Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on January 4, 2008
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008 100(2):224-229; doi:10.1093/bja/aem343
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/2/224    most recent
aem343v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kadoi, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Kunimoto, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kadoi, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Kunimoto, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparative effects of propofol vs dexmedetomidine on cerebrovascular carbon dioxide reactivity in patients with septic shock

Y. Kadoi1,*, S. Saito1, C. Kawauchi2, H. Hinohara2 and F. Kunimoto2

1 Department of Anesthesiology
2 Division of Intensive Care, Gunma University Hospital, Gunma, Japan

* Corresponding author: Department of Anesthesiology, Gunma University Hospital, 3-39-22 Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan. E-mail: kadoi{at}med.gunma-u.ac.jp

Background: The use of sedative drugs is reportedly related to altered cerebrovascular CO2 reactivity. The present study examined the comparative effects of propofol vs dexmedetomidine on cerebrovascular CO2 reactivity in patients with septic shock.

Methods: A total of 20 patients with septic shock who required mechanical ventilation were included in this study. Sedation during mechanical ventilation was maintained using either propofol or dexmedetomidine. A 2.5 MHz pulsed transcranial Doppler probe was attached to the head of the patient at the right temporal window for continuous measurement of mean blood flow velocity in the middle cerebral artery (Vmca). After establishing baseline values of Vmca and cardiovascular haemodynamics, end-tidal CO2 was increased by decreasing ventilatory frequency by 5–8 bpm.

Results: The absolute and relative CO2 reactivity values in patients with septic shock were lower for both propofol and dexmedetomidine than those for control groups, with significant differences between these values in the two septic shock groups (absolute CO2 reactivity in septic shock under propofol: 2.6 (SD 0.3) cm s–1 mm Hg–1; absolute CO2 reactivity in septic shock under dexmedetomidine: 2.0 (0.3) cm s–1 mm Hg–1; P<0.01).

Conclusions: This study showed that cerebrovascular CO2 reactivity was lower under dexmedetomidine sedation than under propofol sedation during almost identical sedation in patients with septic shock.

Keywords: brain, blood flow; carbon dioxide, measurement; sedation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.