Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia

Background: Dexmedetomidine is selective alpha 2-agonist which is commonly used for sedation and potential to be used as co-induction drug. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of dexmedetomidine on induction using different target-controlled infusion (TCI) pharmacokinetic models of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Siang, Tan Hai
Format: Thesis
Language:English
Published: 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:http://eprints.usm.my/45584/
_version_ 1846216916777041920
author Siang, Tan Hai
author_facet Siang, Tan Hai
author_sort Siang, Tan Hai
description Background: Dexmedetomidine is selective alpha 2-agonist which is commonly used for sedation and potential to be used as co-induction drug. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of dexmedetomidine on induction using different target-controlled infusion (TCI) pharmacokinetic models of propofol. Methods: 64 patients, aged 18-60 year-old, classified under ASA I and II, who underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were randomised into two groups; Group Marsh (n=32) and Group Schnider (n=32). All patients received 1 mcg/kg loading dose of intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes and followed with TCI remifentanil at 2 ng /ml. After effect-site concentration (Ce) of remifentanil achieved 2 ng/ml, TCI propofol induction was started. Group Marsh was started with Marsh model at target plasma concentration (Cpt) of 2 mcg/ml, whereas Schnider group was started with Schnider model at target effect concentration (Cet) of 2 mcg/ml. If induction was unsuccessful after 3 min, target concentration (Ct) was gradually increased to 0.5 mcg/ ml every 30 seconds until succesful induction. Ct requirement of propofol at successful induction, induction time, Ce of propofol at successful induction and serial of haemodynamic parameters were recorded for statistical analysisResults: Requirement of Ct of propofol for successful induction was significantly lower in Group Schnider than Group Marsh [3.48 (0.90) vs. 4.02 (0.67) g/ml; P = 0.01]. Mean induction time was also shorter in Group Schnider than Group Marsh [134.96 (50.91) vs. 161.59 (39.64); P = 0.02] seconds. There were no significant differences in Ce at successful induction and haemodynamic parameters between the two groups. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine as co-induction with TCI remifentanil and TCI propofol reduced Ct requirement for induction and shorter induction time in Schnider model than Marsh model of TCI propofol. However, haemodynamic effects were stable in both groups.
first_indexed 2025-10-17T08:27:35Z
format Thesis
id usm-45584
institution Universiti Sains Malaysia
language English
last_indexed 2025-10-17T08:27:35Z
publishDate 2017
record_format eprints
spelling usm-455842020-10-22T03:03:15Z http://eprints.usm.my/45584/ Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia Siang, Tan Hai RD Surgery Background: Dexmedetomidine is selective alpha 2-agonist which is commonly used for sedation and potential to be used as co-induction drug. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of dexmedetomidine on induction using different target-controlled infusion (TCI) pharmacokinetic models of propofol. Methods: 64 patients, aged 18-60 year-old, classified under ASA I and II, who underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were randomised into two groups; Group Marsh (n=32) and Group Schnider (n=32). All patients received 1 mcg/kg loading dose of intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes and followed with TCI remifentanil at 2 ng /ml. After effect-site concentration (Ce) of remifentanil achieved 2 ng/ml, TCI propofol induction was started. Group Marsh was started with Marsh model at target plasma concentration (Cpt) of 2 mcg/ml, whereas Schnider group was started with Schnider model at target effect concentration (Cet) of 2 mcg/ml. If induction was unsuccessful after 3 min, target concentration (Ct) was gradually increased to 0.5 mcg/ ml every 30 seconds until succesful induction. Ct requirement of propofol at successful induction, induction time, Ce of propofol at successful induction and serial of haemodynamic parameters were recorded for statistical analysisResults: Requirement of Ct of propofol for successful induction was significantly lower in Group Schnider than Group Marsh [3.48 (0.90) vs. 4.02 (0.67) g/ml; P = 0.01]. Mean induction time was also shorter in Group Schnider than Group Marsh [134.96 (50.91) vs. 161.59 (39.64); P = 0.02] seconds. There were no significant differences in Ce at successful induction and haemodynamic parameters between the two groups. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine as co-induction with TCI remifentanil and TCI propofol reduced Ct requirement for induction and shorter induction time in Schnider model than Marsh model of TCI propofol. However, haemodynamic effects were stable in both groups. 2017 Thesis NonPeerReviewed application/pdf en http://eprints.usm.my/45584/1/Dr.%20Tan%20Hai%20Siang-24%20pages.pdf Siang, Tan Hai (2017) Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia. Masters thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
spellingShingle RD Surgery
Siang, Tan Hai
Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia
title Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia
title_full Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia
title_fullStr Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia
title_short Comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target-controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol (Marsh vs Schnider) during induction of anesthesia
title_sort comparison of the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine of different target controlled infusion pharmacokinetic models for propofol marsh vs schnider during induction of anesthesia
topic RD Surgery
url http://eprints.usm.my/45584/
work_keys_str_mv AT siangtanhai comparisonoftheeffectsofintravenousdexmedetomidineofdifferenttargetcontrolledinfusionpharmacokineticmodelsforpropofolmarshvsschniderduringinductionofanesthesia