Samantaray Aloka, Hemanth Natham, Gunnampati Karunakar, Pasupuleti Hemalatha, Mukkara Madhusudan, Rao Mangu Hanumantha
Dept. of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Sri Venkataswara Institute of Medical Sciences, SVIMS University, Tirupati, AP, PIN 517507 India.
Pain Physician. 2015 Jan-Feb;18(1):71-7.
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam both modulate spinal analgesia by different mechanisms, and yet, no human studies are available to compare them for postoperative analgesia after neuraxial administration.
We investigated the addition of dexmedetomidine or midazolam to intrathecal bupivacaine on the duration of effective analgesia and clinical safety profile.
Prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study.
University teaching hospital.
The study cohort included a consecutive and prospective series of patients, referred for endourological procedures. The patients were randomly allocated into 3 groups (20 patients each) to receive intrathecally 3 mL of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine in combination with 5 mcg of dexmedetomidine (dexmedetomidine group), 1 mg of midazolam (midazolam group) or 0.5 mL of 0.9% saline (control group). The groups were compared to the regression time of sensory block, duration of effective analgesia (defined as the time interval between administration of intrathecal drug to the time of first analgesic request or a numeric rating scale = 4.0), sedation score, and side effects in the first 24 hours.
One way-ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis test, and Chi-square test (χ²), significance level: P < 0.05.
The duration of effective analgesia (time to first analgesic request) was significantly prolonged in the dexmedetomidine group (286 ± 64 minutes, P < 0.01) when compared with midazolam group (236.9 ± 64.9 minutes) and the control group (212.7 ± 70.2 minutes). Pairwise comparisons among the 3 groups with Bonferroni adjustment revealed that patients from the dexmedetomidine group were more sedated in comparison to the midazolam and control groups at the end of the first 15 minutes after intrathecal injection [χ² (2) = 7.157, P = 0.028], with a mean rank sedation score of 35.58 for dexmedetomidine, 25.00 for midazolam, and 30.93 for control. No significant differences in the side effects were observed during the study period. Midazolam did not lengthen the time of the two segment sensory regression or the time to first request analgesia.
The study cannot be extrapolated to muscle cutting surgeries under spinal anaesthesia.
The addition of dexmedetomidine (5 mcg) to 3 mL of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%) significantly prolongs the duration of effective analgesia in comparison to 1 mg midazolam or placebo (0.9% normal saline) with a comparable incidences of side effects.
右美托咪定和咪达唑仑均通过不同机制调节脊髓镇痛,但尚无人体研究比较二者在神经轴给药后用于术后镇痛的效果。
我们研究了鞘内注射布比卡因时添加右美托咪定或咪达唑仑对有效镇痛持续时间和临床安全性的影响。
前瞻性、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照研究。
大学教学医院。
研究队列包括一系列连续入选的因腔内泌尿外科手术前来就诊的患者。患者被随机分为3组(每组20例),分别鞘内注射3 mL 0.5% 重比重布比卡因联合5 μg右美托咪定(右美托咪定组)、1 mg咪达唑仑(咪达唑仑组)或0.5 mL 0.9% 生理盐水(对照组)。比较三组感觉阻滞消退时间、有效镇痛持续时间(定义为鞘内给药至首次要求镇痛或数字评分量表=4.0的时间间隔)、镇静评分及前24小时内的副作用。
单因素方差分析、Kruskal Wallis检验和卡方检验(χ²),显著性水平:P<0.05。
与咪达唑仑组(236.9±64.9分钟)和对照组(212.7±70.2分钟)相比,右美托咪定组有效镇痛持续时间(至首次要求镇痛的时间)显著延长(286±64分钟,P<0.01)。采用Bonferroni校正对三组进行两两比较,结果显示鞘内注射后最初15分钟末,右美托咪定组患者的镇静程度高于咪达唑仑组和对照组[χ²(2)=7.157,P=0.028],右美托咪定组平均秩次镇静评分为35.58,咪达唑仑组为25.00,对照组为30.93。研究期间未观察到副作用有显著差异。咪达唑仑未延长双节段感觉消退时间或首次要求镇痛的时间。
本研究结果不能外推至脊髓麻醉下的肌肉切开手术。
与1 mg咪达唑仑或安慰剂(0.9% 生理盐水)相比,鞘内注射3 mL 0.5% 重比重布比卡因时添加5 μg右美托咪定可显著延长有效镇痛持续时间,且副作用发生率相当。