↓ Skip to main content

Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation during awake intubation using a Shikani optical stylet: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation during awake intubation using a Shikani optical stylet: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-016-0219-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ting Xu, Min Li, Cheng Ni, Xiang-yang Guo

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation during awake intubation using a Shikani optical stylet (SOS). Sixty-eight patients with cervical trauma or severe cervical spondylosis undergoing cervical spinal surgery were enrolled in this prospective study. They were randomly assigned to receive dexmedetomidine (Group D) or remifentanil (Group R). In Group D, the patients received an intravenous loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1 μg · kg(-1) over 10 min followed by a continuous infusion of 0.7 μg · kg(-1) · h(-1). In Group R, a target-controlled infusion of remifentanil was administered to achieve a plasma concentration of 2.5 ng · ml(-1), increased to 3 ng · ml(-1) 10 min later. An endotracheal tube was inserted using a SOS under dexmedetomidine or remifentanil sedation after topical anesthesia to the airway. Midazolam was given as rescue sedation. We recorded the first attempt intubation success rate, the dose of midazolam, duration of intubation, Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score, tracheal tube tolerance score, duration of drug infusion, adverse events and patient satisfaction score. The RSS score was significantly higher in Group D than in Group R. First attempt success rate, rescue midazolam dose and the duration of intubation did not differ between the groups. Patients in Group R were significantly more tolerant of the tracheal tube. The incidence of hypoxia was significantly higher in Group R than Group D, but there was no significant difference in the incidence of other adverse events between the groups. The hemodynamic responses of the two groups were similar, but more patients in Group R were able to recall airway instrumentation. Both dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are effective sedatives for awake intubation using an SOS. Although the first attempt success rates were similar, patients sedated with remifentanil tolerated the tracheal tube better after intubation with moderately increased risk of desaturation. www.chictr.org.cn ; ChiCTR-TRC-13003052 (February 4th, 2013).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 19 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,336,685
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#1,177
of 1,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#321,775
of 366,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,500 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.