Dexmedetomidine with Low-dose Ketamine vs Dexmedetomidine Alone for Sedation and Hemodynamics in Otological Surgeries under Monitored Anesthesia Care
Pritee H Bhirud, Jalpa A Kate, Pratibha V Toal, Dipali Gotey
Dexmedetomidine, Ketamine, Monitored anesthesia care, Otological surgery
Citation Information :
Bhirud PH, Kate JA, Toal PV, Gotey D. Dexmedetomidine with Low-dose Ketamine vs Dexmedetomidine Alone for Sedation and Hemodynamics in Otological Surgeries under Monitored Anesthesia Care. Res Inno in Anesth 2022; 7 (1):14-18.
Aims and objectives: Dexmedetomidine a potent and highly selective α-2 adrenoceptor agonist with sympatholytic, sedative, amnestic and analgesic properties is ideal for monitored anesthesia care (MAC). When used with Ketamine, the bradycardia and hypotension associated with dexmedetomidine may be prevented. Whereas dexmedetomidine may prevent tachycardia, hypertension, salivation, and emergence phenomena of ketamine. There are few references in literature about this drug combination. Hence we studied and compared the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion with low-dose ketamine infusion on sedation and hemodynamics in ear surgeries under MAC.
Materials and methods: ASA 1 and 2 patients scheduled for elective ear surgeries were randomized in groups A and B. Patients in both groups were administered IV dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg as a bolus over 10 minutes followed by the 0.5 μg/kg/hr as maintenance infusion in group A, whereas low-dose IV Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg/hr was added in group B in addition to dexmedetomidine infusion.
Local block using 2% lignocaine with adrenaline was performed by the ENT surgeon. Sedation (MOAA/S) hemodynamics, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation were recorded. Patient satisfaction was assessed using Likert scale. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare sedation between the two groups. Hemodynamic variables were analyzed by Student\'s t-test. The Association of parameters among study group was assessed with the help of Chi-square test. Qualitative data was presented with the help of Frequency and Percentage table.
Results: There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in sedation score between the groups (group A–3, group B–2) from 5 minutes interval onwards. There was significant difference in hemodynamics between the two groups from 5 minutes interval onwards with the values being higher in group B. Patient satisfaction score was better in group B compared to group A. Group A, i.e., only exmedetomidine needed more interventions to maintain sedation and to correct hypotension.
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine with low-dose ketamine infusion provides early onset and adequate sedation, better hemodynamic profile, and patient satisfaction than dexmedetomidine alone for ENT surgeries under MAC.
Clinical significance: ‘Synergistic’ combination of dexmedetomidine with low-dose ketamine provides early and better sedation while maintaining hemodynamics as compared to dexmedetomidine infusion alone for ENT surgeries under MAC.
Afonso J, Reis F. Dexmedetomidine: current role in anesthesia and intensive care. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2012;62(1):125–133. DOI: 10.1016/S0034-7094(12)70110-1
Miller AC, Jamin CT, Elamin EM. Continuous intravenous infusion of ketamine for maintenance sedation. Minerva Anestesiol 2011;77(8): 812–820. Available at: https://www.minervamedica.it/en/journals/minerva-anestesiologica/article.php?cod=R02Y2011N08A0812
Tobias JD. Dexmedetomidine and ketamine: an effective alternative for procedural sedation? Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012;13(4):423–427. DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e318238b81c
Koruk S, Mizrak A, Gul R, et al. Dexmedetomidine-ketamine and midazolam-ketamine combinations for sedation in pediatric patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized prospective study. J Anesth 2010;24(6):858–863. DOI: 10.1007/s00540-010-1023-1
Bali BK, Patel A. Study of KETODEX; combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine in upper gastrointestinal scopy in adults: observational study. J Med Sci Clin Res 2017;05(6):23986–23993. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i6.196
Dexmedetomidine-ketamine versus Dexmedetomidine-midazolam-fentanyl for monitored anesthesia care during chemoport insertion: a Prospective Randomized Study SpringerLink [Internet]. [cited 2017]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12871-016-0211-4
Dexmedetomidine versus propofol in dilatation and curettage: An open-label pilot randomized controlled trial. - PubMed - NCBI [Internet]. [cited 2017]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26240542. DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.154699
Is dexmedetomidine better than propofol and fentanyl combination in minor day care procedures? A prospective randomised double-blind study Tomar GS, Singh F, Ganguly S, Gaur N - Indian J Anaesth [Internet]. [cited 2017]. Available from: http://www.ijaweb.org/article.asp?issn=0019 5049;year=2015;volume=59;issue=6;spage=359;epage=364;aulast=Tomar DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.158740
Dexmedetomidine with low-dose ketamine for cataract surgery under peribulbar block in a patient with Huntington“s chorea [Internet]. [cited 2017]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4383114/
Goyal R, Hasnain S, Mittal S, et al. A randomized, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety profile of a dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination with a propofol-fentanyl combination for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83(5):928–933. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.077
Sinha SK, Joshiraj B, Chaudhary L, et al. A comparison of dexmedetomidine plus ketamine combination with dexmedetomidine alone for awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2014;30(4):514–519. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.142846
Thambiah MD, Nathan S, Seow BZ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasy, an Asian perspective. Singapore Med J 2015;56(5):259–263. DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2015074
Rasheed MA, Punera DC, Bano M, et al. A study to compare the overall effectiveness between midazolam and dexmedetomidine during monitored anesthesia care: a randomized prospective study. Anesth Essays Res 2015;9(2):167–172. DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.156299