BACKGROUND: Sedation protocols in patients undergoing complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair are not fully investigated. The aim of this study was to compare a dexmedetomidine (DEX) based sedation protocol with a remifentanil-based sedation protocol. METHODS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair were enrolled and retrospectively analyzed. Forty-two received 0.03 mg/kg midazolam intravenous bolus with remifentanil (0.075-0.1 μg/kg/min for 10 minutes followed by continuous infusion 0.050-0.25 μg/kg/min) and 37 DEX (1 μg/kg over 10 minutes and continuous infusion 0.50-0.75 μg/kg/hour) to achieve an Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAAS) ≤4, a Richmond Agitation/Sedation Scale (RASS) ≤-2 and a Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) <4. The primary endpoint was patients’ satisfaction. Secondary endpoints included assessment of sedation and pain, the incidence of perioperative hemodynamic or gas exchange imbalance, and 36 month-mortality. RESULTS: Remifentanil group showed a higher satisfaction rate than DEX (P<0.001). Patients on DEX were more sedated than remifentanil according to OAAS (3 [2-3] vs. 4 [3-4]; P=0.001) and RASS (-2[-3/-2] vs. -2[-2/-2]; P=0.001) with no difference in VAS (2 [1-3] vs. 2 [1-3]; P=0.41). DEX provides reliable sedation with lower patient’s satisfaction. A higher number of patients were discharged from the recovery room on vasopressors in the DEX group compare with the remifentanil group (5 vs. 0; P=0.045, respectively). The two groups showed a non-significant difference in the survival rate at 36-month (DEX 67% vs. remifentanil 73%; (P=0.90). CONCLUSIONS: In this setting remifentanil provides reliable sedation with higher patient’s satisfaction and less hemodynamic effect than DEX.

Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation under monitored anesthetic care in complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: a single center experience with mid-term follow-up / Monaco, Fabrizio; Barucco, Gaia; Lerose, Caterina C.; DE LUCA, Monica; Licheri, Margherita; Mucchetti, Marta; Labanca, Rosa; Morselli, Federica; Mattioli, Cristina; Russetti, Federica; Zangrillo, Alberto. - In: MINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA. - ISSN 0375-9393. - 89:4(2023), p. 264. [10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16782-9]

Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation under monitored anesthetic care in complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: a single center experience with mid-term follow-up

LABANCA, Rosa;MORSELLI, Federica;RUSSETTI, Federica
Penultimo
;
ZANGRILLO, Alberto
Ultimo
2023-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sedation protocols in patients undergoing complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair are not fully investigated. The aim of this study was to compare a dexmedetomidine (DEX) based sedation protocol with a remifentanil-based sedation protocol. METHODS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair were enrolled and retrospectively analyzed. Forty-two received 0.03 mg/kg midazolam intravenous bolus with remifentanil (0.075-0.1 μg/kg/min for 10 minutes followed by continuous infusion 0.050-0.25 μg/kg/min) and 37 DEX (1 μg/kg over 10 minutes and continuous infusion 0.50-0.75 μg/kg/hour) to achieve an Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAAS) ≤4, a Richmond Agitation/Sedation Scale (RASS) ≤-2 and a Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) <4. The primary endpoint was patients’ satisfaction. Secondary endpoints included assessment of sedation and pain, the incidence of perioperative hemodynamic or gas exchange imbalance, and 36 month-mortality. RESULTS: Remifentanil group showed a higher satisfaction rate than DEX (P<0.001). Patients on DEX were more sedated than remifentanil according to OAAS (3 [2-3] vs. 4 [3-4]; P=0.001) and RASS (-2[-3/-2] vs. -2[-2/-2]; P=0.001) with no difference in VAS (2 [1-3] vs. 2 [1-3]; P=0.41). DEX provides reliable sedation with lower patient’s satisfaction. A higher number of patients were discharged from the recovery room on vasopressors in the DEX group compare with the remifentanil group (5 vs. 0; P=0.045, respectively). The two groups showed a non-significant difference in the survival rate at 36-month (DEX 67% vs. remifentanil 73%; (P=0.90). CONCLUSIONS: In this setting remifentanil provides reliable sedation with higher patient’s satisfaction and less hemodynamic effect than DEX.
2023
Dexmedetomidine;Remifentanil;Analgesia;Hypotension;Endovascular procedures
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
88579_88579.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: PDF editoriale (versione pubblicata dall'editore)
Licenza: Altra licenza
Dimensione 538.16 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
538.16 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/136010
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact