scholarly journals Discharge Readiness after Propofol with or without Dexmedetomidine for Colonoscopy

2019 ◽  
Vol 131 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard U. Edokpolo ◽  
Daniel J. Mastriano ◽  
Joanna Serafin ◽  
Jeremy C. Weedon ◽  
Maryam T. Siddiqui ◽  
...  

Abstract Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Enhanced recovery protocols employ various approaches to minimize detrimental side effects of anesthetizing agents. The authors tested the hypothesis that adding low-dose dexmedetomidine to propofol for anesthesia in ambulatory colonoscopies, compared with propofol alone, would lower the propofol requirement, improve the intra-procedure hemodynamic state, and not increase time-to-discharge. Methods In this noninferiority, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients having colonoscopies received total IV anesthesia either with propofol and placebo (n = 50), or propofol and a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine, 0.3 μg/kg (n = 51). Additional propofol was administered to maintain a Bispectral Index score of 60. Following the procedure, readiness for discharge was assessed regularly using the Modified Post Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System until discharge criteria were met. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients meeting discharge criteria within 30 min from procedure end-time. Results Twenty-six of 51 (51%) patients receiving propofol-dexmedetomidine were ready for discharge by 30 min from procedure end time, compared with 44 of 50 (88%) receiving propofol (P < 0.001). Propofol consumption was lower in subjects receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine (140 μg · kg-1 · min-1) compared to those receiving propofol (180 μg · kg-1 · min-1) with P = 0.011. The lowest mean arterial pressure decreased further from baseline in those receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine (−30%; mean decrease −30 ±10.5 mmHg) compared to propofol (−21%; mean decrease, −22 ± 14.2 mmHg) with P = 0.003. There was no difference in incidence of bradycardia, with sustained bradycardia occurring in 3 of 51 (6%) patients receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine compared to 1 of 50 (2%) patients receiving propofol (P = 0.62). No apnea episodes requiring positive-pressure ventilation occurred in either group. Conclusions For anesthesia in ambulatory colonoscopy, combining low-dose dexmedetomidine with propofol delayed discharge readiness and provoked hypotension compared to propofol alone.

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (7) ◽  
pp. 617-623
Author(s):  
Ramachandran Rameshkumar ◽  
Ponnarmeni Satheesh ◽  
Puneet Jain ◽  
Jagadeesh Anbazhagan ◽  
Shilpa Abraham ◽  
...  

Thorax ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 70 (5) ◽  
pp. 451-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian R Martineau ◽  
Beverley D MacLaughlin ◽  
Richard L Hooper ◽  
Neil C Barnes ◽  
David A Jolliffe ◽  
...  

Pain Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 2528-2538
Author(s):  
John R Zuniga ◽  
Athena S Papas ◽  
Stephen E Daniels ◽  
Kyle Patrick ◽  
Derek D Muse ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the relief of moderate to severe acute pain by CL-108, a novel drug combining a low-dose antiemetic (rapid-release promethazine 12.5 mg) with hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (HC/APAP) was used. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled multidose study. After surgical extraction of two or more impacted third molar teeth (including at least one mandibular impaction), 466 patients with moderate to severe pain (measured on a categorical pain intensity scale [PI-CAT]) were randomized to CL-108, HC/APAP, or placebo. Over the next 24 hours, patients used the PI-CAT to assess pain at regular intervals whereas nausea, vomiting, and other opioid-related side effects were also assessed prospectively. Study medications were taken every four to six hours as needed; supplemental rescue analgesic and antiemetic medications were permitted. Co-primary end points were the incidence of OINV and the time-weighted sum of pain intensity differences over 24 hours (SPID24). Results Relative to HC/APAP treatment alone, CL-108 treatment reduced OINV by 64% (P < 0.001). Treatment with CL-108 significantly reduced pain intensity compared with placebo (SPID24 = 16.2 vs 3.5, P < 0.001). There were no unexpected or serious adverse events. Conclusions CL-108 is a safe and effective combination analgesic/antiemetic for the prevention of OINV during treatment of moderate to severe acute pain.


2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 856-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Dirckx ◽  
P. Cabri ◽  
A. Merien ◽  
L. Galajdova ◽  
J. Gerris ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document