RESUMEN
We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the Intranasal Atomized Dexmedetomidine (IAD)+Intranasal Atomized Butorphanol (IAB) combination therapy on adult burn patients undergoing dressing changes. Herein, 46 adult burn patients were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups: Dexmedetomidine-Butorphanol (DB) and Saline-Butorphanol (SB), treated with atomized dexmedetomidine+butorphanol and saline +butorphanol, respectively. The primary outcomes were the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores. The secondary outcomes were Mean Blood Pressure (MBP), Heart Rate (HR), Respiratory Rate (RR), peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), total butorphanol consumption, and Adverse Effects (AEs). The two groups were comparable in age, sex, weight, and Total Burn Surface Area (TBSA). During dressing changes, the DB group exhibited significantly lower RSS levels (P<0.05). Besides, the two groups showed no significant differences in VAS scores across all measurement time points. Notably, the DB group exhibited decreased MBP at the beginning of the operation (P<0.0001), 10 min after (P<0.0001), and 20 min after (P=0.0205). HR decreased significantly at the beginning (P=0.0005) and 10 min after (P=0.0088) in the DB group. Furthermore, the two groups showed no significant differences in RR and SpO2 levels. Additionally, the rescue butorphanol dose was lower in the DB group (P<0.001). Finally, dizziness and nausea incidences were significantly lower in the DB group (P<0.05). In conclusion, besides its hemodynamic adverse reactions, the IAD+IAB combination therapy exerted a better sedation effect in adult burn patients than IAB treatment alone.
RESUMEN
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare dexmedetomidine-butorphanol (DB) and midazolam-butorphanol (MB) combinations for sedation, and analgesia in burn patients undergoing dressing changes. Methods: A total of 56 ASA I-II burn patients were included in this single-center randomized clinical trial. The ages of these patients were between 20 and 60 years. TBSA ranged from 10% to 50%. They were randomized to group DB and group MB during dressing change. In the DB group, each patient received a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg kg-1) and intermittent boluses of butorphanol (20 µg kg-1). In the MB group, each patient received a bolus dose of midazolam (0.05 mg kg-1) and intermittent boluses of butorphanol (20 µg kg-1). The primary outcomes were sedation scores and pain scores. The second outcomes were vital signs, side effects, and butorphanol consumption. Results: The sedation scores of these two groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05), and the pain scores of these groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05). More patients had hypotension in the DB group than in the MB group (6 versus 0, p = 0.01), but the number of patients who had respiratory depression was higher in the MB group compared with the DB group (4 versus 0, p = 0.038). Butorphanol consumption in the MB group was higher than in the DB group (p = 0.025). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is comparable to midazolam when combined with butorphanol in burn patients during dressing change. Compared with midazolam, it has the advantage of opioid-sparing effect. Clinical Trial Registration: [http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx&proj=130622], identifier [ChiCTR2100049325].
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the sedation and analgesic effects of butorphanol alone and butorphanol in combination with dexmedetomidine on dressing changes in adult burn patients. METHOD: From June 2016 to May 2019, 44 adult burn patients from our department were enrolled in this prospective, double-blinded study. Their total burn surface area (TBSA) varied from 10% to 30%; and the depth of burn injury ranged from second degree to third degree. The patients were randomized into two groups. In the control group, butorphanol combined with saline was injected into the body via venous route during dressing change. In the observation group, butorphanol in combination with dexmedetomidine was injected. The variation in mean blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxygen saturation were recorded at various time-points of the procedure. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of pain and Ramsay Sedation Scores (RSS) were also recorded at different time points. Consumption of butorphanol and adverse events in these two groups were compared. RESULTS: The mean blood pressure and heart rate were significantly decreased in the observation group before butorphanol injection (P < 0.05) and before the dressing change (P < 0.05). The respiratory rates and peripheral oxygen saturation of these two groups showed no significant differences at all time points (P > 0.05). Patients in the observation group had lower VAS scores during dressing change (P < 0.05). The RSS Scores in the observation group were higher than those in the control group during (P < 0.05) and after the dressing change (P < 0.05). The consumption of butorphanol was more in the control group (P < 0.05), and the adverse events recorded in the control group were higher (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Butorphanol combined with dexmedetomidine can reduce analgesic use of butorphanol during dressing change. This combination resulted in a higher sedation score and fewer adverse effects.
Asunto(s)
Quemaduras , Butorfanol , Dexmedetomidina , Manejo del Dolor , Adulto , Quemaduras/complicaciones , Quemaduras/terapia , Butorfanol/uso terapéutico , Dexmedetomidina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/uso terapéutico , Saturación de Oxígeno , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Dressing changes and wound care-debridement procedures often cause fear and anxiety in burn patients, as these processes are quite painful. In order to determine the best method for alleviating pain during these procedures, the current study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine and midazolam for premedication prior to these painful burn care procedures. METHODS: This comparative and randomized study included patients who had a burn size of 1563%, were aged 1870 years, were diagnosed with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA I-II), and who underwent painful burn care procedures. Patients were intravenously administered either 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine (Group 1) or 0.03 mg/kg midazolam (Group 2) prior to the burn care procedure. Recorded at predetermined time points for each patient were heart rhythm (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), standard bispectral index (BIS), and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS). RESULTS: In the dexmedetomidine group, HR and MAP measurements of patients ââat the 3rd, 5th, and 10th mins during sedation were significantly lower than the baseline values (p < 0.05). A significant decrease in SpO2 was observed in both groups at the 10th min during sedation, but the decline was higher in the midazolam group (p < 0.05). BIS measurements of the patients in both groups were significantly lower at 10 min. during sedation and at 15th and 60th mins during the procedure (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the group (p > 0.05). The RSS scales of both groups in during the sedation were higher in the 3rd, 5th and 10th mins than the baseline values (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The RSS scales of groups in during the burn procedure were significantly higher at 15 th min than the 0 th values, while the RSS scales of both groups were significantly lower in the 45th and 60th mins (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that dexmedetomidine causes hemodynamic alterations while midazolam causes respiratory depression. However, these effects are not severe, and we conclude that both agents are safe and effective to ensure sedation prior to painful burn-care procedures.