↓ Skip to main content

Sedation with Dexmedetomidine or Propofol Impairs Hypoxic Control of Breathing in Healthy Male Volunteers

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sedation with Dexmedetomidine or Propofol Impairs Hypoxic Control of Breathing in Healthy Male Volunteers
Published in
Anesthesiology, October 2016
DOI 10.1097/aln.0000000000001236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Åse Lodenius, Anette Ebberyd, Anna Hårdemark Cedborg, Eva Hagel, Souren Mkrtchian, Eva Christensson, Johan Ullman, Mika Scheinin, Lars I. Eriksson, Malin Jonsson Fagerlund

Abstract

In contrast to general anesthetics such as propofol, dexmedetomidine when used for sedation has been put forward as a drug with minimal effects on respiration. To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the regulation of breathing during sedation with dexmedetomidine, the authors compared ventilatory responses to hypoxia and hypercapnia during sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol. Eleven healthy male volunteers entered this randomized crossover study. Sedation was administered as an intravenous bolus followed by an infusion and monitored by Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, and Bispectral Index Score. Hypoxic and hypercapnic ventilatory responses were measured at rest, during sedation (OAA/S 2 to 4), and after recovery. Drug exposure was verified with concentration analysis in plasma. Ten subjects completed the study. The OAA/S at the sedation goal was 3 (3 to 4) (median [minimum to maximum]) for both drugs. Bispectral Index Score was 82 ± 8 and 75 ± 3, and the drug concentrations in plasma at the sedation target were 0.66 ± 0.14 and 1.26 ± 0.36 μg/ml for dexmedetomidine and propofol, respectively. Compared with baseline, sedation reduced hypoxic ventilation to 59 and 53% and the hypercapnic ventilation to 82 and 86% for dexmedetomidine and propofol, respectively. In addition, some volunteers displayed upper airway obstruction and episodes of apnea during sedation. Dexmedetomidine-induced sedation reduces ventilatory responses to hypoxia and hypercapnia to a similar extent as sedation with propofol. This finding implies that sedation with dexmedetomidine interacts with both peripheral and central control of breathing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 94 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Other 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Professor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 30 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,981,561
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesiology
#780
of 6,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,301
of 332,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesiology
#12
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.