A Comparative Study between Dexmedetomidine Alone versus Combined Low Dose of Dexmedetomidine and Lidocaine for the Hemodynamic Response to Endotracheal Extubation in Patient Undergoing Abdominal Surgery—A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Open Journal of Anesthesiology
Tracheal extubation is related to many side effects of hemodynamic, especially for patients with comorbid states. The study compared the validity of dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg and low combination dose of dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg plus Lidocaine 1 mg/kg in softening hemodynamic stress response and estimated quality of extubation in study groups. Materials and Methods: The patients in our study, one hundred and fifty of both gender, ASA class I &II patients, aged 20 -50 years old subject to elective
... abdominal operations under general anesthesia were allocated into three equal groups. Anesthetic technique was standardized. Before extubation by 10 minutes, the patients in Group N, D, and DL have given 0.9% normal Saline intravenous bolus infusion, dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg and Dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg, respectively within a 10-minute period. Before complete extubation by 90 seconds, in the three groups by syringe ten cc volumes and at time of extubation, Group N and D patients received 0.9% normal Saline intravenous bolus infusion, but in Group DL received Lidocaine 1 mg/kg then extubation completed. Heart rate (HR), Diastolic BP (DBP), Systolic BP (SBP), and Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) were noted at baseline, at the reverse, extubation, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 min and at the regular times after that for two hours. Extubation How to cite this paper: Abdelzaam, E.-S.M. and Eldemrdash, A.M. (2019) A Comparative Study between Dexmedetomidine Alone versus Combined Low Dose of Dexmedetomidine and Lidocaine for the Hemodynamic Response to Endotracheal Extubation in Patient Undergoing Abdominal Surgery-A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. Open Journal of Anes thesiology, 9, 111-126. quality was assessed by extubation quality scale. Aldrete's recovery score and Ramsay sedation score were also recorded and also any complications were noted and recorded. Results: All the hemodynamic parameters significantly elevated extubation and numerous periods of observation in the normal saline group than dexmedetomidine and dexmedetomidine plus Lidocaine group (p-value = 0.001). Response of tachycardia was seen in 41 (82%) in patients of N group, compared to 18 (36%) and 20 (40%) in D & DL group respectively (p = 0.001). Hypertensive response statistically significant noticed in 40 (80%) patients of N group, 9 (18%) of D group and 12 (24%) of DL group (p = 0.001). Tachycardia duration and the response of hypertension were significantly prolonged in the control group. As regards extubation quality, the three groups differed in D Groups (1.93 ± 0.57) and DL (1.51 ± 0.57) had decreased scores compared to group N (2.67 ± 0.48) modulating smoother extubation (p < 0.001). As regard to Ramsay sedation score for 25 min following incoming at PACU was Groups D (2.17 ± 0.43), DL (2.07 ± 0.35) and had raised sedation scores when compared to group N (1.93 ± 0.28) (p < 0.003). Conclusion: Low combined dose of (Dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg plus Lidocaine 1 mg/kg) IV was useful as much as Dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg IV in softening hemodynamic stress responses during emergence.