Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Effects of erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction for breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy causes acute pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a single-shot T5 erector spinae plane block (ESPB) reduces postoperative pain. DESIGN: Single-center, RCT with allocation concealment; blinded assessors and statisticians. SETTING: Tertiary cancer center in China. PATIENTS: 100 adults scheduled for radical mastectomy with implant reconstruction were randomized (1:1); follow-up complete. INTERVENTION: Before induction, ESPB was given under ultrasound guidance at T5 with 30 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine 1 &#x3bc;g/kg; controls received no block. Standardized general anesthesia and postoperative PCA for both groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resting NRS at 6 h (MCID=1). Secondary outcomes were opioid consumption, quality of recovery, and PONV. RESULTS: ESPB did not significantly reduce resting pain at 6 h at the median (&#x3c4; =0.50; adjusted difference -0.9; p = 0.08). At the upper tail, pain intensity was lower (&#x3c4; = 0.75; -1.8; p <0.01). Repeated measures provided additional time-point information, improving estimation precision and test sensitivity. ESPB get lower pain scores at 6, 12, and 24 hours (all p <0.01). But, the 95% CI includes the MCID, the clinical benefit remains uncertain. Opioid use decreased at 24 h (-13.5 mg; p <0.01) and 48 h (-6.6 mg; p <0.01). Quality of recovery improved at 24 h (difference 5 points; p <0.01), but not later. No differences were observed in intraoperative hemodynamics or PONV. CONCLUSIONS: Single-shot T5 ESPB with perineural dexmedetomidine may reduce postoperative pain and opioid requirements and improve early recovery. Further large trials are warranted. Clinical relevance remains to be confirmed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06143020.

Humans

Choice of Anesthesia in Microelectrode Recording-guided Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery for Parkinson's Disease (CHAMPION): A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease is often performed under conscious sedation or general anesthesia. However, anesthetic agents may influence intraoperative microelectrode recording, and the optimal anesthesia method for microelectrode recording remains unclear. This study compared general anesthesia and conscious sedation in preserving microelectrode recording signal intensity during deep brain stimulation. METHODS: In this prospective, noninferiority randomized controlled trial, patients with Parkinson's disease (United Kingdom Brain Bank criteria) undergoing elective bilateral surgery were randomized 1:1 to the conscious sedation or the general anesthesia group. During surgery, a desflurane anesthetic titrated against the quality of the electrophysiologic signal was applied in the general anesthesia group, whereas patients in the conscious sedation group received dexmedetomidine anesthesia. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with high-quality microelectrode recording (normalized root mean square greater than 2.0), assessed postoperatively off-line. Secondary outcomes included operation and recording duration, 6-month clinical efficacy, and complication rates. RESULTS: Of 188 randomized patients (94 general anesthesia, 93 conscious sedation), desflurane anesthesia was noninferior for high normalized root mean square proportion (89.4% vs . 90.3%; difference, -0.96%; 95% CI, -9.62 to 7.70). The general anesthesia group had shorter operative time (difference, -9.07&#x2009;min; 95% CI, -13.99 to -4.14; P < 0.001). At 6 months, changes in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score (difference, -2.50; 95% CI, -7.20 to 2.20; P = 0.297), levodopa equivalent daily dose (difference, -58.4&#x2009;mg; 95% CI, -133.56 to 16.75; P = 0.128), and complication rates (general anesthesia: 10.9% vs . conscious sedation: 8.9%; P = 0.655) were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: General anesthesia is noninferior to conscious sedation for microelectrode-guided subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation, providing equivalent signal intensity and clinical outcomes while improving procedural efficiency, supporting its use as a valid clinical option.

Humans

The effect of dexmedetomidine in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a central sympatholytic with sedative properties widely used in critically ill patients. However, its effects in patients with sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of DEX compared to other sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from inception through May 1, 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing DEX with other sedatives or placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock. Primary outcomes included overall mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Secondary outcomes encompassed duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), length of stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 3,882 patients (1,945 in the DEX group, 1,937 in the control group) were included. DEX was demonstrated no significant differences compared to other sedatives or placebo in overall mortality (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.98, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.90 to 1.07, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.71, I2&#x2009;=&#x2009;0%), SOFA scores (Mean Difference [MD]&#x2009;-&#x2009;0.14, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.52, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.67, I2&#x2009;=&#x2009;0%), length of stay in ICU (MD -0.32, 95% CI -1.69 to 1.06, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.65, I2&#x2009;=&#x2009;77%), or incidence of hypotension (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.62, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.44, I2&#x2009;=&#x2009;14%). However, DEX significantly reduced the duration of MV (MD -0.54, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.10, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.02, I2&#x2009;=&#x2009;25%) but was associated with an increased incidence of bradycardia (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.28, p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.001, I2&#x2009;=&#x2009;0%). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock, DEX shortened duration of MV but was associated increased bradycardia risk. No mortality or organ dysfunction benefits were observed. These findings suggest DEX is a reasonable therapeutic option to facilitate earlier ventilator weaning in selected patients (particularly those without shock), but careful monitoring for cardiovascular adverse effects is warranted.

Humans

Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring Using Propofol-Fentanyl Versus Desflurane-Dexmedetomidine Anesthesia During Spinal Cord Tumor Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing resection of spinal cord tumours require intraoperative neuromonitoring. Transcranial electrical stimulation is used to record myogenic responses during surgery. This study aimed to compare the effect of 2 anaesthetic regimens, propofol/fentanyl versus desflurane/dexmedetomidine, on the ability to record MEPs with an amplitude of 50&#xa0;&#xb5;V or greater. Our secondary outcome compared intraoperative haemodynamics, recovery profile, and postoperative analgesia between the groups. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, open-label, single-centre, randomized controlled trial of 50 adult patients undergoing spinal cord tumour resection with TcmMEP monitoring. Patients were randomized to 2 groups: Group P (n=25) received intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl; group D (n=25) received desflurane and dexmedetomidine. RESULTS: We recorded TcmMEP's in 80% of group P and 76% group D (95% CI: -23% to 31%, P =1.00). The time in minutes for spontaneous breathing (21.04&#xb1;11.31 vs. 8.00&#xb1;3.42 [8.29-,17.79, P =0.01]), extubation (31.56&#xb1;17.56 vs. 10.84&#xb1;3.99 [13.48-27.96; P =0.01]), emergence (33.68&#xb1;18.11 vs. 10.92&#xb1;4.01 [15.30-30.22, P =0.001]), discharge readiness (45.00&#xb1;25.24 vs. 15.56&#xb1;6.08 [19.00-39.88; P =0.001]) and requirement of first analgesia (136.6&#xb1;108.04 vs. 230.8&#xb1;81.33) (-148.58 to -39.82; P =0.01) was lower in group D compared with group P. Postoperative analgesia assessed using the Visual Analogue Score was lower in group D compared with group P at 12 and 24 hours. (1.68&#xb1;1.18 vs. 0.64&#xb1;1.31 [0.33-1.74 P =0.001]) :1.4&#xb1;0.95 vs. 0.36&#xb1; 0.70 (0.56-1.51; P =0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found similar rates of successful TcMEP monitoring using desflurane-dexmedetomidine and propofol-fentanyl. Patients who received desflurane-dexmedetomidine had reduced emergence time, discharge readiness, and lower pain scores in the postoperative period.

Humans