COMPARISON OF EFFICACY BETWEEN DEXMEDETOMIDINE AND PROPOFOL AFTER CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT SURGERY

R BANGASH; I AHMAD; U NAZ; MU ISLAM; A ZEB; NA SHAH; A SHABIR; MW SAJJAD

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.849

Authors

R BANGASH Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Rehman Medical Institute Peshawar, Pakistan
I AHMAD Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Rehman Medical Institute Peshawar, Pakistan
U NAZ Department of Anaesthesia Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan
MU ISLAM Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Rehman Medical Institute Peshawar, Pakistan
A ZEB Department of Anaesthesiology, Naseer Teaching Hospital Kabir Medical College, Pakistan
NA SHAH Department of Cardiac ICU, Rehman Medical Institute Peshawar, Pakistan
A SHABIR Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Rehman Medical Institute Peshawar, Pakistan
MW SAJJAD Department of Cardiac Surgery, Rehman Medical Institute Peshawar, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.849

Keywords:

Coronary Artery Bypass, Dexmedetomidine, Hospital Stay, Intensive Care Units, Mechanical Ventilation, Postoperative Complications, Propofol, Randomized Controlled Trial, Sedation, Treatment Outcome

Abstract

Postoperative management following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is crucial for patient outcomes. Sedation plays a key role in recovery, with dexmedetomidine and propofol being commonly used agents. Evaluating the efficacy of these sedatives can help optimise postoperative care. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine and propofol in terms of pulmonary complications, mean mechanical ventilation time, and postoperative ICU and hospital stay in patients undergoing CABG surgery. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted from October 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, at a tertiary care hospital. Eighty patients scheduled for CABG surgery were randomised into two groups: Group A received dexmedetomidine, and Group B received propofol. Outcomes were assessed by measuring the incidence of pulmonary complications, mean mechanical ventilation time, length of postoperative ICU stay, and total hospital stay. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate tests to compare the outcomes between the two groups, with significance set at P < 0.05. Results: Pulmonary complications occurred in 5% of patients in Group A, significantly lower than the 20% observed in Group B (P = 0.04). Group A's mean mechanical ventilation time was 17.03 ± 3.46 hours, considerably shorter than Group B's 23.20 ± 5.55 hours (P = 0.0001). Group A's average postoperative ICU stay was 62.53 ± 15.10 hours, notably less than the 71.10 ± 14.06 hours for Group B (P = 0.01). Additionally, the mean hospital stay in Group A was 20.60 ± 1.99 days, significantly shorter than the 21.85 ± 3.11 days in Group B (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine demonstrates superior efficacy to propofol for patients undergoing CABG surgery, as evidenced by reduced pulmonary complications, shorter mechanical ventilation duration, and decreased postoperative ICU and hospital stays.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Fernandez-Zamora MD, Gordillo-Brenes A, Banderas-Bravo E, Arboleda-Sánchez JA, Hinojosa-Pérez R, Aguilar-Alonso E, et al. Prolonged mechanical ventilation as a predictor of mortality after cardiac surgery. Respiratory care. 2018;63(5):550-7.

Meadows K, Gibbens R, Gerrard C, Vuylsteke A. Prediction of patient length of stay on the intensive care unit following cardiac surgery: a logistic regression analysis based on the cardiac operative mortality risk calculator, EuroSCORE. Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. 2018;32(6):2676-82.

LaPar DJ, Gillen JR, Crosby IK, Sawyer RG, Lau CL, Kron IL, et al. Predictors of operative mortality in cardiac surgical patients with prolonged intensive care unit duration. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2013;216(6):1116-23.

Verbrugghe P, Van de Velde M, Meuris B, Meyfroidt G, Milisen K, Fieuws S, et al. Intraoperative xenon for prevention of delirium after on-pump cardiac surgery: a randomised, observer-blind, controlled clinical trial. British journal of anaesthesia. 2020;124(4):454-62.

Mathis MR, Duggal NM, Likosky DS, Haft JW, Douville NJ, Vaughn MT, et al. Intraoperative mechanical ventilation and postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2019;131(5):1046-62.

Rahman West R, Rhodes A, Grounds R. The Role of Dexmedetomidine in Intensite Care. Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine: Springer; 2009. p. 906-14.

Xu B, Gao H, Li D, Hu C, Yang J. Nebulized dexmedetomidine improves pulmonary shunt and lung mechanics during one-lung ventilation: a randomized clinical controlled trial. PeerJ. 2020;8:e9247.

Huang S-Q, Zhang J, Zhang X-X, Liu L, Yu Y, Kang X-H, et al. Can dexmedetomidine improve arterial oxygenation and intrapulmonary shunt during one-lung ventilation in adults undergoing thoracic surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Chinese Medical Journal. 2017;130(14):1707-14.

Wang K, Wu M, Xu J, Wu C, Zhang B, Wang G, et al. Effects of dexmedetomidine on perioperative stress, inflammation, and immune function: systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of anaesthesia. 2019;123(6):777-94.

Peng K, Ji F-h, Liu H-y, Zhang J, Chen Q-c, Jiang Y-h. Effects of perioperative dexmedetomidine on postoperative mortality and morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Therapeutics. 2019;41(1):138-54. e4.

Peng K, Li D, Applegate II RL, Lubarsky DA, Ji F-h, Liu H. Effect of dexmedetomidine on cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. 2020;34(3):603-13.

Karakaya Kabukcu H, Sahin N, Temel Y, Aydogdu Titiz T. Hemodynamics in coronary artery bypass surgery. Anaesthesist. 2011;60(5).

Kunisawa T, Ueno M, Kurosawa A, Nagashima M, Hayashi D, Sasakawa T, et al. Dexmedetomidine can stabilize hemodynamics and spare anesthetics before cardiopulmonary bypass. Journal of anesthesia. 2011;25:818-22.

Geng J, Qian J, Cheng H, Ji F, Liu H. The influence of perioperative dexmedetomidine on patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0152829.

Nguyen J, Nacpil N. Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on extubation times, length of stay and mortality rates in adult cardiac surgery patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2018;16(5):1220-39.

Chang L, Fang H, Xie H, Wang C, Zhu J, Li M, et al. Evaluation of dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation therapy in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgery patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(6):9694-704.

Khalil M, Al-Agaty A, Asaad O, Mahmoud M, Omar AS, Abdelrazik A, et al. A comparative study between propofol and dexmedetomidine as sedative agents during performing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2016;32:242-7.

Grest A, Kurmann J, Müller M, Jeger V, Krüger B, Spahn DR, et al. Cardiovascular safety of clonidine and dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients after cardiac surgery. Critical Care Research and Practice. 2020;2020.

Hu J, Lv B, West R, Chen X, Yan Y, Pac Soo C, et al. Comparison between dexmedetomidine and propofol on outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a retrospective study. BMC anesthesiology. 2022;22(1):51.