↓ Skip to main content

Combined use of dexmedetomidine and propofol in monitored anesthesia care: a randomized controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Combined use of dexmedetomidine and propofol in monitored anesthesia care: a randomized controlled study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0311-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyu Nam Kim, Hee Jong Lee, Soo Yeon Kim, Ji Yoon Kim

Abstract

Although propofol and dexmedetomidine have been widely used for monitored anesthesia care, their adverse effects necessitate the search for better methods. Therefore, we performed this randomized controlled trial to evaluate the combined use of propofol and dexmedetomidine. Eighty-seven adult patients undergoing hand surgery under brachial plexus block were randomly allocated to receive 1.6 μg/ml of the target effect site concentration of propofol (P group) and infusion of 0.4 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine following a loading dose of 1.0 μg/kg for 10 min (D group). The M group received a half-dose of both drugs simultaneously. The maintenance dose was adjusted to maintain an Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of 3. Cardiorespiratory variables, adverse effects, and drug efficacy were observed. The significantly higher mean arterial pressure (mmHg) in the D group [P group 86.9 (12.6), D group 96.0 (12.2), M group 85.6 (10.6), p = 0.004)] and a significantly higher heart rate (beat/min) in the P group were observed [P group 67.3 (9.0), D group 57.8 (6.9), M group 59.2 (7.4), p < 0.001)]. The M group had a significant lower incidence of airway obstruction (p < 0.001) and the D group had a higher incidence of bradycardia requiring atropine (p = 0.001). The P group had higher incidences of hypoxia (p = 0.001), spontaneous movement (p < 0.001) and agitation (p = 0.001). The satisfaction scores of the patients (p = 0.007) and surgeon (p < 0.001) were higher in the M group. Onset time was significantly longer in the D group (p < 0.001). The combined use of propofol and dexmedetomidine provided cardiovascular stability with decreased adverse effects. Additionally, it led to a similar onset time of propofol and achieved higher satisfaction scores. KCT0001284 . Retrospectively registered 25 November 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 26 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 26 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,397,332
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#671
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,840
of 311,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#17
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 311,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.