Intraoperative and postoperative infusion of dexmedetomidine combined with intravenous butorphanol patient‑controlled analgesia following total hysterectomy under laparoscopy
- Authors:
- Published online on: September 13, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6736
- Pages: 4063-4069
-
Copyright: © Du et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
Management of postoperative pain continues to be a challenging task. Opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is widely used in postoperative analgesia, which may cause a number of side effects, including postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), respiratory depression, pruritus and urinary retention (1). As a derivative of morphine, butorphanol has partial agonist/antagonist activity on µ-opioid receptors, agonist activity on κ-opioid receptors and no obvious activity on δ-opioid receptors (2). Butorphanol has been used for musculoskeletal pain, headaches and perioperative analgesia safety (3). Analgesia using butorphanol is five times greater than that using morphine (4). A previous study demonstrated that butorphanol exerted affective analgesia on patients following uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (5). Butorphanol PCA rarely leads to side effects, potential for abuse or systemic toxicity (6,7). The majority of patients (84%) undergoing general abdominal surgery and general anesthesia using butorphanol, a PCA, as the analgesic agent were able to obtain excellent postoperative pain relief (8). However, similarly to other opioids, butorphanol can lead to respiratory depression, excessive sedation, PONV and dizziness (9). Therefore, there has been a pursuit for combining currently available pharmacological agents to reduce the side effects. Using a combination of pharmacological agents that act on multiple pharmacologic sites is the optimal method for postoperative analgesia, which is defined as multimodal analgesia (10). This allows the use of lower doses of opioids, which decreases the incidence of side effects. In order to decrease the side effects resulting from opioid-based, intravenous PCA (PCIA), the addition of various adjuncts has been broadly studied but their efficacy has not yet been confirmed (10).
Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a novel selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, has been used for sedation or analgesia in intensive care and during surgery (11). DEX has analgesic, sedative and sympatholytic effects but does not cause respiratory depression (12). Due to its multiple effects, perioperative administration of DEX is applicable as a sedative and analgesic pharmacological agent (13). DEX also has analgesia and opioid-sparing effects when used as an adjuvant for postoperative analgesia (14,15). The results of one meta-analysis indicated opioid (morphine, fentanyl or sufentanyl)-DEX combination PCIA optimized analgesia, spared opioid consumption, deduced side effects and increased patient satisfaction when compared with PCIA opioid alone (16). Furthermore, postoperative administration of DEX may serve an important role in multimodal analgesia (16). However, the conclusion of this review was significantly confounded by the studies performed with differences in DEX dose, administration time and surgery (13–15). Furthermore, DEX is only licensed for patient sedation under intensive care and few studies have observed the effects of DEX in patients using butorphanol-based PCIA.
Based on the aforementioned results, it was hypothesized that DEX may improve the analgesic effect of butorphanol-based PCIA and reduce adverse effects in patients undergoing total hysterectomy. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study was to evaluate whether intraoperative and postoperative infusion of DEX added to butorphanol PCIA could enhance the analgesic effect in patients 24 h post-total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Simultaneously, the adverse effects associated with the DEX-butorphanol combination PCIA were also investigated.
Materials and methods
Study protocol
The present trial was retrospectively registered at the clinical trial (http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx, registration number: ChiCTR1800015675). The present study was approved by the Institutional Human Investigations Committee of Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital (Yantai, China) and written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to 88 patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy with general anesthesia being recruited.
Patients
The inclusion criteria were as follows: Aged between 38 and 65 years and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade of I or II. The exclusion criteria were as follows: ASA grade of ≥III, obesity [body mass index (BMI), >30], opioid addiction, treatment with sedative-hypnotic drug(s), uncontrolled hypertension, severe heart disease, conduction abnormality, neuropsychiatric diseases, alcohol abuse and allergy to either butorphanol or DEX. Prior to surgery, all patients were taught the operation of PCA and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score (pain intensity on a 10-point VAS; 0, no pain and 10, the worst pain imaginable). Patients were instructed to push the PCA button when they experienced pain.
Randomization and blinding
A computer-generated randomization table was used to divide the patients randomly into control (CON) or DEX groups by an independent anesthetist prior to surgery. Another anesthetist, who was not involved in the present study, prepared the drugs according to the group. Anesthetists, surgeons, patients and nurses were blinded to the proposal during the study.
Anesthesia and PCIA
Following arrival at the operating room, electrocardiography, blood pressure (BP), pulse oxygen saturation (SPO2), end-tidal CO2 (pETCO2) and the bi-spectral index (BIS) were monitored by an automated patient monitor (Philips IntelliVue MP60; Philips Medical Systems, Inc., Bothell, WA, USA). All patients were administered intravenously (i.v.) with midazolam (0.05 mg/kg), fentanyl (2–3 µg/kg; Yichang Humanwell Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yichang, China), propofol (1.5–2 mg/kg; Fresenius Kabi Asia-Pacific, Ltd., Wanchai, Hong Kong) and cisatracurium (0.2 mg/kg; Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd., Lianyungang, China) for induction. Following intubation with a laryngeal mask, patients were ventilated with a PetCO2 at 35–40 mmHg. Fentanyl (2–3 µg/kg) was administered prior to skin incision. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane (end-tidal concentration of 1.5–2.5%) and a continuous infusion of remifentanil (0.1–0.2 µg/kg/min; Yichang Humanwell Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.). Cisatracurium (0.05 mg/kg) was administered during surgery until 1 h prior to the end of surgery. Titration of anesthetics was adjusted to maintain a BIS value of 40–60. Patients in the two groups received 4–6 ml/kg/h of Ringer's solution on the basis of fluid deficit, maintenance dose and intraoperative losses. Either hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) or ephedrine (6 mg i.v.) was administered to treat hypotension [mean BP (MBP), <60 mmHg]. Atropine (0.2 mg i.v.) was administered to treat bradycardia (HR, <50 bpm). A total of 0.5 µg/kg DEX (Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd.) or the equivalent volume of 0.9% normal saline was infused i.v. for ≥10 min in the DEX and CON group following induction, respectively. A total of 30 min prior to the end of surgery, the two groups received 1 mg butorphanol (Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd.) and 0.25 mg palonosetron. Following surgery, 1 mg neostigmine and 0.5 mg atropine were administered. The patients following extubation were delivered to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), where they were intensively cared for and administered with O2.
PCIA was commenced immediately following surgery. In the CON group, the PCA regimen consisted of 10 mg butorphanol. In the DEX group, the PCA regimen consisted of 10 mg butorphanol and 300 µg DEX. The PCA volume was made up to 100 ml with 0.9% normal saline. The PCA was infused with a 0.5 ml bolus on-demand, with a 15 min lockout interval and a 2 ml/h background rate. Therefore, a background infusion of DEX in the DEX group was 0.1 µg/kg/h.
Outcome measures
HR, MAP and SpO2 were recorded as follows: Arrival at the operating room (baseline, T0); induction (T1); intubation (T2); 30 min following intubation (T3); 60 min following intubation (T4); extubation (T5); and 1, 2, 6, 12 and 24 h post-surgery (T6-T10). The pump-press number and consumption of butorphanol were recorded at T10. Pain scores at rest and movement were recorded at T6-T10. At the same time points, the sedation level was scored using a 5-point scale (0, fully awake; 1, drowsy, closed eyes; 2, asleep, easily aroused with light tactile stimulation or a simple verbal command; 3, asleep, arousable only by strong physical stimulation; and 4, unarousable). The level of satisfaction (0, very satisfied; 1, satisfied; 2, less satisfied; 3, not satisfied) was assessed at T10. Bradycardia (HR, <50 bpm), hypotension (SBP, <90 mmHg), somnolence (sedation score, ≥3), and respiratory depression (respiration rate, <8 bpm over 5 min) were regarded as severe adverse events and were treated immediately. Other adverse events (PONV, itching and dizziness) were also recorded.
Statistical analysis
A difference of 20% in butorphanol PCIA consumption was expected. For a study power of 80% (α=0.05, β=0.2), the required sample size in each group was 38. To allow for a possible 15% drop-out rate, 44 patients were included in each group. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows Version 16.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Normally distributed data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Patient characteristics, including age, weight, BMI, surgery time, anesthesia time, PACU stay time, pump-press number and butorphanol consumption were compared between the 2 groups using unpaired Student's t-tests. HR and MBP at different time points were compared between the two groups using two-way analysis of variance, followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test. The incidence of adverse events and the degree of satisfaction were analyzed using the χ2 test. Pain and sedation scores were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
Results
Demographic data and surgery/anesthesia-associated information
As indicated in Fig. 1, the CONSORT flow diagram of patient recruitment was demonstrated. A total of 88 patients were enrolled in the present study; 4 patients were excluded due to not meeting the inclusion criteria or declining to participate; 1 patient in the CON group withdrew due to their surgery being canceled and 2 patients (1 from the CON group and 1 from the DEX group) were excluded following surgery as PCA was discontinued. Finally, 81 patients completed the study (40 in the CON group and 41 in the DEX group). Basic demographic data and surgery/anesthesia-associated information in the 2 groups were compared (Table I). There were no significant differences in age, body weight, BMI, anesthesia time, surgery time and recovery time at PACU.
Hemodynamic changes from the baseline to 24 h post-surgery were presented (Fig. 2). With respect to the baseline MBP and HR, there was a decrease induced by anesthesia induction and an increase evoked by intubation. There was a trend of a lower HR and MBP in the DEX group following infusion with the loading dose of DEX but none of the patients required their doses to be corrected. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the two groups during surgery and 24 h after surgery with regards to MAP and HR.
PCIA evaluation
PCIA was commenced immediately following surgery. Patients in the CON group exhibited a significantly higher pump-press number and significantly increased butorphanol consumption compared with those in the DEX group (P<0.05). Patients in the DEX group consumed 19% less butorphanol during 0–24 h post-surgery compared with the CON group (Fig. 3). At the same time, patients in the DEX group exhibited a significantly lower VAS score at rest and movement states compared with the CON group (P<0.05; Fig. 4). There were no significant differences in the sedation score between the groups. None of the patients had a sedation score ≥3 (Fig. 5). Furthermore, results indicated that the satisfaction scores were significantly greater in the DEX group compared with those in the CON group (P<0.05; Table II).
Post-operative adverse effects
Compared with the CON group, the DEX group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (P<0.05). However, the incidence of itching and dizziness was similar in the two groups. Changes in the respiratory rate were not significantly different between the groups. Notably, there was no instance of serious adverse events (respiratory depression, hypotension, bradycardia or somnolence; Table III).
Discussion
The results of the present trial indicated that the combination treatment of DEX and butorphanol strengthened the analgesic effect of butorphanol, and reduced butorphanol consumption and the butorphanol-induced PONV, without severe adverse events.
PCIA has been studied extensively for postoperative analgesia. The use of opioids for postoperative analgesia typically results in nausea, vomiting and other adverse events. In multimodal analgesia, adding an adjunct to an opioid in PCIA for pain control is popular (17). An important aspect of multimodal analgesia is that the PCIA must have superior analgesic effects with minimal side effects. Compared with clonidine, DEX has a more favorable pharmacokinetic profile, including a higher α2:α1 specificity ratio, 1,600:1 vs. 200:1; a shorter plasmatic half-life T1/2, 2–2.5 vs. 9–12 h; and a higher protein binding, 94 vs. 50%. The advantages of DEX for postoperative analgesia, either as an opioid-sparing effect or reducing pain scores, have been verified in numerous studies (18,19). Notably, adding DEX to opioids may improve postoperative analgesia. A number of studies have applied this method but the DEX doses have been different and the conclusion remains unclear (16).
When butorphanol is infused at a background rate, it may produce potential analgesia and a certain degree of sedation (6). Butorphanol being infused continuously can maintain stable plasma concentrations, resulting in extended analgesia (7). Patients who underwent abdominal surgery expressed satisfaction with the butorphanol PCIA (7). Reedy et al (20) indicated that the respiratory rate and sedation status of patients who received butorphanol or morphine were similar. Patients received effective analgesia and minimal sedation.
The recommended loading dose of DEX is 0.5–1 µg/kg in adults (12). A previous study demonstrated that a loading dose 0.5 µg/kg DEX alleviated labor pain (21). A larger loading dose of DEX may delay anesthetic recovery. The onset time, distribution half-life and elimination half-life of DEX are ~15 min, 6 min and 2 h respectively (12,22). The duration of total laparoscopic hysterectomy is relatively short (~80 min), so a loading dose of 0.5 µg/kg was administered.
In the present study, a significant reduction in the pain score and butorphanol consumption was observed in the DEX groups, suggesting an analgesic effect of DEX. The opioid-sparing effects of DEX in the present study were similar to those observed in other studies (14,15,19). Possible mechanisms underlying DEX that were suggested included the following: Inhibition of nociceptive neurotransmission via activating peripheral, spinal and supraspinal α2-adreno receptors; attenuation of the stress response and the affective-motivational components of pain; and alleviation of hyperalgesia resulting from opioid administration or surgical inflammation (22,23).
A specific level of sedation following surgery is necessary for patients to reduce worry and anxiety. Moderate sedation during the early post-operative period is regarded as a clinical method to maintain hemodynamic stability and to provide comfort and analgesia without interfering with the evaluation of the conscious state (7). Furthermore, sedation can prevent aimless movement from inadequate analgesia and promote recovery (7). Given the sedative properties of butorphanol, butorphanol infused at the background dose resulted in a low level of sedation. The use of DEX, recognized as a sedative and analgesic drug, combined with butorphanol following surgery may arouse concerns of unnecessary or excessive sedation. However, no excessive sedation following DEX was observed during postoperative PCIA in the present study. Such moderate sedation ensures that patients adequately remain orientated and calm, cooperative, breathing and coughing. This observation may be due to: i) The doses of DEX used in the present study being lower than the recommended maintenance infusion for sedation and ii) the reduced consumption of butorphanol serving a vital role in mitigating sedation.
The present study demonstrated that adding DEX to butorphanol PCIA decreased PONV compared with butorphanol alone. This may be due to the antiemetic properties of DEX since higher plasma concentrations of catecholamines is an important factor leading to PONV (24). Additionally, the butorphanol-sparing effect of DEX, which resulted in a reduction in PONV, has been demonstrated in gynecological patients (25). A meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX can reduce the occurrence of PONV, which is likely attributable to the reduced consumption of opioids (26). A decreased consumption of butorphanol in patients receiving DEX may explain the reduced incidence of PONV.
Owing to the lack of evidence for the off-label use of DEX in non-intensive care unit settings, the risk of respiratory depression from the combination of DEX and butorphanol requires consideration. Therefore, the basal rate was set at 0.1 µg/kg/h with a maximum limit of 0.2 µg/kg/h. This is far below the manufacturer's recommended dosage (0.2–0.7 µg/kg/h). No respiratory depression was observed in the present study, indicating that adding DEX to butorphanol PCA does not affect respiratory stability.
When DEX was administered in a large bolus dose, hemodynamic effects, including hypotension and bradycardia, were the most frequent adverse events (27). A previous study reported that postoperative infusion of DEX with sufentanil without a bolus dose could avoid hemodynamic effects; however, anti-PONV effects of DEX were lessened in the first 4 h post-surgery. Additionally, a study involving healthy volunteers demonstrated that a 0.5 µg/kg loading dose can provide sufficient analgesia without clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia (28). Therefore, in order to minimize the adverse effects (e.g., hypotension, hypertension and bradycardia), a small bolus-loading dose of DEX (0.5 µg/kg) was selected instead of the manufacturer's recommended dose (1 µg/kg). Significant hypotension or bradycardia was not observed in the present study, which may be due to the low loading dose of intraoperative DEX and a relatively lower maintenance dose. However, hemodynamic deterioration associated with DEX has been reported (29). In the present study, there were not statistically significant differences in HR and MAP between the two groups; however, HR and MAP were lower in the DEX group. The hemodynamic effects associated with DEX being added to butorphanol PCA should be appreciated.
The present study has certain limitations. To begin with, different groups with different doses of DEX to examine whether lower or higher doses of DEX were more effective were not designed. This requires verification in future studies. Secondly, SBP <90 mmHg was defined as hypotension and HR <50 bpm was defined as bradycardia. However, others have defined MBP <60 mmHg or a 20% drop from the baseline as hypotension and HR <50 bpm or a 20% drop from the baseline as bradycardia (14,24). Finally, the present study was performed at one hospital. Further studies including more patients from different centers and undergoing different types of surgery may provide more definitive results.
In conclusion, compared with butorphanol PCIA alone, a small loading dose of DEX infusion (0.5 µg/kg) followed by a continuous infusion (0.1 µg/kg/h) as an adjunct to butorphanol PCIA can reduce butorphanol consumption, improve the analgesic effect and increase the patient satisfaction level. The present study suggested that DEX combined with butorphanol PCIA is a potential analgesia for patients following total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Post-operative DEX administration may serve a role in multimodal pain therapy. Further studies are required to establish the effect-dose balance between optimal postoperative analgesia and minimal side effects in DEX-butorphanol PCIA.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
The present study was funded by the Nature and Science Fund of Shandong Province, China (grant no. ZR2014HL109) and the Science and Technology Program Foundation of Yantai, China (grant no. 2014WS009).
Authors' contributions
JD and JL registered the clinical trial, recruited patients, collected data and wrote the manuscript. JJ and CS analyzed the data. JM designed the study and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The present study was approved by the Institutional Human Investigations Committee of Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
|
Walder B, Schafer M, Henzi I and Tramèr MR: Efficacy and safety of patient controlled opioid analgesia for acute postoperative pain. A quantitative systematic review. Acta Anesthesiol Scand. 45:795–804. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Sellon DC, Monroe VL, Roberts MC and Papich MG: Pharmacokinetics and adverse effects of butorphanol administered by single intravenous injection or continuous intravenous infusion in horses. Am J Vet Res. 62:183–189. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ganesh A and Maxwell LG: Pathophysiology and management of opioid-induced pruritus. Drugs. 67:2323–2333. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Du BX, Song ZM, Wang K, Zhang H, Xu FY, Zou Z and Shi XY: Butorphanol prevents morphine-induced pruritus without increasing pain and other side effects: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Can J Anaesth. 60:907–917. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wang Q, Li Z, Wang ZP and Cui C: Preemptive analgesic effect of parecoxib sodium in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 30:2556–2557. 2010.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Nelson KE and Eisenach JC: Intravenous butorphanol, meperidine, and their combination relieve pain and distress in women in labor. Anesthesiology. 102:1008–1013. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wang F, Shen X, Liu Y, Xu S and Guo X: Continuous infusion of butorphanol combined with intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia after total abdominal hysterectomy: A randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 26:28–34. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wermeling DP, Foster TS, Farrington EA, Witt WO, Gallion HH, Donaldson E, van Nagell JR Jr, Outman WR and McPherson DP: Patient-controlled analgesia using butorphanol for postoperative pain relief: An open-label study. Acute Care. 12 Suppl 1:S31–S39. 1988. | |
|
Dawn AG and Yosipovitch G: Butorphanol for treatment of intractable pruritus. J Am Acad Dermatol. 54:527–531. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Elia N, Lysakowski C and Tramèr MR: Does multimodal analgesia with acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and patient-controlled analgesia morphine offer advantages over morphine alone? Meta-analyses of randomized trials. Anesthesiology. 103:1296–1304. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lirola T, Ihmsen H, Laitio R, Kentala E, Aantaa R, Kurvinen JP, Scheinin M, Schwilden H, Schüttler J and Olkkola KT: Population pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine during long-term sedation in intensive care patients. Br J Anaesth. 108:460–468. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gerlach AT and Dasta JF: Dexmedetomidine: An updated review. Ann Pharmacother. 41:245–252. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Blaudszun G, Lysakowski C, Elia N and Tramèr MR: Effect of perioperative systemic α2 agonists on postoperative morphine consumption and pain intensity: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 116:1312–1322. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lin TF, Yeh YC, Lin FS, Wang YP, Lin CJ, Sun WZ and Fan SZ: Effect of combining dexmedetomidine and morphine for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Br J Anaesth. 102:117–122. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kim SY, Chang CH, Lee JS, Kim YJ, Kim MD and Han DW: Comparison of the efficacy of dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia for pain control in uterine artery embolization for symptomatic fibroid tumors or adenomyosis: A prospective, randomized study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 24:779–786. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Peng K, Liu HY, Wu SR, Cheng H and Ji FH: Effects of combining dexmedetomidine and opioids for postoperative intravenous patient controlled analgesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain. 31:1097–1104. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Joshi GP: Multimodal analgesia techniques and postoperative rehabilitation. Anesthesiol Clin North America. 23:185–202. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
McQueen-Shadfar LA, Megalla SA, White WD, Olufolabi AJ, Jones CA and Habib AS: Impact of intraoperative dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia following gynecologic surgery. Curr Med Res Opin. 27:2091–2097. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Cheung CW, Qiu Q, Ying AC, Choi SW, Law WL and Irwin MG: The effects of intra-operative dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain, side-effects and recovery in colorectal surgery. Anesthesia. 69:1214–1221. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Reedy ME, Morris LE, Brown DL, Snow D, Koehl M and Stone CK: Double-blind comparison of butorphanol and morphine in patient-controlled analgesia. Acute Care. 12 Suppl 1:S40–S46. 1988. | |
|
Palanisamy A, Klickovich RJ, Ramsay M, Ouyang DW and Tsen LC: Intravenous dexmedetomidine as an adjunct for labor analgesia and cesarean delivery anesthesia in a parturient with a tethered spinal cord. Int J Obstet Anesth. 18:258–261. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Zhang X and Bai X: New therapeutic uses for an alpha2 adrenergic receptor agonist-dexmedetomidine in pain management. Neurosci Lett. 561:7–12. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Zheng Y, Cui S, Liu Y, Zhang J, Zhang W, Zhang J, Gu X and Ma Z: Dexmedetomidine prevents remifentanil-induced postoperative hyperalgesia and decreases spinal tyrosine phosphorylation of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor 2B subunit. Brain Res Bull. 87:427–431. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Song Y, Shim JK, Song JW, Kim EK and Kwak YL: Dexmedetomidine added to an opioid-based analgesic regimen for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in highly susceptible patients: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 32:75–83. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Massad IM, Mohsen WA, Basha AS, Al-Zaben KR, Al-Mustafa MM and Alghanem SM: A balanced anesthesia with dexmedetomidine decreases postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery. Saudi Med J. 30:1537–1541. 2009.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Liang X, Zhou M, Feng JJ, Wu L, Fang SP, Ge XY, Sun HJ, Ren PC and Lv X: Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med. 8:12113–12134. 2015.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Schnabel A, Meyer-Frießem CH, Reichl SU, Zahn PK and Pogatzki-Zahn EM: Is intraoperative dexmedetomidine a new option for postoperative pain treatment? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain. 154:1140–1149. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Cortinez LI, Hsu YW, Sum-Ping ST, Young C, Keifer JC, Macleod D, Robertson KM, Wright DR, Moretti EW and Somma J: Dexmedetomidine pharmacodynamics: Part II: Crossover comparison of the analgesic effect of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 101:1077–1083. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gerlach AT and Murphy CV: Dexmedetomidine-associated bradycardia progressing to pulseless electrical activity: Case report and review of the literature. Pharmacotherapy. 29:14922009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI |
