Dexmedetomidine is an α2 adrenoceptor agonist and has cardioprotective effect,the mechanism of which is being studied.Increasing studies have proved the clinical value of dexmedetomidine in reducing postoperative complications and improving the prognosis of patients.Therefore,this review summarizes the cardiac protection mechanism of dexmedetomidine based on the existing studies and expounds the application of dexmedetomidine in the perioperative period of cardiovascular surgery.
Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use* ; Heart ; Humans

Humans ; Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use* ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Cognitive Dysfunction/drug therapy*

OBJECTIVETo explore the feasibility and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil for lower eyelid blepharoplasty.

METHODS50 patients undergoing lower eyelid blepharoplasty ASA I - II were randomly divided into 2 groups (25 in each group) as observation group and control group. Dexmedetomidine (0.3 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) and remifentanil (0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) were used in observation group. Local anesthesia by lidocaine (1%) combined with midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) intravenous sedation were used in control group. HR, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), breathing rate (RR), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) change were monitored and recorded before and after the administration of the drug, as well as at the beginning of operation, during the operation, at the end of the operation, and 5 minutes after the operation. Patients sedation degree was evaluated by Ramsay. Operation time, recovery time, the incidence of adverse reactions, the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also recorded.

RESULTSPatients had no obvious difference of intraoperative MAP, RR, SpO2, operation time and postoperative recovery time between the two groups (P > 0.05). Compared with control group, HR during the operation were decreased significantly [(64.2 +/- 8.2) bpm, P < 0.05] in observation group. In control group, there were 18 cases of patients with agitation, but they endured the operation anyway. In observation group, 24 cases of patients underwent operation without agitation. The satisfaction of patients and the operation doctors (96%) in observation group were markedly higher than that in control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONDexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil is practical and safe. The effect of reducing HR should be noticed.

Adult ; Blepharoplasty ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Piperidines ; therapeutic use

BACKGROUNDSedation for the coblation-assisted upper airway procedure has lacked easy modulation between appropriate pain control and airway protection. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine versus target controlled propofol infusion in providing sedation during a coblation-assisted upper airway procedure.

METHODSIn a prospective, randomized trial, 60 adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome due to undergoing a coblation-assisted upper airway procedure were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive dexmedetomidine, 1.0 µg/kg over 10 minutes and maintain dosage 0.7 µg×kg(-1)×h(-1) (n=30) or propofol target controlled infusion (n=30). Satisfaction with the analgesia and tolerance of the procedure by the patient, as assessed by a visual analogue scale, were evaluated as primary outcomes. Cardiopulmonary parameters and some side effects were monitored and recorded.

RESULTSBoth groups of 30 patients had comparable demographics and initial parameters. Patients in the propofol group reported more pain (P<0.05), tolerated the procedure less well (P<0.05), and were less satisfied with the different stages of procedure (P<0.05 or P<0.01). Changes in mean arterial pressure and heart rate were more dramatic in the propofol group (P<0.05). The dexmedetomidine group experienced fewer airway events and less respiratory depression than did the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONDexmedetomidine in conjunction with local anesthesia offered better analgesia and conscious sedation for a coblation-assisted upper airway procedure as well as less airway obstruction, apnea and greater haemodynamic stability.

Adult ; Conscious Sedation ; methods ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Female ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Propofol ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVE: To explore the application of the Dexmedetomidine utend drug induced sleep endoscopy. METHOD: Forty-four OSAHS patients diagnosed by PSG randomly were divided into group A (Dexmedetomidine group) and group B (Propofol group), each group of 22 cases. Group A: pump the Dexmedetomidine (1 microg/kg) over 15 minutes. Once the patient reached a satisfactory level of sedation, the electronic nasopharyngoscope was introduced into the nasal cavity group B: the propofol (2 mg/kg) was intravenous injected, use the same exmination after the object patients falling asleep. If not, double the injection dose of the two group. Observe and record the patient vital signs, EEG and sleep time, and handle the complications. RESULT: The study was successfully completed both in group A and B. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) in group B was lower than group A during the examination significantly (P < 0.05). The time falling to sleep in two groups were (13.4 +/- 2.5) min and (6.6 +/- 1.2) min, and the time in group A was much longer than that in group B. The lowest oxygen saturation during the examination in two groups were 0.835 +/- 0.096 and 0.691 +/- 0.095, and the difference was statistically significant. There was no incidence of adverse reactions in two groups. CONCLUSION Compared with propofol, Dexmedetomidine is a safer sleep-inducing drug, and it can be used for clinical sleep endoscopy.
Adult ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Endoscopy ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Propofol ; therapeutic use ; Sleep

Algorithms ; Conscious Sedation ; methods ; Deep Sedation ; adverse effects ; Dexmedetomidine ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVETo assess the effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) on propofol dosage in target-controlled infusion (TCI) and hemodynamics in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODSSixty patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into control group (n=30) and the Dex group (n=30). The patients in Dex group received a loading dose of Dex (1 µg/kg, infused within 10 min) before the surgery followed by continuous infusion at the rate of 0.3 µg·kg(-1)·h(-1) till the end of the surgery, and the control patients received saline infusion in the same manner. Heart rate, blood pressure, bispectral index (BIS), and propofol dose in TCI were recorded during induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were observed during and after the surgery.

RESULTSNo difference was found in the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia between the control group and Dex group (P>0.05), but heart rate and blood pressure were lower in Dex group during extubation (P<0.05). The dose of propofol in TCI was significantly less in Dex group than in the control group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONDex can reduce hemodynamic abnormalities caused by extubation and decrease the dosage of propofol in TCI, and may serve as an ideal adjuvant drug for general anesthesia.

Anesthesia, General ; Blood Pressure ; Bradycardia ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Heart Rate ; Hemodynamics ; Humans ; Hypotension ; Laparoscopy ; Propofol ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effect of dexmedetomidine on patients during the extubation in general anesthesia.
 METHODS: A total of 90 patients scheduled for general anesthesia were divided into 3 groups (n=30): A dexmedetomidine group (DEX group), a midazolam group (MID group), and a control group(C group). Anesthesia drugs were stopped 10 minutes before the end of the operation. 
At the same time, the patients in the DEX group were given dexmedetomidine at the rate of 
1 g/(kg.h) for 10 min by vein first, which was continuously pumped at the rate of 0.3 g/(kg.h) for 20 min after the operation. The patients in the MID group were given midazolamin at 0.5 mg/kg for 60 s by vein first, which was continuously pumped at the rate of the 0.04 mg/(kg.h) for 20 min after the operation. The patients in the C group were not given any drug. Awakening time and extubation time after the operation were recorded. Ramsay scores, heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, and SpO₂were recorded at time of extubation, 10 min or 1 h after extubation. Chills, nausea, vomiting and other side effects after the operation were recorded.
 RESULTS: Awakening and extubation time were not affected in the DEX group, while delayed recovery occurred in the MID group (P<0.05). Compared with the C group, patients in the DEX and MID groups gained better sedative effect, with 2-4 Ramsay scores (P<0.05). The blood pressure and heart rate were steady in the DEX and MID groups, while inhibition of respiration appeared in the MID group.
 CONCLUSION Dexmedetomidine can provide an effective sedation for the patients without affecting the awakening and extubation time. The hemodynamics could be stably maintained by using dexmedetomidine in patients during the extubation in general anesthesia.
Airway Extubation ; Anesthesia, General ; Arterial Pressure ; Blood Pressure ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Heart Rate ; Hemodynamics ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVETo compare the sedative effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MDZ) in dental implant surgery:

METHODSSixty patients undergoing dental implantation were selected and divided randomly into six groups (10 in each group). In group 1 (G1), a highdose of MDZ alone was administered intravenously. In group 2 (G2), a relatively low dose of MDZ and DEX was administered intravenously. In group 3 (G3), a highdose of MDZ and DEX was administered intravenously. In group 4 (G4), a lowdose of MDZ and a highdose of DEX were administered. In group 5(G5), a highdose of MDZ and a low dose of DEX were administered. In group 6 (G6), a highdose of DEX alone was administered intravenously. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and arterial oxygen saturation values were measured. Sedation was assessed by determining the Ramsay sedation scores(RSS) during infiltration anesthesia (T1), incision (T2), cutting (T3), and suturing (T4). Before discharging from the hospital, patients were asked if they remembered the T1 to T4 procedures. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and the degree of patient satisfaction were assessed at the same time.

RESULTSIn T1 to T4, the systolic blood pressure (SBP) in G3 was the lowest and was significantly different from that in G1 and G2 (P < 0.05). In G1, the SBP was higher than that in G6 at the T3 and T4 points (P < 0.05). HR was below the preoperative (P < 0.05) in the G3 only. RSS was the lowest in G1 during the whole procedure. In G2, most patients obtained scores of 2-3. In G3, sedation was deeper, had more cases ofup to 5. In G4, most patients obtained scores of 3-4. In G5, some patients had a score of up to 5. The RSS in G6 was lower than that in G3 and G4 or G5 in T1 to T2, closer to G4 in T2. An evaluation of the VAS and the degree of patient satisfaction did not show any differences among the groups.

CONCLUSIONThe combination of DEX and MDZ is superior to a single intravenous injection. Low-dose MDZ combined with high-dose DEX achieved the highest quality of sedation in this study.

Anesthesia ; Blood Pressure ; Dental Care ; Dental Implants ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Heart Rate ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use ; Pain Measurement ; Patient Satisfaction ; Prospective Studies

BACKGROUNDThe management of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is beneficial for patients and makes it widely applied in clinical practice. Previous studies showed that the clinical practice of PAD in ICU was improving; yet relatively little information is available in China. This study aimed to investigate the practice of PAD in ICUs in China.

METHODSA multicenter, nationwide survey was conducted using a clinician-directed questionnaire from September 19 to December 18, 2016. The questionnaire focused on the assessment and management of PAD by the clinicians in ICUs. The practice of PAD was compared among the four regions of China (North, Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest). The data were expressed as percentage and frequency. The Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and line-row Chi-square test were used.

RESULTSOf the 1011 valid questionnaire forms, the response rate was 80.37%. The clinicians came from 704 hospitals across 158 cities of China. The rate of PAD assessment was 75.77%, 90.21%, and 66.77%, respectively. The rates of PAD scores were 45.8%, 68.94%, and 34.03%, respectively. The visual analog scale, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, and confusion assessment method for the ICU were the first choices of scales for PAD assessment. Fentanyl, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine were the first choices of agents for analgesic, sedation, and delirium treatment. While choosing analgesics and sedatives, the clinicians put the pharmacological characteristics of drugs in the first place (66.07% and 76.36%). Daily interruption for sedation was carried out by 67.26% clinicians. Most of the clinicians (87.24%) used analgesics while using sedatives. Of the 738 (73%) clinicians titrating the sedatives on the basis of the proposed target sedation level, 268 (26.61%) clinicians just depended on their clinical experience. Totally, 519 (51.34%) clinicians never used other nondrug strategies for PAD. The working time of clinicians was an important factor in the management of analgesia and sedation rather than their titles and educational background. The ratios of pain score and sedation score in the Southwest China were the highest and the North China were the lowest. The ratios of delirium assessment and score were the same in the four regions of China. Moreover, the first choices of scales for PAD in the four regions were the same. However, the top three choices of agents in PAD treatment in the four regions were not the same.

CONCLUSIONSThe practice of PAD in China follows the international guidelines; however, the pain assessment should be improved. The PAD practice is a little different across the four regions of China; however, the trend is consistent.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONThe study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (No. ChiCTR-OOC-16009014, www.chictr. org.cn/index.aspx.).

Delirium ; drug therapy ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Fentanyl ; therapeutic use ; Haloperidol ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Intensive Care Units ; statistics & numerical data ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use ; Pain ; drug therapy ; Pain Management ; methods ; Pain Measurement ; methods ; Surveys and Questionnaires