The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Propofol Requirements During Anesthesia Administered by Bispectral Index-Guided Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine, a selective α2-adrenergic agonist currently approved for continuous intensive care unit sedation, is being widely evaluated for its role as a potential anesthetic. The closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) is a method to automatically administer propofol total intravenous anesthesia using bi-spectral index (BIS) feedback and attain general anesthesia (GA) steady state with greater consistency. This study assessed whether dexmedetomidine is effective in further lowering the propofol requirements for total intravenous anesthesia facilitated by CLADS.

METHODS

After ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 80 patients undergoing elective major laparoscopic/robotic surgery were randomly allocated to receive GA with propofol CLADS with or without the addition of dexmedetomidine. Quantitative reduction of propofol and quality of depth-of-anesthesia (primary objectives), intraoperative hemodynamics, incidence of postoperative adverse events (sedation, analgesia, nausea, and vomiting), and intraoperative awareness recall (secondary objectives) were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant lowering of propofol requirement (by 15%) in the dexmedetomidine group for induction of anesthesia (dexmedetomidine group: mean ± standard deviation 0.91 ± 0.26 mg/kg; nondexmedetomidine group: 1.07 ± 0.23 mg/kg, mean difference: 0.163, 95% CI, 0.04-0.28; P = .01) and maintenance of GA (dexmedetomidine group: 3.25 ± 0.97 mg/kg/h; nondexmedetomidine group: 4.57 ± 1.21 mg/kg/h, mean difference: 1.32, 95% CI, 0.78-1.85; P < .001). The median performance error of BIS control, a measure of bias, was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group (1% [-5.8%, 8%]) versus nondexmedetomidine group (8% [2%, 12%]; P = .002). No difference was found for anesthesia depth consistency parameters, including percentage of time BIS within ±10 of target (dexmedetomidine group: 79.5 [72.5, 85.3]; nondexmedetomidine group: 81 [68, 88]; P = .534), median absolute performance error (dexmedetomidine group: 12% [10%, 14%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 12% [10%, 14%]; P = .777), wobble (dexmedetomidine group: 10% [8%, 10%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 8% [6%, 10%]; P = .080), and global score (dexmedetomidine group: 25.2 [23.1, 35.8]; nondexmedetomidine group: 24.7 [20, 38.1]; P = .387). Similarly, there was no difference between the groups for percentage of time intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure remained within 20% of baseline. However, addition of dexmedetomidine to CLADS propofol increased the incidence of significant bradycardia (dexmedetomidine group: 14 [41.1%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 3 [9.1%]; P = .004), hypotension (dexmedetomidine group: 9 [26.5%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 2 [6.1%]; P = .045), and early postoperative sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of dexmedetomidine to propofol administered by CLADS was associated with a consistent depth of anesthesia along with a significant decrease in propofol requirements, albeit with an incidence of hemodynamic depression and early postoperative sedation.