Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 18;12(1):35.
doi: 10.1186/s40560-024-00750-2.

Remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine for cardiac surgery patients with noninvasive ventilation intolerance: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Affiliations

Remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine for cardiac surgery patients with noninvasive ventilation intolerance: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Guang-Wei Hao et al. J Intensive Care. .

Abstract

Background: The optimal sedative regime for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) intolerance remains uncertain. The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil (REM) compared to dexmedetomidine (DEX) in cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe intolerance to NIV.

Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study, adult cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe intolerance to NIV were enrolled and randomly assigned to be treated with either REM or DEX for sedation. The status of NIV intolerance was evaluated using a four-point NIV intolerance score at different timepoints within a 72-h period. The primary outcome was the mitigation rate of NIV intolerance following sedation.

Results: A total of 179 patients were enrolled, with 89 assigned to the REM group and 90 to the DEX group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, including NIV intolerance score [3, interquartile range (IQR) 3-3 vs. 3, IQR 3-4, p = 0.180]. The chi-squared test showed that mitigation rate, defined as the proportion of patients who were relieved from their initial intolerance status, was not significant at most timepoints, except for the 15-min timepoint (42% vs. 20%, p = 0.002). However, after considering the time factor, generalized estimating equations showed that the difference was statistically significant, and REM outperformed DEX (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-8.12, p = 0.009). Adverse effects, which were not reported in the REM group, were encountered by nine patients in the DEX group, with three instances of bradycardia and six cases of severe hypotension. Secondary outcomes, including NIV failure (5.6% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.564), tracheostomy (1.12% vs. 0%, p = 0.313), ICU LOS (7.7 days, IQR 5.8-12 days vs. 7.0 days, IQR 5-10.6 days, p = 0.219), and in-hospital mortality (1.12% vs. 2.22%, p = 0.567), demonstrated comparability between the two groups.

Conclusions: In summary, our study demonstrated no significant difference between REM and DEX in the percentage of patients who achieved mitigation among cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe NIV intolerance. However, after considering the time factor, REM was significantly superior to DEX. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04734418), registered on January 22, 2021. URL of the trial registry record: https://register.

Clinicaltrials: gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AM4S&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00038YX&ts=3&cx=eqn1z0 .

Keywords: Cardiac surgery; Dexmedetomidine; Non-invasive ventilation intolerance; Remifentanil.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram for the study. NIS noninvasive ventilation intolerance score, NIV noninvasive ventilation, DEX dexmedetomidine, REM remifentanil, RRT renal replacement therapy, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mitigation rate of NIV intolerance at different timepoints. NIV noninvasive ventilation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
PSA chart for the status of NIV at different timepoints. PSA percentage stacked area, NIV noninvasive ventilation

References

    1. Nava S, Hill N. Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Lancet. 2009;374(9685):250–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nava S, Navalesi P, Conti G. Time of non-invasive ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(3):361–70. - PubMed
    1. Hill NS. Where should noninvasive ventilation be delivered? Respir Care. 2009;54(1):62–70. - PubMed
    1. Scala R. Challenges on non-invasive ventilation to treat acute respiratory failure in the elderly. BMC Pulm Med. 2016;16(1):150. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nava S, Ferrer M, Esquinas A, Scala R, Groff P, Cosentini R, Guido D, Lin CH, Cuomo AM, Grassi M. Palliative use of non-invasive ventilation in end-of-life patients with solid tumours: a randomised feasibility trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):219–27. - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources