Aliste Julián, Layera Sebastián, Bravo Daniela, Fernández Diego, Jara Álvaro, García Armando, Finlayson Roderick J, Tran De Q
Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100680.
This randomized trial compared perineural dexamethasone (5 mg) and dexmedetomidine (100 µg) for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block. We hypothesized that both adjuvants would result in similar durations of motor block and therefore designed the study as an equivalence trial (equivalence margin=3.0 hours).
One hundred and twenty patients undergoing upper limb surgery with ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block (using 35 mL of lidocaine 1%-bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 µg/mL) were randomly allocated to receive perineural dexamethasone (5 mg) or dexmedetomidine (100 µg). Patients and operators were blinded to the nature of the perineural adjuvant. After the performance of the block, a blinded observer assessed the success rate (defined as a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 out of 16 points at 30 min) as well as the incidence of surgical anesthesia (defined as the ability to complete surgery without local infiltration, supplemental blocks, intravenous opioids, or general anesthesia). Heart rate and blood pressure were recorded before the block as well as during the first 2 hours after its performance. Furthermore, the level of sedation (using the Ramsay Sedation Scale) was recorded in the postanesthesia care unit. Postoperatively, the blinded observer contacted patients with successful blocks to inquire about the duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia.
No intergroup differences were observed in terms of success rate and surgical anesthesia. Compared with dexmedetomidine, dexamethasone provided longer durations of motor block (17.4 (4.0) vs 14.3 (3.0) hours; p<0.001; 95% CI 1.7 to 4.5), sensory block (19.0 (4.0) vs 15.0 (3.2) hours; p<0.001; 95% CI 2.6 to 5.4), and analgesia (22.2 (3.6) vs 16.9 (3.9) hours; p<0.001; 95% CI 3.7 to 6.9). Dexmedetomidine resulted in lower heart rate and blood pressure after the performance of the block, as well as an increased level of sedation postoperatively.
Compared with dexmedetomidine (100 µg), dexamethasone (5 mg) results in longer sensorimotor block and analgesic durations, as well as a decreased level of patient sedation. Further studies are required to compare dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine using different doses, local anesthetic agents, and approaches to the brachial plexus.
NCT03610893.
本随机试验比较了神经周围注射地塞米松(5毫克)和右美托咪定(100微克)用于超声引导下锁骨下臂丛神经阻滞的效果。我们假设两种佐剂会导致相似的运动阻滞持续时间,因此将该研究设计为等效性试验(等效界值 = 3.0小时)。
120例接受上肢手术并采用超声引导下锁骨下阻滞(使用35毫升1%利多卡因 - 0.25%布比卡因加5微克/毫升肾上腺素)的患者被随机分配接受神经周围注射地塞米松(5毫克)或右美托咪定(100微克)。患者和操作者对神经周围佐剂的性质不知情。在完成阻滞操作后,由一位不知情的观察者评估成功率(定义为30分钟时最小感觉运动综合评分为16分中的14分)以及手术麻醉发生率(定义为无需局部浸润、补充阻滞、静脉注射阿片类药物或全身麻醉即可完成手术的能力)。在阻滞操作前以及操作后的前2小时记录心率和血压。此外,在麻醉后护理单元记录镇静水平(使用拉姆齐镇静评分)。术后,不知情的观察者联系阻滞成功的患者,询问运动阻滞、感觉阻滞和术后镇痛的持续时间。
在成功率和手术麻醉方面未观察到组间差异。与右美托咪定相比,地塞米松的运动阻滞持续时间更长(17.4(4.0)小时对14.3(3.0)小时;p<0.001;95%可信区间1.7至4.5)、感觉阻滞持续时间更长(19.0(4.0)小时对15.0(3.2)小时;p<0.001;95%可信区间2.6至5.4)以及镇痛持续时间更长(22.2(3.6)小时对16.9(3.9)小时;p<0.001;95%可信区间3.7至6.9)。右美托咪定在完成阻滞后导致心率和血压降低,以及术后镇静水平升高。
与右美托咪定(100微克)相比,地塞米松(5毫克)导致更长的感觉运动阻滞和镇痛持续时间,以及患者镇静水平降低。需要进一步研究以比较使用不同剂量、局部麻醉剂和臂丛神经阻滞方法的地塞米松和右美托咪定。
NCT03610893。