Case Control Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Psychiatry. Mar 19, 2024; 14(3): 370-379
Published online Mar 19, 2024. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v14.i3.370
Brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine vs propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in non-brain injured patients
Hong-Xun Yuan, Li-Na Zhang, Gang Li, Li Qiao
Hong-Xun Yuan, Gang Li, Li Qiao, Intensive Care Unit, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing 102206, China
Li-Na Zhang, Central Operating Room, The Affiliated Beijing Chaoyang Hospital of Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China
Co-first authors: Hong-Xun Yuan and Li-Na Zhang.
Co-corresponding authors: Gang Li and Li Qiao.
Author contributions: Yuan HX and Zhang LN contributed to conception, writing, and statistical analysis; Li G and Qiao L contributed to project, manuscript writing, review, and revision; all authors were involved in the critical review of the results and have contributed to, read, and approved the final manuscript. Yuan HX and Zhang LN contributed equally to this work as co-first authors; Li G and Qiao L contributed equally to this work as co-corresponding authors. The reasons for designating Gang Li and Li Qiao as co-corresponding authors are listed below: The research was performed as a collaborative effort, and the designation of co-corresponding authorship accurately reflects the distribution of responsibilities and burdens associated with the time and effort required to complete the study and the resultant paper. This also ensures effective communication and management of post-submission matters, ultimately enhancing the paper’s quality and reliability. The choice of these researchers as co-corresponding authors acknowledges and respects this equal contribution, while recognizing the spirit of teamwork and collaboration of this study. In summary, we believe that designating Li G and Qiao L as co-corresponding authors of is fitting for our manuscript as it accurately reflects our team’s collaborative spirit, equal contributions, and diversity.
Institutional review board statement: This study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking University International Hospital (Approval No. 2021-KY-0037-01).
Informed consent statement: All study participants, or their legal guardian, provided informed written consent prior to study enrollment.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Data sharing statement: Technical appendix, statistical code, and dataset available from the corresponding author at ligang1@pkuih.edu.cn.
STROBE statement: The authors have read the STROBE Statement—checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement—checklist of items.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Gang Li, BSc, Consultant, Intensive Care Unit, Peking University International Hospital, No. 1 Life Park Road, Zhongguancun Life Science Park, Changping District, Beijing 102206, China. ligang1@pkuih.edu.cn
Received: October 18, 2023
Peer-review started: October 18, 2023
First decision: December 6, 2023
Revised: December 21, 2023
Accepted: January 15, 2024
Article in press: January 15, 2024
Published online: March 19, 2024
Processing time: 153 Days and 1.1 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and propofol are two sedatives used for long-term sedation. It remains unclear whether dexmedetomidine provides superior cerebral protection for patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation.

AIM

To compare the neuroprotective effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.

METHODS

Patients who underwent mechanical ventilation for > 72 h were randomly assigned to receive sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was used to evaluate sedation effects, with a target range of -3 to 0. The primary outcomes were serum levels of S100-β and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) every 24 h. The secondary outcomes were remifentanil dosage, the proportion of patients requiring rescue sedation, and the time and frequency of RASS scores within the target range.

RESULTS

A total of 52 and 63 patients were allocated to the dexmedetomidine group and propofol group, respectively. Baseline data were comparable between groups. No significant differences were identified between groups within the median duration of study drug infusion [52.0 (IQR: 36.0-73.5) h vs 53.0 (IQR: 37.0-72.0) h, P = 0.958], the median dose of remifentanil [4.5 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) μg/kg/h vs 4.6 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) μg/kg/h, P = 0.395], the median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation [85.6% (IQR: 65.8%-96.6%) vs 86.7% (IQR: 72.3%-95.3), P = 0.592], and the median frequency within the target RASS range without rescue sedation [72.2% (60.8%-91.7%) vs 73.3% (60.0%-100.0%), P = 0.880]. The proportion of patients in the dexmedetomidine group who required rescue sedation was higher than in the propofol group with statistical significance (69.2% vs 50.8%, P = 0.045). Serum S100-β and NSE levels in the propofol group were higher than in the dexmedetomidine group with statistical significance during the first six and five days of mechanical ventilation, respectively (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine demonstrated stronger protective effects on the brain compared to propofol for long-term mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.

Keywords: Dexmedetomidine; Propofol; Sedation; Prolonged mechanical ventilation; Brain protective

Core Tip: In this study, we designed a single center, prospective, randomized controlled study to compare the brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine vs propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in non-brain injured patients.