Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: To compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on sublingual microcirculation in patients after cardiac surgery.
Design: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study.
Setting: University hospital.
Participants: Adult patients undergoing elective valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.
Interventions: On arrival in the intensive care unit (ICU), patients were assigned randomly to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.2-1.5 μg/kg/h) or propofol (5-50 μg/kg/min) with open-label titration to a target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of 0 to -3.
Measurements And Main Results: Sublingual microcirculation was recorded using sidestream dark-field imaging at ICU admission (baseline [T1]) and 4 hours (T2) and 24 hours after ICU admission (T3). At T2, median changes in perfused small-vessel density and the De Backer score from baseline were significantly greater in the dexmedetomidine group (n = 29) than in the propofol group (n = 32) (1.3 v 0 mm/mm, p = 0.025; 0.9 v -0.1/mm, p = 0.005, respectively); median changes in small-vessel density and the proportion of perfused small vessels from baseline also tended to be higher in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the propofol group (1.0 v -0.1 mm/mm, p = 0.050; 2.1% v 0.5%, p = 0.062, respectively). At T3, there still was a trend toward greater improvements in the small-vessel density, proportion of perfused small-vessels, perfused small-vessel density, and De Backer score from baseline in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group.
Conclusions: This trial demonstrated that dexmedetomidine sedation may be better able to improve microcirculation in cardiac surgery patients during the early postoperative period compared with propofol.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2016.05.038 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!