Dexmedetomidine Causes Increased Hypotension in Older Adults When Used for Cataract Surgery Compared to Propofol

Irwin Gratz, Smith Jean, Edward Deal, Erin Pukenas, Elaine Allen, Marc C. Torjman

Department of Anesthesiology, Cooper Medical School at Rowan University, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, USA.
Department of Anesthesiology, Cooper Medical School at Rowan University, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, USA;.
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, USA..

DOI: 10.4236/ojanes.2013.34054                

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the hemodynamic effects, suitability and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with propofol (PRO) in older adults having outpatient cataract surgery under monitored anesthesia care. The patients, surgeon and the anesthesia staff evaluated satisfaction for both drugs.Method: This prospective, single blind, randomized study was conducted using forty-seven patients ≥55 years old undergoing cataract surgery. The two patient groups received either i.v. dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg over 10 min; followed by maintenance i.v. infusion at 0.2 -0.7 μg/kg/hr (DEX group, N = 24), or propofol infused between 25 -120 μg/kg/min (PRO group, N = 23). Both agents were titrated to patient comfort. Results: Patients’ mean arterial pressures (SEM) at baseline were 104.7 (2.6) and 107.5 (2.7) mmHg for the DEX and PRO groups, respectively (p = 0.45). At discharge the pressures were 78.1 (2.5) and 98.1 (2.6) mmHg in DEX and PRO groups, respectively (p < 0.05). Patients’ heart rates (SEM) at baseline were 74.8 (3.0) for the DEX group and 73.2 (2.8) bpm for the PRO groups (p = 0.71). At the time of discharge following surgery, the mean heart rate for the DEX group was 61.5 (2.2) bpm vs. 69.1 (2.3) bpm (p < 0.05) for the PRO group. Three patients in the DEX group developed complications precluding discharge or requiring readmission while none of the patience in the PRO group had complications (p = 0.08). Patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were similar between the groups. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is a less suitable sedative compared with propofol use in older patients undergoing cataract surgery due to the decrease in hemodynamic parameters and noted increases in complication rates.

Keywords

Cataract Surgery; Dexmedetomidine; Monitored Anesthesia Care; Propofol

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	P. B. Greenberg, J. Liu, W. C. Wu, et al., “Predictors of Mortality within 90 Days of Cataract Surgery,” Ophthalmology, Vol. 117, No. 10, 2010, pp. 1894-1899. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.009
[2]	D. V. Leaming, “Practice Styles and Preferences of ASCRS Members 2003 Survey,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2004, pp. 892-900. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.02.064
[3]	P. R. Janzen, A. Christys and M. Vucevic, “Patient-Controlled Sedation Using Propofol in Elderly Patients in Day-Case Cataract Surgery,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 82, No. 4, 1999, pp. 635-636. doi:10.1093/bja/82.4.635
[4]	S. M. Bhananker, K. L. Posner, F. W. Cheney, et al., “Injury and Liability Associated with Monitored Anesthesia Care: A Closed Claims Analysis,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 104, No. 2, 2006, pp. 228-234. doi:10.1097/00000542-200602000-00005
[5]	A. T. Gerlach and J. F. Dasta, “Dexmedetomidine: An Updated Review,” The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 245-252. doi:10.1345/aph.1H314
[6]	R. Venn, C. Bradshaw, R. Spencer, et al., “Preliminary UK Experience of Dexmedetomidine, a Novel Agent for Post-operative Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 54, No. 12, 1999, pp. 1136-1142. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.01114.x
[7]	J. E. Hall, T. D. Uhrich, J. A. Barney, et al., “Sedative, Amnestic, and Analgesic Properties of Small-Dose Dexmedetomidine Infusions,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 90, No. 3, 2000, pp. 699-705. doi:10.1097/00000539-200003000-00035
[8]	J. A. Tan and K. M. Ho, “Use of Dexmedetomidine as a Sedative and Analgesic Agent in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Meta-Analysis,” Intensive Care Medicine, Vol. 36 No. 6, 2010, pp. 926-939. doi:10.1007/s00134-010-1877-6
[9]	K. Kaygusuz, G. Gokce, S. Gursoy, et al., “A Comparison of Sedation with Dexmedetomidine or Propofol during Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 106, No. 1, 2008, pp. 114-119. doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000296453.75494.64
[10]	S. D. Bergese, B. Khabiri, W. D. Roberts, et al., “Dexmedetomidine for Conscious Sedation in Difficult Awake Fiberoptic Intubation Cases,” Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2007, pp. 141-144. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2006.07.005
[11]	S. Muller, S. M. Borowics, E. A. Fortis, et al., “Clinical Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Alone Is Less than Propofol for Conscious Sedation during ERCP,” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 67, No. 4, 2008, pp. 651-659. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.041
[12]	C. Chrysostomou, “Dexmedetomidine: Should It Be Standard after Pediatric Cardiac Surgery?” Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2012, pp. 696-697. doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e31825b84f4
[13]	A. Bekker, M. Sturaitis, M. Bloom, et al., “The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Perioperative Hemodynamics in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 107, No. 4, 2008, pp. 1340-1347. doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181804298
[14]	N. M. Bulow, N. V. Barbosa and J. B. Rocha, “Opioid Consumption in Total Intravenous Anesthesia Is Reduced with Dexmedetomidine: A Comparative Study with Remifentanil in Gynecologic Videolaparoscopic Surgery,” Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2007, pp. 280-285. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2007.01.004
[15]	J. A. Alhashemi, “Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Monitored Anesthesia Care during Cataract Surgery,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 96, No. 6, 2006, pp. 722- 726. doi:10.1093/bja/ael080
[16]	T. J. Ebert, J. E. Hall, J. A. Barney, et al., “The Effects of Increasing Plasma Concentrations of Dexmedetomidine in Humans,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 93, No. 2, 2000, pp. 382-394. doi:10.1097/00000542-200008000-00016
[17]	A. Apan, N. Doganci, A. Ergan, et al., “Bispectral Index-guided Intraoperative Sedation with Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam Infusion in Outpatient Cataract Surgery,” Minerva Anestesiologica, Vol. 75, No. 5, 2009, pp. 239- 244.
[18]	M. Erdurmus, B. Aydin, R. Usta, et al., “Patient Comfort and Surgeon Satisfaction during Cataract Surgery Using Topical Anesthesia with or without Dexmedotomidine Sedation,” European Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2008, pp. 361-367.
[19]	H. S. Na, I. A. Song, H. S. Park, et al., “Dexmedetomidine Is Effective for Monitored Anesthesia Care in Outpatients Undergoing Cataract Surgery,” Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 61, No. 6, 2011, pp. 453-459. doi:10.4097/kjae.2011.61.6.453
[20]	H. Scheinin, S. Karhuvaara, K. T. Olkkola, et al., “Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics of Intramuscular Dexmedetomidine,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Vol. 52, No. 5, 1992, pp. 537-546. doi:10.1038/clpt.1992.182
[21]	S. R. Arain and T. J. Ebert, “The Efficacy, Side Effects, and Recovery Characteristics of Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol When Used for Intraoperative Sedation,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 95, No. 2, 2002, pp. 461-466.
[22]	J. A. Alhashemi, “Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Monitored Anaesthesia Care during Cataract Surgery,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 96, No. 6, 2006, pp. 722-726. doi:10.1093/bja/ael080
[23]	P. Jalowiecki, R. Rudner, M. Gonciarz, et al., “Sole Use of Dexmedetomidine Has Limited Utility for Conscious Sedation during Outpatient Colonoscopy,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 103, No. 2, 2005, pp. 269-273. doi:10.1097/00000542-200508000-00009
[24]	K. A. Candiotti, S. D. Bergese, P. M. Bokesch, et al., “Monitored Anesthesia Care with Dexmedetomidine: A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 110, No. 1, 2010, pp. 47- 56. doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181ae0856
[25]	R. M. Venn and R. M. Grounds, “Comparison between Dexmedetomidine and Propofol for Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit: Patient and Clinician Perceptions,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 87, No. 5, 2001, pp. 684-690. doi:10.1093/bja/87.5.684