Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
The Comparison of Infusion of Two Different Sedation Regimens With Propofol and Ketamine Combination During Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Publisher Pubmed



Sanatkar M1 ; Abianeh SH2 ; Ghazizadeh S2 ; Rahmati J2 ; Ghanbarzadeh K2 ; Fathi HR2 ; Najafi A3 ; Sadrossadat H4 ; Shahriyari A1
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
  3. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
  4. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Farabi Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

Source: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Published:2015


Abstract

Objective: Anesthetic agents are often combined to enhance their therapeutic effects while minimizing adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of two different sedation regimens of ketamine and propofol combination via infusion on perioperative variables in patients who underwent plastic and reconstructive surgery.; Methods: This randomized double-blind clinical trial was done on 80 patients who were randomized to two groups; group 1 (n = 40) received a 2:1 mixture of 9 mg/ml propofol and 4.5 mg/ml ketamine, and group 2 (n = 40) received a 4:1 mixture of 9 mg/ml propofol and 2.25 mg/ml ketamine. After premedication and before local anesthetic injection, the infusion of mixtures was adjusted to attain the Ramsay sedation scores of 5 in both groups. We recorded induction time, sedation efficacy, cardiovascular and respiratory events, recovery time, and incidence of adverse events during and after the procedure.; Results: The mean of volume infusion of mixtures in the beginning of the procedure was higher in group 2 (3.2 ± 1. 2 ml) than in group 1 (2.4 ± 0.8 ml) (p < 0.001). The induction time for sedation was 2.8 ± 0.8 min and 2.6 ± 0.4 min in group 1 and group 2, respectively (p = 0. 92). The number of oversedated patients was greater in group 2 compared to group 1 but not statistically significant (p = 0. 80). The sedation efficacy was similar between the two groups. The hemodynamic changes during the procedure were greater in group 2 compared to group 1 (p = 0. 001). The recovery time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.43). The mean pain score in the recovery room was lower in group 1 than group 2 (1.2 ± 0.8 vs 2.8 ± 1.8, p = 0. 01). Moreover, 4 (10 %) patients in group 1 and 10 (25 %) patients in group 2 needed opioid administration (p = 0. 02). Other postoperative adverse events were similar between the two groups.; Level of Evidence I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.; Conclusion: We recommend the use of a 2:1 combination of propofol–ketamine, because it reduced the rescue propofol requirement and consequently produced lower cardiovascular and respiratory depression effects and also less postoperative pain. © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.