Next Article in Journal
The Association between the Hematocrit at Admission and Preoperative Deep Venous Thrombosis in Hip Fractures in Older People: A Retrospective Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Predictive Factors of Cytomegalovirus Viremia during the Clinical Course of Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody (ANCA)-Associated Vasculitis: A Single Center Observational Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/jcm12010350
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Remifentanil for Postoperative Analgesia and Opioid-Related Side Effects after Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

by
Jung Min Koo
1,
Youn-Jee Chung
2,
Mihyeon Lee
1 and
Young Eun Moon
1,*
1
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(1), 350; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010350
Submission received: 29 November 2022 / Revised: 28 December 2022 / Accepted: 30 December 2022 / Published: 2 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Obstetrics & Gynecology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Remifentanil is widely used for intraoperative analgesia, but often causes remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia (RIH) and related side effects. Dexmedetomidine, a non-opioid analgesic, has been used as an alternative to remifentanil to prevent RIH. We aimed to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative recovery after gynecological laparoscopy. Ninety-six adult patients undergoing elective gynecological laparoscopy were randomly assigned to the dexmedetomidine or remifentanil groups. The primary outcome was the pain score at 30 min after surgery. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative adverse events (hypotension and bradycardia) and postoperative opioid-related side effects (nausea, vomiting, requirement for rescue analgesics, and shivering). We also performed an ancillary cytokine study to evaluate oxidative stress, one of the causes of RIH. Compared with the remifentanil group, the dexmedetomidine group had lower pain scores at 30 min after surgery (4.0 ± 1.9 vs. 6.1 ± 2.0, mean ± SD, p < 0.001) and lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension and postoperative nausea, vomiting, and shivering. Furthermore, the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesics was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine than in the remifentanil group (25% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001). Cytokine levels did not differ between the groups. Dexmedetomidine showed a better analgesic effect with minimal opioid-related side effects and is considered superior to remifentanil for intraoperative analgesia.

1. Introduction

Remifentanil has gained popularity as an adjunct during general anesthesia and is widely used for pain control during and after surgery. However, recent studies have revealed that remifentanil is associated with postoperative opioid-induced hyperalgesia, along with disturbances in the immune and inflammatory systems. Opioids are known to trigger opioid-induced hyperalgesia, particularly short-acting ones. Remifentanil induces rapid tolerance, even after only 90 min of infusion [1]. As a result, remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia (RIH) leads to considerable postoperative opioid consumption and is accompanied by opioid-related complications, such as nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, and ileus [2,3]. The oxidative stress theory is one explanation of the mechanisms underlying RIH during the perioperative period. Several animal studies have demonstrated that remifentanil induces overproduction of reactive oxygen species, which directly activate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9. In turn, upregulation of MMP-9 reactivates NMDA receptors, causing central hypersensitivity, which clinically manifests as hyperalgesia [4,5,6].
In the last decade, dexmedetomidine has been increasingly used in perioperative clinical settings owing to its sedative and analgesic effects. This centrally acting non-opioid analgesic is known to reduce surgical stress responses [7,8,9,10]. Recent animal studies showed that dexmedetomidine reduces NMDA receptor reactivity and MMP-9 production [11,12]. However, there have been few clinical studies of its effects, particularly in female patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy.
Therefore, the aim of our study was to compare the ability of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil to reduce postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and opioid-related side effects after gynecologic laparoscopy. Furthermore, we measured MMP-9 and manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) to determine whether dexmedetomidine can reduce postoperative oxidative stress responses.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design & Participants

This prospective, parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary university hospital in South Korea. The study population included female patients aged 20–65 years who were scheduled for elective gynecological laparoscopy, including hysterectomy, oophorectomy, salpingectomy, cystectomy, cyst enucleation, and uterine myomectomy. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification III or more, those scheduled for cancer surgery, those undergoing emergency surgery, and those with chronic pain on medication, history of psychiatric diseases, hypotension, bradycardia, atrioventricular block, intraventricular or sinoatrial block, known allergies to any of the study drugs, pregnancy, or lactation were excluded from the study.

2.2. Randomization and Blinding

Patients enrolled in the study were randomly assigned to the remifentanil (group R) or dexmedetomidine group (group D). Random allocation was performed according to the numbers generated by the computer. Once a patient was enrolled, the medical staff opened the opaque, sequentially numbered envelope containing the group allocation.
Patients and surgeons were blinded to the group allocation throughout the study period. Healthcare providers providing postoperative care and those measuring postoperative outcomes were unaware of the group allocation. The anesthesiologist performing the general anesthesia could not be blinded because of the different drug infusion protocols between the groups. However, they did not participate in the postoperative care or the assessment of postoperative outcomes.

2.3. Intervention

On the day before surgery and upon entering the operating room, patients were educated on the concept of the numeric rating scale (NRS). The NRS is an 11-point rating scale for pain, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating the worst possible pain. Patients were asked to verbally indicate their current pain status on a scale of 0 to 10. They were also instructed to request analgesic medication from the healthcare providers if the NRS pain score exceeded 4.
No premedication was administered before anesthesia induction. Monitoring was initiated on arrival to the operating room, including electrocardiography, blood pressure measurement, pulse oximetry, neuromuscular monitoring using train-of-four (TOF) stimulation, and bispectral index.
Anesthesia was induced with a bolus intravenous injection of 1.5–2 mg/kg propofol. In the absence of eyelash reflex, 0.8 mg/kg of rocuronium was injected. After TOF reached 0, orotracheal intubation was performed. Anesthetic maintenance with desflurane at 4 L/min flow to reach an expired concentration of 4–6% in a mixture of 40% air-to-oxygen ratio was continued until completion of surgery. Mechanical ventilation was maintained with a tidal volume of 4–6 mL/kg to reach an end-tidal CO2 of 25–40 mmHg. Additional rocuronium was administered if an additional neuromuscular block was required. During the surgery, ephedrine 4 mg was injected if the systolic blood pressure (SBP) was <80 mmHg or if the mean arterial pressure (MAP) was <60 mmHg. If the heart rate (HR) dropped below 45 bpm, atropine (0.25–0.5 mg) was administered.
For the patients in group D, a loading dose of dexmedetomidine was administered before anesthesia induction at 0.7 μg/kg for 10 min and followed by a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h. Infusion rate was adjusted in steps of 0.1 μg/kg/h to maintain the SBP within ±20% of baseline. Dexmedetomidine was discontinued at completion of surgery.
For the patients in group R, remifentanil 1.5 μg/kg was administered before anesthesia induction and followed by a continuous infusion of 0.15 μg/kg/min. Infusion rate was adjusted in increments of 0.02 μg/kg/min to maintain the SBP within ±20% of the baseline. Remifentanil was discontinued at completion of surgery.
Laparoscopy was performed under video guidance, with three punctures in the abdomen. The intraperitoneal pressure was maintained at approximately 12 mmHg. To prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), the attending anesthesiologist injected intravenous dexamethasone (5 mg) and palonosetron (75 µg) at the beginning and end of surgery, respectively. Intravenous acetaminophen (1 g mixed with 100 mL of 0.9% normal saline) was infused 30 min before the end of surgery. Endotracheal tube extubation was performed when the TOF was 4, and the patients were sent to the recovery room.
During the recovery period, intravenous fentanyl 0.5–1 μg/kg was immediately administered if the NRS scores were 4 or higher. The regimen of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (AutoMed 3200; Ace Medical, Seoul, Republic of Korea) was fentanyl 15 μg/kg in normal saline 100 mL at a basal rate of 0 mL/h (no basal rate of infusion), bolus of 1 mL (0.15 μg/kg), and lock-out time of 10 min. When patients experienced PONV, alleviation was attempted with 10 mg of metoclopramide.

2.4. Outcome Measurement

To compare the hemodynamic effect of dexmedetomidine with that of remifentanil, we recorded the incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (HR < 60/min) and hypotension (SBP < 80 mmHg or MAP < 60 mmHg). Additionally, the time to eye opening and time to extubation from discontinuation of the volatile anesthetic were also measured.
The primary outcome was the NRS pain score at 30 min after surgery. Pain intensity was assessed using the NRS upon arrival at the recovery room and every 15 min thereafter. The level of sedation (awake/sedated and responsive to verbal stimuli/sedated and unresponsive to verbal stimuli) was assessed 30 min after the end of surgery, and the time spent in the recovery room was recorded. Moreover, any events of PONV and shivering, and additional analgesic or antiemetic requirements were recorded. These outcomes were evaluated again 24 h after surgery. Finally, the time to first defecation or flatus was recorded before discharge from the ward.
To investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on oxidative stress, an ancillary cytokine study was performed on 40 patients (20 from each group). MnSOD and MMP-9 levels were measured at baseline, immediately after surgery, and 24 h after surgery. All blood samples were placed in pre-chilled tubes on ice and centrifuged within 60 min. Plasma from the samples was separated and stored at −70 °C until analysis. These measurements were made using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits for MnSOD (Mybiosource, San Diego, CA, USA.; sensitivity: 0.055 ng/mL, detection range: 0.156–10 ng/mL) and MMP-9 (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, U.S.A.; sensitivity: 0.2 pg/mL, detection range: 0.99–4050 pg/mL).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The sample size was calculated with reference to a pilot study of laparoscopic gynecological surgery using remifentanil as an intraoperative opioid. The mean ± standard deviation of NRS in the recovery room during this pilot study was 6.3 ± 3.2. Considering a 30% reduction in pain scores from 6.3 to 4.4, the appropriate sample size was 45 for each group, with power (1-β) = 0.8, and α (2 sided) as 0.05. Considering a dropout rate of 10%, a total of 100 patients were planned to be enrolled, with 50 patients in each group.
Data distribution was examined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The independent sample t-test or Mann-Whitney’s U test was used for comparison of quantitative variables, and Pearson’s χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze categorical data. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to compare the time of fentanyl administration and the proportion of patients not receiving fentanyl in the recovery room. Repeated-measures two-way analysis of variance was performed to compare cytokine levels at the three different time points.
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or numbers and percentages, as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (ver. 26.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Study Population

A total of 136 patients were assessed for eligibility; 36 patients were excluded and 100 patients underwent randomization. After randomization, four patients (two in group R and two in group D) were excluded because of conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Consequently, 96 patients (48 in each group) were analyzed (Figure 1). The baseline and surgical characteristics of the patients were similar between the two groups (Table 1).

3.2. Intraoperative Findings

The intraoperative findings are presented in Table 2. The time to eye opening and that to extubation were comparable between the two groups. Although the incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (HR < 60/min) was comparable between the two groups, that of intraoperative hypotension was higher in group R than in group D (45.8% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.018).

3.3. Postoperative Pain

Pain scores after 30 min of recovery differed between the groups. Patients in group D reported less pain than those in group R (4.0 ± 1.9 vs. 6.1 ± 2.0, p < 0.001, Figure 2). In the recovery room, the proportion of patients who did not require rescue analgesics was higher in group D than in group R (p = 0.002, Figure 3). However, there was no significant difference in the postoperative pain at 24 h after surgery (3.2 ± 2.0 in group D vs. 3.3 ± 1.8 in group R, p = 0.75).

3.4. Other Postoperative Findings

A comparison of the early recovery profiles between the two groups is shown in Table 3. The incidence of analgesic requirement in the recovery room was significantly lower in group D than in group R (25% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001), as well as the incidence of PONV and shivering (2.1% vs. 18.8% and 0% vs. 12.5%, respectively). In addition, the duration of stay in the recovery room was significantly shorter in group D than in group R (33.8 ± 5.0 min vs. 39.2 ± 5.5 min, p < 0.001). However, the difference in the early recovery profiles did not last for up to 24 h after surgery; at this time point, the incidence of analgesic requirement, PONV, and shivering was comparable between the groups. Patient-controlled analgesia use and time to flatus were also similar between the two groups (Table 3).

3.5. Ancillary Cytokine Study

Table 4 shows a comparison of the MnSOD and MMP 9 levels between the two groups. Both MnSOD and MMP 9 levels showed changes over time. While MnSOD levels showed a gradual reduction over time, MMP-9 levels surged at T1 and decreased at T2 in both groups. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups.

4. Discussion

In this study, dexmedetomidine was found to be superior to remifentanil in terms of decreasing pain scores and opioid requirements in the recovery room, as well as in terms of intraoperative hemodynamic stability.
Remifentanil is an ultra-short-acting opioid and a favorable alternative to long-acting opioids during general anesthesia. It is 100–200 times more potent than morphine, with a short elimination half-life and context-sensitive half-life, leading to faster recovery with predictable offset. However, it is also associated with RIH, induced by sensitization of the opioid signaling pathway [13]. RIH increases with increasing remifentanil dose, with higher doses being more susceptible to RIH [14]. Clinically, RIH leads to paradoxical additive requirement of opioids, resulting in opioid-related side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, constipation, respiratory depression, and ileus. Opioid-free anesthesia has been suggested as a method to reduce opioid consumption, and dexmedetomidine has been suggested as an alternative to remifentanil. Dexmedetomidine has been demonstrated to be a reasonable substitute for intraoperative remifentanil in terms of decreasing pain intensity and opioid use [15].
One of the concerns related to dexmedetomidine is hemodynamic instability, such as hypotension and bradycardia. Dexmedetomidine has an interesting biphasic action at different concentrations. High plasma concentrations result in hypertension and bradycardia due to increased systemic vascular resistance, thereby causing baroreceptor stimuli to maintain hemostasis by decreasing the HR. At low plasma concentrations, dexmedetomidine causes hypotension via a vasodilatory effect [16]. In a study comparing the effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil for major or intermediate noncardiac surgery, significant bradycardia due to infusion of dexmedetomidine (mean dose 1.2 ± 2 μg/kg/h) resulted in early cessation of the study [17]. Cardiac arrest following high-dose infusion of dexmedetomidine has also been reported [18]. However, our study used a lower dose of dexmedetomidine, with a loading dose of 0.7 ug/kg for 10 min and a maintenance dose within 0.1–1.0 ug/kg/h. The mean dose of dexmedetomidine was 0.6 ± 0.1 μg/kg/h. Additionally, our study population included young, fairly healthy female patients without critical illness, coronary artery disease, and preexisting low blood pressure, all of which are known to be predisposing factors for dexmedetomidine–induced hypotension [19]. This issue about “dose and safety” of dexmedetomidine will be also meaningful in the patients with higher mortality risks in the intensive care unit. Consequently, these imply that an appropriate dose of dexmedetomidine can be safely used in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy.
Dexmedetomidine has demonstrated an opioid-sparing effect in different types of surgical procedures [20,21] by reducing rescue analgesic requirements in the recovery room. In this study, dexmedetomidine resulted in a 35% decrease in postoperative pain scores 30 min after surgery. In addition, the duration of stay in the recovery room was shorter by 5 min in group D. Patients in group R required more opioids as rescue analgesics, which may have led to an increased time of recovery unit stay.
Opioid-induced PONV is an important issue, particularly in gynecological patients. Women are 25 times more likely to experience PONV than men, and gynecological surgery has 6.27 times higher incidences of PONV than other surgical procedures [22]. However, dexmedetomidine has been reported to reduce postoperative nausea (risk ratio (RR) = 0.5–59) and vomiting (RR = 0.48) in various surgical procedures [23,24]. Similar results were obtained in our study. The incidence of PONV at 30 min after surgery was lower in group D.
Dexmedetomidine is known for its anti-shivering effects. Intravenous as well as intrathecal administration of dexmedetomidine decreased postoperative anesthetic shivering in both general and regional anesthesia [9,17,25]. In our study, dexmedetomidine had a significantly better postoperative anti-shivering effect than remifentanil; in fact, none of the patients in group D experienced post-anesthetic shivering compared to those in group R.
The oxidative stress theory has been suggested as the underlying mechanism of RIH. In some experimental and clinical studies, high doses of remifentanil have been reported to cause significant increases in oxidative stress markers, such as malondialdehyde, 3-nitrotyrosine, or MMP-9, and decrease in oxygen radical scavengers, such as MnSOD [4]. Recently, dexmedetomidine has been reported to decrease the level of reactive oxygen species in animal studies [26,27,28,29,30]. To determine the effect of dexmedetomidine on oxidative stress compared to that of remifentanil, we measured MMP-9 and MnSOD levels. However, our study failed to prove the effects of dexmedetomidine on changes in MnSOD and MMP-9 levels. The most likely reason may be the difference in the methods used to collect and measure the cytokines. Although a previous animal study measured cytokines collected directly from the spinal cord [4], our study used blood samples because of ethical concerns. This difference in sampling methods may have led to the dilution of cytokines in the blood.
Our study had some limitations. First, we only included patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy, which may interfere with the generalizability of our results to other populations. However, because we chose a population at risk of PONV, our findings suggest a beneficial effect of dexmedetomidine in terms of antiemetic effects in other surgical procedures or populations with a high risk of PONV. Second, because of the different infusion protocols, anesthesiologists participating in the intraoperative management were aware of the group allocation. However, caregivers and assessors were blinded to the group allocation.

5. Conclusions

In the present study, low-dose dexmedetomidine decreased pain severity after gynecologic laparoscopy and opioid-induced side effects in the immediate postoperative period without accompanying intraoperative hemodynamic instability. Further studies with more elaborate methods are required to demonstrate the antioxidative effects of dexmedetomidine in clinical settings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, supervision, project administration; J.M.K., Y.-J.C., M.L. and Y.E.M.; writing—original draft, J.M.K., M.L. and Y.E.M.; writing—review and editing, J.M.K. and Y.E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT; No. 2020R1G1A1008405). The funder played no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital of the Catholic University of Korea (approval number: KC20MNSI0130; approval date: 7 April 2020). The study protocol was registered in the Clinical Research Information Service database on 20 April 2020 (KCT0004941).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data generated in this study can be shared after a reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vinik, H.R.; Kissin, I. Rapid development of tolerance to analgesia during remifentanil infusion in humans. Anesth. Analg. 1998, 86, 1307–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gan, T.J.; Belani, K.G.; Bergese, S.; Chung, F.; Diemunsch, P.; Habib, A.S.; Jin, Z.; Kovac, A.L.; Meyer, T.A.; Urman, R.D.; et al. Fourth Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesth. Analg. 2020, 131, 411–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shanthanna, H.; Ladha, K.S.; Kehlet, H.; Joshi, G.P. Perioperative Opioid Administration: A Critical Review of Opioid-free versus Opioid-sparing Approaches. Anesthesiology 2021, 134, 645–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lv, C.-C.; Xia, M.-L.; Shu, S.-J.; Chen, F.; Jiang, L.-S. Attenuation of Remifentanil-Induced Hyperalgesia by Betulinic Acid Associates with Inhibiting Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in Spinal Dorsal Horn. Pharmacology 2018, 102, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kawasaki, Y.; Xu, Z.-Z.; Wang, X.; Park, J.Y.; Zhuang, Z.-Y.; Tan, P.-H.; Gao, Y.-J.; Roy, K.; Corfas, G.; Lo, E.H.; et al. Distinct roles of matrix metalloproteases in the early- and late-phase development of neuropathic pain. Nat. Med. 2008, 14, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Parks, W.C.; Wilson, C.L.; López-Boado, Y.S. Matrix metalloproteinases as modulators of inflammation and innate immunity. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2004, 4, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, Y.; Wang, B.; Zhang, L.-L.; He, S.-F.; Hu, X.-W.; Wong, G.T.C.; Zhang, Y. Dexmedetomidine Combined with General Anesthesia Provides Similar Intraoperative Stress Response Reduction When Compared with a Combined General and Epidural Anesthetic Technique. Anesth. Analg. 2016, 122, 1202–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bhana, N.; Goa, K.L.; McClellan, K.J. Dexmedetomidine. Drugs 2000, 59, 263–268; Discussion 269–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Elvan, E.G.; Öç, B.; Uzun, Ş.; Karabulut, E.; Coşkun, F.; Aypar, Ü. Dexmedetomidine and postoperative shivering in patients undergoing elective abdominal hysterectomy. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2008, 25, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tang, C.; Xia, Z. Dexmedetomidine in perioperative acute pain management: A non-opioid adjuvant analgesic. J. Pain Res. 2017, 10, 1899–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yuan, Y.; Sun, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Xie, K.-L.; He, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, G.-L.; Yu, Y.-H. Prevention of Remifentanil Induced Postoperative Hyperalgesia by Dexmedetomidine via Regulating the Trafficking and Function of Spinal NMDA Receptors as well as PKC and CaMKII Level In Vivo and In Vitro. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Tüfek, A.; Kaya, S.; Tokgöz, O.; Fırat, U.; Evliyaoğlu, O.; Çelik, F.; Karaman, H. The protective effect of dexmedetomidine on bupivacaine-induced sciatic nerve inflammation is mediated by mast cells. Clin. Investig. Med. 2013, 36, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Santonocito, C.; Noto, A.; Crimi, C.; Sanfilippo, F. Remifentanil-induced postoperative hyperalgesia: Current perspectives on mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. Local Reg. Anesth. 2018, 11, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Angst, M.S. Intraoperative Use of Remifentanil for TIVA: Postoperative Pain, Acute Tolerance, and Opioid-Induced Hyperalgesia. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2015, 29 (Suppl. 1), S16–S22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Grape, S.; Kirkham, K.R.; Frauenknecht, J.; Albrecht, E. Intra-operative analgesia with remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Anaesthesia 2019, 74, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Weerink, M.; Struys, M.M.R.F.; Hannivoort, L.N.; Barends, C.R.M.; Absalom, A.R.; Colin, P. Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Dexmedetomidine. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2017, 56, 893–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Beloeil, H.; Garot, M.; Lebuffe, G.; Gerbaud, A.; Bila, J.; Cuvillon, P.; Dubout, E.; Oger, S.; Nadaud, J.; Becret, A.; et al. Balanced Opioid-free Anesthesia with Dexmedetomidine versus Balanced Anesthesia with Remifentanil for Major or Intermediate Noncardiac Surgery: The Postoperative and Opioid-free Anesthesia (POFA) Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesthesiology 2021, 134, 541–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kim, B.J.; Kim, B.I.; Byun, S.H.; Kim, E.; Sung, S.Y.; Jung, J.Y. Cardiac arrest in a patient with anterior fascicular block after administration of dexmedetomidine with spinal anesthesia: A case report. Medicine 2016, 95, e5278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gerlach, A.; Blais, D.M.; Jones, G.M.; Burcham, P.; Stawicki, S.P.; Cook, C.H.; Murphy, C. Predictors of dexmedetomidine-associated hypotension in critically ill patients. Int. J. Crit. Illn. Inj. Sci. 2016, 6, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Su, S.; Ren, C.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Z. The Opioid-Sparing Effect of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine Plus Sufentanil Infusion during Neurosurgery: A Retrospective Study. Front. Pharmacol. 2016, 7, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, B.; Wang, G.; Liu, X.; Wang, T.-L.; Chi, P. The Opioid-Sparing Effect of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine Combined with Oxycodone Infusion during Open Hepatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Front. Pharmacol. 2017, 8, 940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Canakci, E.; Catak, T.; Basar, H.; Cebeci, Z.; Coskun, I.; Saltali, A.; Altinbas, A. Prevalence study for postoperative nausea vomiting: A training hospital example. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 24, 1633–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhong, W.-G.; Ge, X.-Y.; Zhu, H.; Liang, X.; Gong, H.-X.; Zhong, M.; Xiao, X. Dexmedetomidine for antiemesis in gynecologic surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 8, 14566–14576. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Liang, X.; Zhou, M.; Feng, J.-J.; Wu, L.; Fang, S.-P.; Ge, X.-Y.; Sun, H.-J.; Ren, P.-C.; Lv, X. Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 8, 8450–8471. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Sun, S.; Wang, J.; Bao, N.; Chen, Y.; Wang, J. Comparison of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl as local anesthetic adjuvants in spinal anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2017, 11, 3413–3424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Liang, S.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y. Dexmedetomidine alleviates lung ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats by activating PI3K/Akt pathway. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2019, 23, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Meng, L.; Li, L.; Lu, S.; Li, K.; Su, Z.; Wang, Y.; Fan, L.; Li, X.; Zhao, G. The protective effect of dexmedetomidine on LPS-induced acute lung injury through the HMGB1-mediated TLR4/NF-κB and PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways. Mol. Immunol. 2018, 94, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, Y.; Feng, X.; Hu, X.; Sha, J.; Li, B.; Zhang, H.; Fan, H. Dexmedetomidine Ameliorates Acute Stress-Induced Kidney Injury by Attenuating Oxidative Stress and Apoptosis through Inhibition of the ROS/JNK Signaling Pathway. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2018, 2018, 4035310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tong, F.; Shen, W.; Song, P.; Song, J.; Hu, Y.; Liu, F.; Meng, Z.; Liu, J. Dexmedetomidine attenuates lipopolysaccharide-induced acute liver injury in rats by inhibiting caveolin-1 downstream signaling pathway. Biosci. Rep. 2021, 41, BSR20204279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xie, X.; Shen, Z.; Hu, C.; Zhang, K.; Guo, M.; Wang, F.; Qin, K. Dexmedetomidine Ameliorates Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction in Aged Mice. Neurochem. Res. 2021, 46, 2415–2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 00350 g001 550
Figure 1. CONSORT 2010 flow diagram.
Figure 1. CONSORT 2010 flow diagram.
Jcm 12 00350 g001
Jcm 12 00350 g002 550
Figure 2. Postoperative pain difference between the two groups. Box plot with median (solid line), 25–75th percentiles (box), and min-max (whiskers). Mann–Whitney’s U test was used.
Figure 2. Postoperative pain difference between the two groups. Box plot with median (solid line), 25–75th percentiles (box), and min-max (whiskers). Mann–Whitney’s U test was used.
Jcm 12 00350 g002
Jcm 12 00350 g003 550
Figure 3. Opioid requirement difference between the two groups. The vertical upticks indicate the occurrence of events (opioid requirement). Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed. PACU, Post-anesthetic care unit.
Figure 3. Opioid requirement difference between the two groups. The vertical upticks indicate the occurrence of events (opioid requirement). Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed. PACU, Post-anesthetic care unit.
Jcm 12 00350 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the patients at baseline.
Table 1. Characteristics of the patients at baseline.
Group RGroup Dp Value
(n = 48)(n = 48)
Age43.9 ± 10.7 41.7 ± 9.50.28
Height (cm)159.0 ± 5.7160.5 ± 4.90.16
Weight (kg)58.5 ± 10.1 58.3 ± 7.20.90
ASA classification (I/II)34/1439/90.23
Type of surgery 0.15
 Hysterectomy a29 (60.5%)25 (52.1%)
 Myomectomy b4 (8.3%)6 (12.5%)
 Cystectomy/Cyst enucleation only10 (20.8%)15 (31.2%)
 Adnexectomy only5 (10.4%)2 (4.2%)
Values are expressed as mean ± SD and numbers (proportion). ASA; American Society of Anesthesiologists. a with or without adnexectomy. b with or without cystectomy/cyst enucleation.
Table
Table 2. Intraoperative findings.
Table 2. Intraoperative findings.
Group R
(n = 48)		Group D
(n = 48)		p Value
Anesthetic duration (min)148.0 ± 51.2141.4 ± 5.40.47
Time to eye opening (min)5.1 ± 1.75.1 ± 1.80.93
Time to extubation (min)5.7 ± 1.85.7 ± 2.00.95
Intraoperative hypotension22 (45.8%)11 (22.9%)0.018
Intraoperative bradycardia7 (14.6%)3 (6.3%)0.18
Remifentanil dose (μg/kg/min)0.1 ± 0.04
Dexmedetomidine dose (μg/kg/h)0.6 ± 0.1
Values are expressed as mean ± SD or numbers (proportion).
Table
Table 3. Postoperative findings.
Table 3. Postoperative findings.
Group R
(n = 48)		Group D
(n = 48)		p Value
0.5 h after surgery
Rescue analgesic use32 (66.7%)12 (25%)<0.001
PONV9 (18.8%)1 (2.1%)0.008
Rescue antiemetic use32 (66.7%)12 (25%)<0.001
Sedation level (level 1/2/3)44/3/139/9/00.1
Shivering6 (12.5%)0 (0%)0.01
Time of PACU stay (min)39.2 ± 5.533.8 ± 5.0<0.001
24 h after surgery
PCA use (ml)17.7 ± 14.117.2 ± 11.10.9
Rescue analgesic use15 (31.3%)13 (27.1%)0.8
PONV13 (27.1%)17 (36.4%)0.5
Rescue antiemetic use3 (6.3%)2 (4.2%)>0.999
Shivering7 (14.6%)6 (12.5%)>0.999
Pruritus1 (2.1%)1 (2.1%)>0.999
Time to first flatus (h)20.1 ± 6.222.5 ± 5.80.06
Values are expressed as mean ± SD and numbers (proportion). Abbreviations: NRS; Numeric Rating Scale, PONV; Postoperative nausea and vomiting, PACU; Post-anesthetic care unit, PCA; Patient controlled analgesics. Sedation level: 1 = awake, 2 = sedated and responsive to verbal stimuli, 3 = sedated and unresponsive to verbal stimuli.
Table
Table 4. Ancillary cytokine levels.
Table 4. Ancillary cytokine levels.
Group RGroup Dp Value
(n = 20)(n = 20)
MnSOD (ng/mL) 0.5
 T00.6 ± 0.40.6 ± 0.2
 T10.6 ± 0.20.6 ± 0.2
 T20.4 ± 0.20.5 ± 0.2
MMP-9 (pg/mL) 0.6
 T0187.3 ± 85.7191.5 ± 100.9
 T1385.1 ± 211.3352.4 ± 230.2
 T2331.9 ± 139.6 351.6 ± 209.4
Values are expressed as mean ± SD. Abbreviations: MnSOD; Manganese superoxide dismutase, MMP-9; Matrix metalloproteinase. T0; before surgery, T1; 30 min after surgery, T2; 24 h after surgery.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Koo, J.M.; Chung, Y.-J.; Lee, M.; Moon, Y.E. Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Remifentanil for Postoperative Analgesia and Opioid-Related Side Effects after Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010350

AMA Style

Koo JM, Chung Y-J, Lee M, Moon YE. Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Remifentanil for Postoperative Analgesia and Opioid-Related Side Effects after Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(1):350. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010350

Chicago/Turabian Style

Koo, Jung Min, Youn-Jee Chung, Mihyeon Lee, and Young Eun Moon. 2023. "Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Remifentanil for Postoperative Analgesia and Opioid-Related Side Effects after Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 1: 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010350

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop