ORIGINAL ARTICLES

The therapeutic antiemetic and hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine, ephedrine, and dexamethasone in combination with midazolam on laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients: A randomised clinical trial

Dorsa Dalaei¹, Hesameddin Modir², Shirin Pazoki², Amir Reza Naimi³

¹Students Research Committee, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran
² Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran
³ Department of Surgery, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Hesameddin Modir Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak Iran

Source of Support: None
Conflict of Interest: None

Objective: Objective: The objective was to compare the hemodynamic and antiemetic effects of the combination of midazolam with ephedrine, dexamethasone, and dexmedetomidine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgical patients.

Materials and Methods: This randomised, parallel-group, double-blind clinical trial was conducted by enrollment of 96 patients who were referred for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients assigned into three equal-sized intervention arms having received anaesthesia induction with midazolam-ephedrine, midazolam-dexamethasone, and midazolam-dexmedetomidine using a block randomisation method. Frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting were observed from recovery to 24?h later, adverse events, and sedation on Ramsay sedation scale at recovery, 1, 2, and 4?h postoperatively. Data were recorded and analysed at a significance level lower than 0.05 in SPSS software.

Results: The clinical parameters including mean blood pressure at all times and heart rate in 60–90?min were lower in the dexmedetomidine group when compared with other groups. The lowest severity of postsurgery nausea occurrence was observed in the midazolam-dexamethasone group and those receiving midazolam-dexmedetomidine from 4 to 24?h. In addition, vomiting scores were lower throughout recovery up to postoperative 4?h in the dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine groups (all P < 0.05). The highest sedation score was observed in the dexmedetomidine group during recovery up to 2?h (P = 0.001), reflecting a more clinically superior effect than dexamethasone (P = 0.01).

Conclusion: A positive implication of dexmedetomidine was observed in attenuating postoperative nausea and vomiting and potentiating sedation. Nevertheless, it is providing a drop in the blood pressure and heart rate. Lending support to the potent adjuvant efficacy of dexamethasone following dexmedetomidine, consequently, a hypothesis can be put forward, stating that the dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to midazolam are expected to bring the advantages of avoiding the adverse events and improving postoperative sedation.