4.3 Article

Correlation between Bispectral Index, Observational Sedation Scale, and Lower Esophageal Sphincter Pressure in volunteers using dexmedetomidine or propofol

期刊

MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 CR593-CR596

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.883484

关键词

BIS; lower esophageal sphincter; dexmedetomidine; propofol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many anesthetics reduce lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) and consequently the gastro-esophageal pressure gradient (GEPG); thus they may promote gastro-esophageal reflux and contribute to aspiration pneumonia. Our goals were to evaluate the association between LESP and 2 measures of sedation: bispectral index (BIS) and the responsiveness component of the Observer's Assessment of Alertness score (OAA/S). Material/Methods: Eleven healthy volunteers were each sedated on 2 separate days. Subjects were given sedative infusions of increasing target plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine or propofol. LESP and GEPG were recorded after starting each infusion phase. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to assess the relationship between LESP and, respectively, BIS and OAA/S. The existence of a drug-dependent association was evaluated within these models by testing an interaction term. Wald tests were used to evaluate the relationships within the models. Results :We found a significant relationship between LESP and BIS (P=0.0043) after adjusting for the main effect of sedative type a deepening of sedation as measured by a decrease in BIS of 10% was associated with a decrease [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% CI] in LISP of -1.34 [-2.39, -0.29] mmHg. After adjusting for the main effect of sedative drug, LESP significantly declined with declining OAA/S (P=0.001); a unit decrease of OAA/S was associated with a decrease [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% CI] in LESP of -2.01 [-3.20, -0.81] mmHg. Conclusions: Deeper sedation, as measured by either BIS or OAA/S, significantly reduces LESP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据