SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.53 issue2Postoperative analgesia following orthopedic surgery: a study comparing perivascular lumbar plexus inguinal block with ropivacaine (3 in 1) and spinal anesthesia with morphineSubdural anesthesia after epidural puncture: two case reports author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand




Related links


Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia

Print version ISSN 0034-7094On-line version ISSN 1806-907X


NOCITI, José Roberto et al. Dexmedetomidine/propofol association for plastic surgery sedation during local anesthesia. Rev. Bras. Anestesiol. [online]. 2003, vol.53, n.2, pp.198-208. ISSN 0034-7094.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dexmedetomidine is a new a2-adrenergic receptor agonist with potentially useful characteristics for anesthesia. This comparative study aimed at evaluating the effects of dexmedetomidine on propofol requirements and cardiovascular/respiratory stability during plastic surgery sedation under local anesthesia. METHODS: Participated in this study 40 female patients aged 16 to 60 years, physical status ASA I or II, scheduled for elective face, nose and breast plastic surgeries under local anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups of twenty patients: C (control) and D (dexmedetomidine). Sedation was achieved in both groups with 1 bolus propofol followed by continuous infusion at an adjusted rate to provide conscious sedation. Group D patients received continuous intravenous dexmedetomidine at a rate of 0.01 µ, concomitant with propofol infusion. The following were evaluated: effect of dexmedetomidine on propofol requirements; cardiovascular (SBP, DBP, MBP, HR) and respiratory (SpO2, PETCO2) parameters; quality of perioperative bleeding control and postanesthetic recovery features. RESULTS: Mean propofol infusion rate was lower in group D (35.2 ± 5.3 µ as compared to group C (72.6 ± 8.5 µ Mean SBP, DBP, MBP values have  decreased as from 30 min in group D, remaining stable until procedure completion, while in Group C they have increased. HR remained stable in group D where as increased as from 30 min in group C. Mean time to open eyes under command was lower in group D (6.3 ± 2.5 min) as compared to group C (8.9 ± 2.7 min). Perioperative bleeding control was better in group D as compared to group C. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine/propofol association for sedation is safe and has the following advantages: decrease in propofol requirements, cardiovascular stability, good perioperative bleeding control, lack of significant effects on ventilation.

Keywords : ANESTHESIA [Venous]; ANESTHESIA [sedation]; HYPNOTICS [dexmedetomidine]; HYPNOTICS [propofol]; SURGERY [Plastic].

        · abstract in Portuguese | Spanish     · text in Portuguese     · Portuguese ( pdf epdf )


Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License