Department of Anesthesia, Istinye University Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey.
Department of Anesthesia, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Research and Education Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Burns. 2021 Feb;47(1):101-109. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2020.05.027. Epub 2020 Jun 3.
Dressing changes and wound care-debridement procedures often cause fear and anxiety in burn patients, as these processes are quite painful. In order to determine the best method for alleviating pain during these procedures, the current study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine and midazolam for premedication prior to these painful burn care procedures.
This comparative and randomized study included patients who had a burn size of 1563%, were aged 1870 years, were diagnosed with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA I-II), and who underwent painful burn care procedures. Patients were intravenously administered either 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine (Group 1) or 0.03 mg/kg midazolam (Group 2) prior to the burn care procedure. Recorded at predetermined time points for each patient were heart rhythm (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO, standard bispectral index (BIS), and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS).
In the dexmedetomidine group, HR and MAP measurements of patients at the 3rd, 5th, and 10th mins during sedation were significantly lower than the baseline values (p < 0.05). A significant decrease in SpO2 was observed in both groups at the 10th min during sedation, but the decline was higher in the midazolam group (p < 0.05). BIS measurements of the patients in both groups were significantly lower at 10 min. during sedation and at 15th and 60th mins during the procedure (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the group (p > 0.05). The RSS scales of both groups in during the sedation were higher in the 3rd, 5th and 10th mins than the baseline values (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The RSS scales of groups in during the burn procedure were significantly higher at 15 th min than the 0 th values, while the RSS scales of both groups were significantly lower in the 45th and 60th mins (p < 0.05).
Results of this study indicate that dexmedetomidine causes hemodynamic alterations while midazolam causes respiratory depression. However, these effects are not severe, and we conclude that both agents are safe and effective to ensure sedation prior to painful burn-care procedures.
更换敷料和伤口护理-清创程序经常会引起烧伤患者的恐惧和焦虑,因为这些过程非常痛苦。为了确定减轻这些过程中疼痛的最佳方法,本研究比较了静脉给予右美托咪定和咪达唑仑进行预给药在这些疼痛性烧伤护理程序前的效果和安全性。
这是一项比较性、随机研究,纳入了烧伤面积为 15-63%、年龄为 18-70 岁、美国麻醉医师协会身体状况(ASA I-II)诊断为的患者,并接受了疼痛性烧伤护理程序。患者在烧伤护理程序前分别静脉给予 1 mcg/kg 右美托咪定(第 1 组)或 0.03 mg/kg 咪达唑仑(第 2 组)。记录每位患者在预定时间点的心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、外周血氧饱和度(SpO2)、标准双频谱指数(BIS)和 Ramsay 镇静评分(RSS)。
在右美托咪定组中,患者在镇静的第 3、5 和 10 分钟的 HR 和 MAP 测量值明显低于基线值(p < 0.05)。两组在镇静的第 10 分钟 SpO2 均明显下降,但咪达唑仑组下降幅度更高(p < 0.05)。两组患者在镇静的第 10 分钟 BIS 测量值明显降低,在镇静的第 15 分钟和第 60 分钟的手术过程中也明显降低(p < 0.05)。然而,两组之间没有显著差异(p > 0.05)。两组在镇静期间的 RSS 量表在第 3、5 和 10 分钟时高于基线值(p < 0.05),但两组之间没有显著差异(p > 0.05)。在烧伤过程中,两组在第 15 分钟的 RSS 量表明显高于第 0 分钟的值,而两组在第 45 分钟和第 60 分钟的 RSS 量表明显低于第 0 分钟的值(p < 0.05)。
本研究结果表明,右美托咪定引起血液动力学改变,而咪达唑仑引起呼吸抑制。然而,这些影响并不严重,我们得出结论,这两种药物都安全有效,可确保在疼痛性烧伤护理程序前进行镇静。