Recovery time after oral and maxillofacial ambulatory surgery with dexmedetomidine: an observational study
- 67 Downloads
To evaluate the relationship between pharmacokinetic descriptors of dexmedetomidine (predicted area under the curve during the procedure, predicted plasma level at the end of the procedure, and duration of procedure) and sedation depth (proportion of time with bispectral index < 85 during the procedure) with recovery time after ambulatory procedures.
Materials and methods
Clinical observational study of patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial ambulatory surgery with dexmedetomidine as sole sedative agent. Patients received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.25–1 μg kg−1) followed by a maintenance infusion (0.2–1.4 μg kg−1 h−1) to keep a bispectral index < 85 until 5 min before the end of the procedure, and were transferred to a post-anesthesia care unit until criteria for discharge were met.
Data from 75 patients was analyzed. Sedation depth was directly associated with recovery time (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = 0.26; p = 0.024). Around 7% of the variation in recovery time was explained by the proportion of time with bispectral index < 85. No association with procedure duration (r = 0.01; p = 0.9), predicted area under the curve (r = 0.1; p = 0.4), or predicted plasma level of dexmedetomidine at the end of the procedure (r = 0.12; p = 0.3) with recovery time was observed.
Sedation depth with dexmedetomidine could play a role in increasing recovery time after oral and maxillofacial ambulatory surgery. In our study, the pharmacokinetic descriptors of dexmedetomidine did not seem to influence recovery time.
Sedation depth with dexmedetomidine could play a role in increasing recovery time after ambulatory procedures.
KeywordsDexmedetomidine Sedation Bispectral index Recovery time Oral and maxillofacial ambulatory surgery
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 9.Arain SR, Ebert TJ (2002) The efficacy, side effects, and recovery characteristics of dexmedetomidine versus propofol when used for intraoperative sedation. Anesth Analg 95:461–466Google Scholar
- 20.Apan A, Doganci N, Ergan A, Büyükkoçak U (2009) Bispectral index-guided intraoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine and midazolam infusion in outpatient cataract surgery. Minerva Anestesiol 75:239–244Google Scholar
- 24.Salazar Merchán A (2008) Sedación con dexmedetomidina comparada con propofol en procedimientos de cirugía bucal. Acta Odontol Venez 46:1–15Google Scholar
- 25.Ter Bruggen FFJA, Eralp I, Jansen CK et al (2016) Efficacy of dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative agent in small diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: a systematic review. Pain PractGoogle Scholar
- 27.Weerink MAS, Struys MMRF, Hannivoort LN et al (2017) Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of dexmedetomidine. Clin PharmacokinetGoogle Scholar
- 31.Muñoz J, Vidal AV, Restoy A, Gasco C (2012) Utility of bispectral index monitoring during intravenous sedation in the dental office. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:375–382Google Scholar