 26 mg [0-119 mg] 与 30 mg [0-100 mg],p=0.284)。在右美托咪定组中,与丙泊酚组相比,输注期间不需要阿片类药物的患者比例明显更高(32 [64%] 与 13 [26%],p<0.001)。两组之间的机械通气时间、镇静质量或不良事件无显著差异。与丙泊酚相比,右美托咪定的镇静相关费用明显更高(每位患者约高 50 美元,p<0.001)。
与接受丙泊酚的患者相比,心脏手术后接受右美托咪定的患者阿片类药物需求较低,但在使用快速通道 CVRU 模型时,这并未导致机械通气时间缩短。