Comparison of the Hemodynamic Indices during Skull-Pin Head-Holder Insertion in Neurosurgeries in Two Groups Receiving Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Ira

2 Student of Medicine, Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Professor, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in neurosurgery candidates who underwent skull-pin head-holder insertion.Methods: In this randomized clinical trial study, 68 patients candidate for neurosurgery were divided into two groups receiving dexmedetomidine or midazolam. After induction of anesthesia, the patients received dexmedetomidine or midazolam based on the group they allocated to. Ten minutes after induction of anesthesia, the surgeon was allowed to insert the skull-pin head-holder. Hemodynamic variables were recorded before and during the surgery.Findings: Among 68 studied patients, there was significant difference between the groups regarding systolic blood pressure (P < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.002), mean blood pressure (P = 0.450), and heart rate (P = 0.003). Systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure in the midazolam group was significantly higher at first, second, and third minute after the insertion of the skull-pin head-holder in comparison with the dexmedetomidine group. Moreover, the heart rate was significantly higher in the midazolam group before inserting the skull-pin head-holder up to 3 minutes after the insertion in comparison with the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0.050).Conclusion: Compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine showed a more significant effect on stabilizing hemodynamic parameters during craniotomies that required skull-pin head-holder insertion. Besides, the need for hemodynamic control drugs was lower after the administration of dexmedetomidine.

Keywords

References

  1. Edry R, Kliger M, Zuckerman G, Racheli N, Katz Y, Ben-Israel N. Detection of noxious stimuli during general anesthesia using the NoLTM index for nociception level: 3AP2-7. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013; 30: 42.
  2. Uyar AS, Yagmurdur H, Fidan Y, Topkaya C, Basar H. Dexmedetomidine attenuates the hemodynamic and neuroendocrinal responses to skull-pin head-holder application during craniotomy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2008; 20(3): 174-9.
  3. Mushtaq K, Ali Z, Shah N, Syed S, Naqash I, Ramzan A. A randomized controlled study to compare the effectiveness of intravenous dexmedetomidine with placebo to attenuate the haemodynamic and neuroendocrine responses to fixation of skull pin head holder for craniotomy. Northern Journal of ISA 2016; 1(1): 16-23.
  4. Olkkola KT, Ahonen J. Midazolam and other benzodiazepines. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2008; (182): 335-60.
  5. Costa A, Bosone D, Zoppi A, Angelo DA, Ghiotto N, Guaschino E, et al. Effect of diazepam on 24-hour blood pressure and heart rate in healthy young volunteers. Pharmacology 2018; 101(1-2): 86-91.
  6. Sottas CE, Anderson BJ. Dexmedetomidine: The new all-in-one drug in paediatric anaesthesia? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2017; 30(4): 441-51.
  7. Srivastava VK, Agrawal S, Kumar S, Mishra A, Sharma S, Kumar R. Comparison of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam for short-term sedation in postoperatively mechanically ventilated neurosurgical patients. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8(9): GC04-GC07.
  8. Sun Y, Liu C, Zhang Y, Luo B, She S, Xu L, et al. Low-dose intramuscular dexmedetomidine as premedication: a randomized controlled trial. Med Sci Monit 2014; 20: 2714-9.
  9. Sandow N, Diesing D, Sarrafzadeh A, Vajkoczy P, Wolf S. Nimodipine dose reductions in the treatment of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care 2016; 25(1): 29-39.
  10. Farha KA, AbouFarha R, Bolt M. The acute impact of smoking one cigarette on cardiac hemodynamic parameters. Cardiol Res 2011; 2(2): 58-65.
  11. ECC Committee, Subcommittees and Task Forces of the American Heart Association. 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2005; 112(24 Suppl): IV1-203.
  12. Parikh DA, Kolli SN, Karnik HS, Lele SS, Tendolkar BA. A prospective randomized double-blind study comparing dexmedetomidine vs. combination of midazolam-fentanyl for tympanoplasty surgery under monitored anesthesia care. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29(2): 173-8.
  13. Riker RR, Shehabi Y, Bokesch PM, Ceraso D, Wisemandle W, Koura F, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for sedation of critically ill patients: A randomized trial. JAMA 2009; 301(5): 489-99.
  14. Tanskanen PE, Kytta JV, Randell TT, Aantaa RE. Dexmedetomidine as an anaesthetic adjuvant in patients undergoing intracranial tumour surgery: A double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled study. Br J Anaesth 2006; 97(5): 658-65.
  15. Chaitanya G, Arivazhagan A, Sinha S, Madhusudan Reddy KR, Thennarasu K, Bharath RD, et al. Hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine during intra-operative electrocorticography for epilepsy surgery. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2014; 5(Suppl 1): S17-S21.
  16. Snapir A, Posti J, Kentala E, Koskenvuo J, Sundell J, Tuunanen H, et al. Effects of low and high plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine on myocardial perfusion and cardiac function in healthy male subjects. Anesthesiology 2006; 105(5): 902-10.
  17. Lee J. Insight into the effects of dexmedetomidine on intraoperative hemodynamics and postanesthetic recovery speed. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 62(2): 111-2.
  18. Soliman R, Saad D. Assessment the effect of dexmedetomidine on incidence of paradoxical hypertension after surgical repair of aortic coarctation in pediatric patients. Ann Card Anaesth 2018; 21(1): 26-33.
  19. Barends CR, Absalom A, van MB, Vissink A, Visser A. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in procedural sedation. a systematic review of efficacy and safety. PLoS One 2017; 12(1): e0169525.
  20. Klockgether-Radke AP, Pawlowski P, Neumann P, Hellige G. Mechanisms involved in the relaxing effect of midazolam on coronary arteries. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22(2): 135-9.
  21. Adinehmehr L, Shetabi H, Motieian M. A comparison of sedative effect of dexmedetomidine-fentanyl versus midazolam-fentanyl during cataract surgery with phacoemulsification technique. J Isfahan Med Sch 2018; 36(494): 1009-17. [In Persian].
  22. Shafa A, Shetabi H, Askarian M. Comparing the effect of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on hemodynamic indices in children undergoing endotracheal intubation: A randomized clinical trial. J Mazand Univ Med Sci 2019; 28(170): 74-83. [In Persian].
  23. Shafa A, Habibzade M, Shetabi H, Agil A. Comparing the hemodynamic effects of nebulized dexmedetomidine and nebulized lidocaine in children undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy. J Adv Med Biomed Res 2019; 27(120): 14-9.
  24. Naghibi K, Shetabi H, Nasrollahi K, Mansouri N. The effect of intravenous midazolam and dexmedetomidine on prevention of cognitive dysfunction after cataract surgery in the elderly patients under general anesthesia compared with the control group. J Isfahan Med Sch 2019; 36(504): 1395-400. [In Persian].
  25. Abbasi S, Talakoub R, Jahangirifard B, Masoodifar M, Saryazdi H. Bispectral index response to cricoid pressure during induction of general anesthesia. J Res Med Sci 2011; 16(1): 63-7.
  26. Talakoub R, Golparvar M, Arshi R. The effect of early ambulation on the incidence of neurological complication after spinal anesthesia with lidocaine. J Res Med Sci 2015; 20(4): 383-6.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 38, Issue 597 - Serial Number 597
September and October 2021
Pages 790-797

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 27 July 2019
  • Revise Date: 01 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics