Comparison of Dexmedetomidine, Propofol and Midazolam for Short-Term Sedation in Postoperatively Mechanically Ventilated Neurosurgical Patients

Background: Effective management of analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit depends on the needs of the patient, subjective and/or objective measurement and drug titration to achieve specific endpoints. Aim: The present study compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam for sedation in neurosurgical patients for postoperative mechanical ventilation. Materials and Methods: Ninety patients aged 20-65 years, ASA physical status I to III, undergoing neurosurgery and requiring postoperative ventilation were included. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.4-0.7 mcg/kg/h. Group P received propofol 1 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 1-3 mg/kg/h. Group M received midazolam 0.04 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.08 mg/kg/h. M easurements: Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, sedation level, fentanyl requirement, ventilation and extubation time were recorded. Results: Adequate sedation level was achieved with all three agents. Dexmedetomidine group required less fentanyl for postoperative analgesia. In group D there was a decrease in HR after dexmedetomidine infusion (p< 0.05), but there was no significant difference in HR between group P and group M. After administration of study drug there was a significant decrease in MAP comparison to baseline value in all groups at all time intervals (p< 0.05), except postextubation period (p> 0.05). Extubation time was lowest in group P (p< 0.05). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is safer and equally effective agent compared to propofol and midazolam for sedation of neurosurgical mechanically ventilated patients with good hemodynamic stability and extubation time as rapid as propofol. Dexmedetomidine also reduced postoperative fentanyl requirements.