Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
(Reference retrieved automatically from SciELO through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Effects of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic, oxygenation, microcirculation, and inflammatory markers in a porcine model of sepsis

Full text
Author(s):
Paulo Carnicelli [1] ; Denise Aya Otsuki [2] ; Adalberto Monteiro Filho [3] ; Marcia Aparecida Portela Kahvegian [4] ; Keila Kazue Ida [5] ; José Otavio Costa Auler-Jr [6] ; Jean-Jacques Rouby [7] ; Denise Tabacchi Fantoni [8]
Total Authors: 8
Affiliation:
[1] Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. Surgery Department - Brasil
[2] Universidade de São Paulo. Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina. LIM08-Laboratory of Anesthesiology - Brasil
[3] Clínica Ufape. Veterinary Intensive Care Unit - Brasil
[4] All Care Vet - Brasil
[5] Texas A&M University. College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences
[6] Universidade de São Paulo. Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina. Laboratory of Anesthesiology - Brasil
[7] Medicine Sorbonne University. La Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital. Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care - França
[8] Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. Surgery Department - Brasil
Total Affiliations: 8
Document type: Journal article
Source: Acta Cirurgica Brasileira; v. 37, n. 7 2022-11-11.
Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose: To determine whether dexmedetomidine aggravates hemodynamic, metabolic variables, inflammatory markers, and microcirculation in experimental septic shock. Methods: Twenty-four pigs randomized into: Sham group (n = 8), received saline; Shock group (n = 8), received an intravenous infusion of Escherichia coli O55 (3 × 109 cells/mL, 0.75 mL/kg, 1 hour); Dex-Shock group (n = 8), received bacteria and intravenous dexmedetomidine (bolus 0.5 mcg/kg followed by 0.7 mcg/kg/h). Fluid therapy and/ornorepinephrine were administered to maintain a mean arterial pressure > 65 mmHg. Hemodynamic, metabolic, oxygenation, inflammatory markers, and microcirculation were assessed at baseline, at the end of bacterial infusion, and after 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes. Results: Compared to Shock group, Dex-Shock group presented a significantly increased oxygen extraction ratio at T180 (23.1 ± 9.7 vs. 32.5 ± 9.2%, P = 0.0220), decreased central venous pressure at T120 (11.6 ± 1 vs. 9.61 ± 1.2 mmHg, P = 0.0214), mixed-venous oxygen saturation at T180 (72.9 ± 9.6 vs. 63.5 ± 9.2%, P = 0.026), and increased plasma lactate (3.7 ± 0.5 vs. 5.5 ± 1 mmol/L, P = 0.003). Despite the Dex-Shock group having a better sublingual vessel density at T240 (12.5 ± 0.4 vs. 14.4 ± 0.3 mL/m2; P = 0.0003), sublingual blood flow was not different from that in the Shock group (2.4 ± 0.2 vs. 2.4 ± 0.1 mL/kg, P = 0.4418). Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine did not worsen the hemodynamic, metabolic, inflammatory, or sublingual blood flow disorders resulting from septic shock. Despite inducing a better sublingual vessel density, dexmedetomidine initially and transitorily increased the mismatch between oxygen supply and demand. (AU)