Dexmedetomidine does not affect evoked potentials during spine surgery

Irene Rozet, Julia Metzner, Marcia Brown, Miriam Treggiari, Jefferson C. Slimp, Greg Kinney, Deepak Sharma, Lorri A. Lee, Monica S. Vavilala

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effect of dexmedetomidine on evoked potentials (EPs) has not been elucidated. We aimed to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on somatosensory, motor, and visual EPs. METHODS: After IRB approval, 40 adult patients scheduled for elective spine surgery using total IV anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After obtaining informed consent, positioning, and baseline EPs recording, patients were randomly assigned to either IV dexmedetomidine 0.6 μg/kg infused over 10 minutes, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h, or a corresponding volume of IV normal saline (placebo). EP measures at 60 ± 30 minutes after initiation of study drug were defined as T1 and at 150 ± 30 minutes were defined as T2. Changes from baseline to T1 (primary end point) and from baseline to T2 (secondary end point) in EP latencies (milliseconds) and amplitudes (microvolts) were compared between groups. Data presented as mean ± SD (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: Data from 40 patients (dexmedetomidine: n = 20; age, 54 ± 3 years; 10 males; placebo: n = 20; age, 52 ± 2 years; 5 males) were analyzed. There was no difference between dexmedetomidine versus placebo groups in primary end points: change of somatosensory EPs at T1, latency: 0.01 ± 1.3 (-0.64, 0.65) vs 0.01 ± 1.3 (-0.64, 0.65), P = 0.43 (-1.24, 0.45); amplitude: 0.03 ± 0.14 (-0.06, 0.02) vs -0.01 ± 0.13 (-0.07, 0.05), P = 0.76 (-0.074, 0.1); motor EPs amplitude at T1: 65.1 ± 194.8 (-35, 165; n = 18) vs 109.2 ± 241.4 (-24, 243; n = 16), P = 0.57 (-113.5, 241.57); visual EPs at T1 (right eye), amplitude: 2.3 ± 3.6 (-0.4, 5.1; n = 11) vs 0.3 ± 6.0 (-3.3, 3.9; n = 16), P = 0.38 (-6.7, 2.6); latency N1: 2.3 ± 3.6 (-0.4, 5.1) vs 0.3 ± 6.0 (-3.3, 3.9), P = 0.38 (-6.7, 2.6); latency P1: -1.6 ± 13.4 (-11.9, 8.7) vs -1.4 ± 8.1 (-6.3, 3.5), P = 0.97 (-9.3, 9.7) or secondary end points. There were no differences between right and left visual EPs either at T1 or at T2. CONCLUSIONS: In clinically relevant doses, dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to total IV anesthesia does not seem to alter EPs and therefore can be safely used during surgeries requiring monitoring of EPs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)492-501
Number of pages10
JournalAnesthesia and Analgesia
Volume121
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 25 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dexmedetomidine
Evoked Potentials
Spine
Placebos
Visual Evoked Potentials
Motor Evoked Potentials
Somatosensory Evoked Potentials
Anesthesia
Research Ethics Committees
Propofol
Informed Consent
Confidence Intervals
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Rozet, I., Metzner, J., Brown, M., Treggiari, M., Slimp, J. C., Kinney, G., ... Vavilala, M. S. (2015). Dexmedetomidine does not affect evoked potentials during spine surgery. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 121(2), 492-501. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000840

Dexmedetomidine does not affect evoked potentials during spine surgery. / Rozet, Irene; Metzner, Julia; Brown, Marcia; Treggiari, Miriam; Slimp, Jefferson C.; Kinney, Greg; Sharma, Deepak; Lee, Lorri A.; Vavilala, Monica S.

In: Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 121, No. 2, 25.08.2015, p. 492-501.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rozet, I, Metzner, J, Brown, M, Treggiari, M, Slimp, JC, Kinney, G, Sharma, D, Lee, LA & Vavilala, MS 2015, 'Dexmedetomidine does not affect evoked potentials during spine surgery', Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 492-501. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000840
Rozet, Irene ; Metzner, Julia ; Brown, Marcia ; Treggiari, Miriam ; Slimp, Jefferson C. ; Kinney, Greg ; Sharma, Deepak ; Lee, Lorri A. ; Vavilala, Monica S. / Dexmedetomidine does not affect evoked potentials during spine surgery. In: Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2015 ; Vol. 121, No. 2. pp. 492-501.
@article{d98a82f01cce4afd877517a5ea68a667,
title = "Dexmedetomidine does not affect evoked potentials during spine surgery",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The effect of dexmedetomidine on evoked potentials (EPs) has not been elucidated. We aimed to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on somatosensory, motor, and visual EPs. METHODS: After IRB approval, 40 adult patients scheduled for elective spine surgery using total IV anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After obtaining informed consent, positioning, and baseline EPs recording, patients were randomly assigned to either IV dexmedetomidine 0.6 μg/kg infused over 10 minutes, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h, or a corresponding volume of IV normal saline (placebo). EP measures at 60 ± 30 minutes after initiation of study drug were defined as T1 and at 150 ± 30 minutes were defined as T2. Changes from baseline to T1 (primary end point) and from baseline to T2 (secondary end point) in EP latencies (milliseconds) and amplitudes (microvolts) were compared between groups. Data presented as mean ± SD (95{\%} confidence interval). RESULTS: Data from 40 patients (dexmedetomidine: n = 20; age, 54 ± 3 years; 10 males; placebo: n = 20; age, 52 ± 2 years; 5 males) were analyzed. There was no difference between dexmedetomidine versus placebo groups in primary end points: change of somatosensory EPs at T1, latency: 0.01 ± 1.3 (-0.64, 0.65) vs 0.01 ± 1.3 (-0.64, 0.65), P = 0.43 (-1.24, 0.45); amplitude: 0.03 ± 0.14 (-0.06, 0.02) vs -0.01 ± 0.13 (-0.07, 0.05), P = 0.76 (-0.074, 0.1); motor EPs amplitude at T1: 65.1 ± 194.8 (-35, 165; n = 18) vs 109.2 ± 241.4 (-24, 243; n = 16), P = 0.57 (-113.5, 241.57); visual EPs at T1 (right eye), amplitude: 2.3 ± 3.6 (-0.4, 5.1; n = 11) vs 0.3 ± 6.0 (-3.3, 3.9; n = 16), P = 0.38 (-6.7, 2.6); latency N1: 2.3 ± 3.6 (-0.4, 5.1) vs 0.3 ± 6.0 (-3.3, 3.9), P = 0.38 (-6.7, 2.6); latency P1: -1.6 ± 13.4 (-11.9, 8.7) vs -1.4 ± 8.1 (-6.3, 3.5), P = 0.97 (-9.3, 9.7) or secondary end points. There were no differences between right and left visual EPs either at T1 or at T2. CONCLUSIONS: In clinically relevant doses, dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to total IV anesthesia does not seem to alter EPs and therefore can be safely used during surgeries requiring monitoring of EPs.",
author = "Irene Rozet and Julia Metzner and Marcia Brown and Miriam Treggiari and Slimp, {Jefferson C.} and Greg Kinney and Deepak Sharma and Lee, {Lorri A.} and Vavilala, {Monica S.}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1213/ANE.0000000000000840",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "121",
pages = "492--501",
journal = "Anesthesia and Analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dexmedetomidine does not affect evoked potentials during spine surgery

AU - Rozet, Irene

AU - Metzner, Julia

AU - Brown, Marcia

AU - Treggiari, Miriam

AU - Slimp, Jefferson C.

AU - Kinney, Greg

AU - Sharma, Deepak

AU - Lee, Lorri A.

AU - Vavilala, Monica S.

PY - 2015/8/25

Y1 - 2015/8/25

N2 - BACKGROUND: The effect of dexmedetomidine on evoked potentials (EPs) has not been elucidated. We aimed to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on somatosensory, motor, and visual EPs. METHODS: After IRB approval, 40 adult patients scheduled for elective spine surgery using total IV anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After obtaining informed consent, positioning, and baseline EPs recording, patients were randomly assigned to either IV dexmedetomidine 0.6 μg/kg infused over 10 minutes, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h, or a corresponding volume of IV normal saline (placebo). EP measures at 60 ± 30 minutes after initiation of study drug were defined as T1 and at 150 ± 30 minutes were defined as T2. Changes from baseline to T1 (primary end point) and from baseline to T2 (secondary end point) in EP latencies (milliseconds) and amplitudes (microvolts) were compared between groups. Data presented as mean ± SD (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: Data from 40 patients (dexmedetomidine: n = 20; age, 54 ± 3 years; 10 males; placebo: n = 20; age, 52 ± 2 years; 5 males) were analyzed. There was no difference between dexmedetomidine versus placebo groups in primary end points: change of somatosensory EPs at T1, latency: 0.01 ± 1.3 (-0.64, 0.65) vs 0.01 ± 1.3 (-0.64, 0.65), P = 0.43 (-1.24, 0.45); amplitude: 0.03 ± 0.14 (-0.06, 0.02) vs -0.01 ± 0.13 (-0.07, 0.05), P = 0.76 (-0.074, 0.1); motor EPs amplitude at T1: 65.1 ± 194.8 (-35, 165; n = 18) vs 109.2 ± 241.4 (-24, 243; n = 16), P = 0.57 (-113.5, 241.57); visual EPs at T1 (right eye), amplitude: 2.3 ± 3.6 (-0.4, 5.1; n = 11) vs 0.3 ± 6.0 (-3.3, 3.9; n = 16), P = 0.38 (-6.7, 2.6); latency N1: 2.3 ± 3.6 (-0.4, 5.1) vs 0.3 ± 6.0 (-3.3, 3.9), P = 0.38 (-6.7, 2.6); latency P1: -1.6 ± 13.4 (-11.9, 8.7) vs -1.4 ± 8.1 (-6.3, 3.5), P = 0.97 (-9.3, 9.7) or secondary end points. There were no differences between right and left visual EPs either at T1 or at T2. CONCLUSIONS: In clinically relevant doses, dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to total IV anesthesia does not seem to alter EPs and therefore can be safely used during surgeries requiring monitoring of EPs.

AB - BACKGROUND: The effect of dexmedetomidine on evoked potentials (EPs) has not been elucidated. We aimed to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on somatosensory, motor, and visual EPs. METHODS: After IRB approval, 40 adult patients scheduled for elective spine surgery using total IV anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After obtaining informed consent, positioning, and baseline EPs recording, patients were randomly assigned to either IV dexmedetomidine 0.6 μg/kg infused over 10 minutes, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h, or a corresponding volume of IV normal saline (placebo). EP measures at 60 ± 30 minutes after initiation of study drug were defined as T1 and at 150 ± 30 minutes were defined as T2. Changes from baseline to T1 (primary end point) and from baseline to T2 (secondary end point) in EP latencies (milliseconds) and amplitudes (microvolts) were compared between groups. Data presented as mean ± SD (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: Data from 40 patients (dexmedetomidine: n = 20; age, 54 ± 3 years; 10 males; placebo: n = 20; age, 52 ± 2 years; 5 males) were analyzed. There was no difference between dexmedetomidine versus placebo groups in primary end points: change of somatosensory EPs at T1, latency: 0.01 ± 1.3 (-0.64, 0.65) vs 0.01 ± 1.3 (-0.64, 0.65), P = 0.43 (-1.24, 0.45); amplitude: 0.03 ± 0.14 (-0.06, 0.02) vs -0.01 ± 0.13 (-0.07, 0.05), P = 0.76 (-0.074, 0.1); motor EPs amplitude at T1: 65.1 ± 194.8 (-35, 165; n = 18) vs 109.2 ± 241.4 (-24, 243; n = 16), P = 0.57 (-113.5, 241.57); visual EPs at T1 (right eye), amplitude: 2.3 ± 3.6 (-0.4, 5.1; n = 11) vs 0.3 ± 6.0 (-3.3, 3.9; n = 16), P = 0.38 (-6.7, 2.6); latency N1: 2.3 ± 3.6 (-0.4, 5.1) vs 0.3 ± 6.0 (-3.3, 3.9), P = 0.38 (-6.7, 2.6); latency P1: -1.6 ± 13.4 (-11.9, 8.7) vs -1.4 ± 8.1 (-6.3, 3.5), P = 0.97 (-9.3, 9.7) or secondary end points. There were no differences between right and left visual EPs either at T1 or at T2. CONCLUSIONS: In clinically relevant doses, dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to total IV anesthesia does not seem to alter EPs and therefore can be safely used during surgeries requiring monitoring of EPs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937938028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937938028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000840

DO - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000840

M3 - Article

C2 - 26097987

AN - SCOPUS:84937938028

VL - 121

SP - 492

EP - 501

JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

IS - 2

ER -