Observational studyActa neurochirurgica2026
Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in awake neurosurgery: respiratory and hemodynamic safety.
Observational study in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMonitored anesthesia care (MAC) with continuous sedation for awake craniotomy allows rapid recovery but increases risks of hypoventilation and hypoxemia. In April 2019, our center replaced propofol-based sedation with dexmedetomidine-based protocols to improve respiratory safety. We evaluated the impact of this protocol change on respiratory and hemodynamic outcomes.
methodsThis single-center retrospective before-after observational study analyzed all adult patients undergoing awake craniotomy between April 2017 and July 2021. The propofol group (April 2017-March 2019) received propofol-remifentanil sedation; the dexmedetomidine group (April 2019-July 2021) received dexmedetomidine-based sedation with supplemental low-dose propofol. Primary endpoints were hypoxemia (SpO2 < 92%) and hypercarbia (PaCO2 and transcutaneous PCO2). Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic stability and adverse events.
resultsWe included 103 patients (51 propofol, 52 dexmedetomidine). Desaturation below 92% occurred more frequently in the propofol group (40% vs. 17%, p = 0.04). PaCO2 levels were significantly lower with dexmedetomidine across all sedation periods (period 1: 52 ± 0.9 vs. 64 ± 2 mmHg, p < 0.0001; period 2: 52 ± 1 vs. 66 ± 2 mmHg, p = 0.0002; period 4: 48 ± 0.8 vs. 51 ± 1 mmHg, p = 0.03). Mean arterial pressure was higher and less variable in the dexmedetomidine group (p < 0.01). Blood loss exceeding 500 mL was more common with propofol (41% vs. 19%, p = 0.027). Mapping conditions were excellent in both groups (96%).
conclusionsIn this single-center retrospective study, transitioning from propofol-based to dexmedetomidine-based sedation for awake craniotomy was associated with improved respiratory and hemodynamic safety.
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.