June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Comparison of Dexmedetomidine vs. Propofol in Vitreoretinal Surgery Under Local Block
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Linda Huang
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • Anuradha Patel
    Anesthesiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • Marianne Antoniello
    Anesthesiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • Catherine Schoenberg
    Anesthesiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • Dennis Grech
    Anesthesiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • Amy Davidow
    Anesthesiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • Tian Xia
    Anesthesiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • Neelakshi Bhagat
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Linda Huang, None; Anuradha Patel, Hospira Inc. (F); Marianne Antoniello, None; Catherine Schoenberg, None; Dennis Grech, None; Amy Davidow, None; Tian Xia, None; Neelakshi Bhagat, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 6339. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Linda Huang, Anuradha Patel, Marianne Antoniello, Catherine Schoenberg, Dennis Grech, Amy Davidow, Tian Xia, Neelakshi Bhagat; Comparison of Dexmedetomidine vs. Propofol in Vitreoretinal Surgery Under Local Block. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):6339.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose
 

To compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine (dex) vs. propofol (prop) in vitreoretinal surgery under local block.

 
Methods
 

An IRB approved double-masked, prospective randomized study. Enrollment criteria include subjects between ages 18 and 65 years, ASA 1-3, with good liver and renal function. Procedures were performed at UMDNJ's outpatient surgery center by the same surgeon (NB) under retrobulbar block administered using sub-Tenon approach. Patients are randomized into group P (prop) and group D (dex). Group P receives a bolus of 1 mg/kg of prop intravenously (IV) followed by a 25-100 ug/kg/min infusion. Group D receives a bolus of 0.5 ug/kg of dex IV followed by a 0.2-0.7 ug/kg/hr infusion. T-test and Mann-Whitney test are used for statistical analysis.

 
Results
 

76 patients have been enrolled; 39 - group P, 37 - group D with one patient excluded due to claustrophobia when draped and subsequent conversion to general anesthesia. Comparisons of parameters are outlined in the table below. Intraoperative blood pressure (BP) and respiratory rates (RR) were similar in both groups, with Group P having significantly lower average systolic BP at 5 and 10 minutes (min) and higher average RR at 15 min. Average heart rates (HR) for all patients were between 49 and 95 beats per min. In the Post-Anesthesia Recovery Unit (PACU), Group D had statistically significant decreased systolic and diastolic BPs at all time points during the two-hour follow-up period. Mean systolic BP in Group P and Group D was 124.9 ±16.2 and 114.6 ±14.5, respectively (p =0.005), and mean diastolic BP was 73.6 ±12.5 and 66.2 ±10.8, respectively (p =0.002). There was no difference in PACU HR and RR. Oxygen saturation did not drop below 92% at any time.

 
Conclusions
 

In the 76 patients recruited, dex provided adequate sedation, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and hemodynamic stability, with no difference in incidence of adverse effects compared to prop. In fact, Group D shows a significantly higher surgeon satisfaction at 10 min and level of sedation as measured by the BIS. The only significant hemodynamic parameters between groups were in systolic and diastolic BP in the PACU. There were not any clinically significant events that warranted use of rescue medications for bradycardia or hypotension. No patient experienced post-operative nausea or vomiting. The mean patient and surgeon satisfaction was between good and excellent in both groups.

  
Keywords: 762 vitreoretinal surgery • 697 retinal detachment  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×