Jose Annu, Kaniyil Suvarna, Ravindran Rashmi
Department of Anaesthesiology, Government Medical College, Calicut, Kerala, India.
Indian J Anaesth. 2023 Aug;67(8):697-702. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_581_22. Epub 2023 Aug 15.
In recent times, non-opioid analgesic-based anaesthesia has been gaining popularity as it can achieve the goals of hypnosis, amnesia, and haemodynamic stability while avoiding opioid side effects. Our study compares the efficacy of opioid-free anaesthesia and opioid-based general anaesthesia regarding intraoperative haemodynamic stability, anaesthetic requirements, awareness, and recovery profile.
After receiving ethical approval and registering the trial, we conducted this randomised, single-blinded study on American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II patients who were aged 18-65 and were scheduled for modified radical mastectomy under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomised into two groups of 60 each. Group DL received IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg loading over 10 min, 10 min before induction and 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion after that along with IV lignocaine 1.5 mg/kg at bolus followed by 1.5 mg/kg/h infusion. Group MN received IV morphine 0.15 mg/kg. Standard monitoring and general anaesthesia protocol were followed. Intraoperative haemodynamics, anaesthetic requirement, extubation time, and recovery profile were monitored. Data were analysed using Stata version 14 software, and statistical tests (Chi-squared test for qualitative variables, unpaired -test and Mann-Whitney test for quantitative variables) were performed.
Both groups had comparable haemodynamic stability ( > 0.05). Group DL had a significantly lower propofol requirement for induction and maintenance ( < 0.001). Ramsay sedation score ( = 0.002) and extubation time ( = 0.029) were significantly higher in Group MN. The recovery profile was favourable in Group DL, with there being lower postoperative complications.
Dexmedetomidine and lignocaine IV infusion demonstrated stable intraoperative haemodynamic stability, lower anaesthetic requirement, and better recovery profile than morphine without significant complications.
近年来,基于非阿片类镇痛药的麻醉方法越来越受欢迎,因为它可以在避免阿片类药物副作用的同时,实现催眠、遗忘和血流动力学稳定的目标。我们的研究比较了无阿片类麻醉和基于阿片类的全身麻醉在术中血流动力学稳定性、麻醉需求、知晓度和恢复情况方面的疗效。
在获得伦理批准并注册该试验后,我们对年龄在18 - 65岁、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况为I级和II级、计划在全身麻醉下行改良根治性乳房切除术的患者进行了这项随机、单盲研究。患者被随机分为两组,每组60人。DL组在诱导前10分钟静脉注射右美托咪定1μg/kg,持续10分钟,之后以0.5μg/kg/h的速度输注,同时静脉注射负荷剂量的利多卡因1.5mg/kg,随后以1.5mg/kg/h的速度输注。MN组静脉注射吗啡0.15mg/kg。遵循标准监测和全身麻醉方案。监测术中血流动力学、麻醉需求、拔管时间和恢复情况。使用Stata 14版软件进行数据分析,并进行统计检验(定性变量采用卡方检验,定量变量采用不成对t检验和曼-惠特尼U检验)。
两组的血流动力学稳定性相当(P>0.05)。DL组诱导和维持所需的丙泊酚剂量显著更低(P<0.001)。MN组的 Ramsay镇静评分(P = 0.002)和拔管时间(P = 0.029)显著更高。DL组的恢复情况良好,术后并发症更少。
静脉输注右美托咪定和利多卡因与吗啡相比,术中血流动力学稳定性良好,麻醉需求更低,恢复情况更好,且无明显并发症。