ArticleCureus2026
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Infusion Doses of Dexmedetomidine on Hemodynamic Response and Extubation Quality in Neurosurgical Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTracheal extubation is associated with significant airway and hemodynamic responses, which may be detrimental in neurosurgical patients. Dexmedetomidine, a selective α₂-adrenergic agonist, has been shown to attenuate these responses without causing respiratory depression. This study aimed to compare two infusion doses of dexmedetomidine for attenuation of stress responses during extubation.
methodsNinety ASA I-II patients (ages 18-65) undergoing neurosurgery were enrolled in this double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients were divided into three groups: Group D1 was administered dexmedetomidine 0.4 µg/kg, Group D2 was administered 0.6 µg/kg, and Group C was administered normal saline. The study drug was infused over 20 minutes prior to extubation. Hemodynamic parameters, extubation quality, emergence time, and adverse effects were recorded and analyzed.
resultsDexmedetomidine significantly reduced heart rate as well as mean arterial pressure compared to control during extubation and after extubation (p < 0.05). Extubation quality was significantly improved in Group D2 (1.8 ± 0.88) and Group D1 (2.5 ± 1.01) compared to Group C (3.47 ± 1.25) (p = 0.002). Sedation scores were higher in dexmedetomidine groups without respiratory compromise. Emergence and extubation times were slightly prolonged but not statistically significant. Bradycardia and hypotension were more frequent in Group D2, while breath-holding was significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine groups.
conclusionsDexmedetomidine effectively attenuates extubation-related stress responses in neurosurgical patients. The 0.4 µg/kg dose provides an optimal balance between efficacy and safety, whereas the 0.6 µg/kg dose offers smoother extubation with a slightly higher incidence of manageable adverse effects.
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.