Back to Journals » Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management » Volume 12

Comparison of propofol–hydromorphone and propofol–dexmedetomidine in patients with intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery

Authors Peng W, Zhang T, Wang Y

Received 27 October 2015

Accepted for publication 12 January 2016

Published 8 March 2016 Volume 2016:12 Pages 373—377

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S99262

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Hoa Le

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Deyun Wang

Wei Peng,1,2 Tiejun Zhang,2 Yanlin Wang1

1Department of Anesthesiology, Zhongnan Hospital, 2Department of Anesthesiology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, People’s Republic of China

Objective: To compare the sedation and analgesic effects between propofol–hydromorphone and propofol–dexmedetomidine in patients with postoperative intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery.
Methods: Forty-two patients undertaking maxillofacial plastic surgery with intubation were randomly assigned into propofol plus hydromorphone (P–H) group or propofol plus dexmedetomidine (P–D) group, receiving intravenous infusion of P–H or P–D, respectively. Cerebral state index, Ramsay sedation score, arterial blood gas analysis, and physiology indices were recorded before admission (T0), 30 minutes (T1), 1 hour (T2), 2 hours (T3), 6 hours (T4), and 12 hours after admission (T5) to intensive care unit, and 10 minutes after extubation (T6). Blood interleukin-6 was measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Results: There was no significant difference in arterial blood gas analysis, oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure, and respiratory rate between two groups at all time-points (P>0.05). The changes of heart rate (at T4, T5, and T6), cerebral state index (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5), and Ramsay score (at T3) in P–H group were significantly different from that in P–D group (P<0.05). The plasma interleukin-6 at T4 in P–H group was significantly lower than that in P–D group (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The P–H approach takes advantages over P–D approach in relieving the pain and discomfort, reducing the overstimulation of sympathetic nerve and the stress level, and enhancing the tolerance of postoperative intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery.

Keywords: maxillofacial plastic surgery, intubation, hydromorphone, propofol, dexmedetomidine

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]