ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2024
Comparing the Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Using Salivary Alpha-Amylase as a Stress Marker: A Randomized Open-Label Trial.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and adverse events associated with dexmedetomidine for sedation in adult ICU patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the Sedative, Recovery, and Analgesic Effects of Oral Dexmedetomidine, Ketamine, and Midazolam for Premedication in Children Undergoing Inguinal Hernia Surgery: A Randomized Double-Blind Study.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience significant distress, which triggers a stress response. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine and propofol in reducing stress levels, using salivary alpha-amylase (SAA) as a specific indicator of stress. Methods: A randomized, open-label trial was conducted involving 40 patients newly placed on MV. In a parallel study design, participants were randomly assigned into two equal groups (n = 20) through the sealed envelope method using computer-generated randomization. Group D received dexmedetomidine at a dosage of 0.2 to 1.4 μg/kg/h, while group P received propofol at a dosage of 0.3 to 4 mg/kg/h for sedation. Salivary alpha-amylase levels were measured according to the kit manufacturer's protocol. Results: Salivary alpha-amylase levels were significantly lower in group D than in group P at 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours after the initiation of MV (P < 0.05). Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were also significantly lower in group D at 12, 18, and 24 hours (P < 0.05). The duration of MV was significantly shorter in group D compared to group P (4.4 ± 1.85 vs 6.1 ± 2.45 days, P = 0.018). There were no significant differences in ICU length of stay, mortality, or adverse events between the groups. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine demonstrated superior stress-reducing effects compared to propofol in MV patients, as evidenced by lower SAA levels and improved hemodynamic stability. The shorter duration of MV in the dexmedetomidine group further suggests potential clinical benefits of its use in managing stress in MV patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.