FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2120496357> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2120496357 endingPage "1066" @default.
• W2120496357 startingPage "1066" @default.
• W2120496357 abstract "We read with interest the article by Ramsay and Luterman1and accompanying editorial2discussing the use of high-dose dexmedetomidine as a single-agent intravenous anesthetic. We have several concerns, both with the technique described and the journal’s editorial position.As to the case series itself, we wonder what was the basis for the clinical choice to use doses of dexmedetomidine at more than 7 to 50 times the recommended dose range of 0.2–0.7 μg·kg−1·h−1as the sole anesthetic. Ebert et al.’s work with volunteers3was extremely limited and in no way established dexmedetomidine as a safe single-agent anesthetic. Indeed, doses of dexmedetomidine lower than those in the case series have been recently reported as “accidental overdose” and are accompanied by guidelines for the management of same.4Although Ramsay and Luterman’s cases imply that the doses were increased when the patients could not tolerate the procedures at lower dose levels, there is no mention of the initial anesthetic plan. Did the authors undertake the anesthetics with the expectation of using dexmedetomidine at massive, unstudied doses? Given the properties of dexmedetomidine at its usual clinical dose range, it is unlikely that patients would be able to tolerate the procedures described without either supplementation or rapid escalation to massive doses, as actually occurred. We find no convincing evidence in the literature to believe that their course of action could be chosen with confidence in its safety and efficacy. The intraoperative management of the cases is also unusual. We fail to understand their need to avoid the use of supplemental oxygen except when absolutely necessary. The argument regarding electrocautery is unconvincing. It is almost as if the decreased margin of safety is used as a demonstration of dexmedetomidine’s properties with respect to maintenance of ventilation. In the two cases that did not receive supplemental oxygen, were the patients subsequently placed on oxygen in the postanesthesia care unit? Finally, we question the assertion that recovery time in these patients was not significantly prolonged when compared with many conventional anesthetic techniques. A recovery time and postanesthesia care unit stay of 2 to 3 h is considered by many to be significantly prolonged and is not a desirable side effect.We are therefore concerned that Anesthesiology tacitly endorses this anesthetic technique by calling it “another arrow for the clinician’s quiver” in the accompanying editorial. On the basis of Ebert et al.’s two volunteers and the three cases described by Ramsay and Luterman, are we to assume that this is now an acceptable practice? Certainly, we all daily administer many medications “off-label” in a safe and reasonable manner. There comes a point, however, when the off-label use of a drug crosses the line of “reasonable” and becomes a deviation from the standard of care. Until properly controlled, Institutional Review Board reviewed clinical studies (with appropriate informed patient consent) are conducted addressing safety and efficacy issues of the doses in question, it is premature to call single-agent intravenous dexmedetomidine “another arrow for the clinician’s quiver.” A case report or small series of cases should highlight an unusual occurrence, pathology, or unanticipated anesthetic intervention, rather than act as a proving ground for new anesthetic techniques. There is nothing in the article to suggest that the patients involved provided informed consent as to the unusual nature of the anesthetic. Similarly, it does not appear that an Institutional Review Board or hospital ethics committee was consulted regarding this “case series.” The practice of anesthesiology is neither a contest of skills nor a game of what one can get away with. The essence of the practice of anesthesiology is the planning and administration of the safest and most efficient anesthetic for a given individual patient using principles grounded in science and controlled clinical studies. An unusual technique that worked in three patients does not rise to this standard and sidesteps the checks and balances of ethical scientific investigation.Finally, the lack of complete disclosure of conflicts of interest on Dr. Ebert’s part is disturbing. The attestation states, “Dr. Ebert is not supported by, nor maintains any financial interest in, any commercial activity that may be associated with the topic of this editorial.” This may be true only in the strictest and most limited interpretation of the statement, but ignores Dr. Ebert’s long and close association with Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park, IL) and previous substantial financial support and honoraria. In fact, the study cited by Ebert in the editorial, examining high-dose dexmedetomidine in volunteers,3was itself supported by a grant from Abbott Laboratories. At best, this is disingenuous. The casual reader of the journal should be fully aware that an unproven anesthetic technique, utilizing an expensive drug manufactured by Hospira, Inc. (Lake Forest, IL), a wholly-owned spin-off company of Abbott Laboratories, is advocated by an Abbott-funded investigator and is trumpeted by editorial writers with a long history of close association and support from Abbott Laboratories. It is difficult to understand how one can consider this an objective review of scientific data.* University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson, Mississippi. gmychaskiw@anesthesia.umsmed.edu" @default.
• W2120496357 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2120496357 creator A5009567991 @default.
• W2120496357 creator A5032932898 @default.
• W2120496357 date "2005-05-01" @default.
• W2120496357 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2120496357 title "Case Series or Uncontrolled Clinical Study?" @default.
• W2120496357 cites W2017286875 @default.
• W2120496357 cites W2093865019 @default.
• W2120496357 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200505000-00029" @default.
• W2120496357 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15851898" @default.
• W2120496357 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2120496357 type Work @default.
• W2120496357 sameAs 2120496357 @default.
• W2120496357 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2120496357 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2120496357 hasAuthorship W2120496357A5009567991 @default.
• W2120496357 hasAuthorship W2120496357A5032932898 @default.
• W2120496357 hasBestOaLocation W21204963571 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConcept C126965237 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConcept C24890656 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConcept C2776814716 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConcept C2778162923 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConcept C2781302539 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConceptScore W2120496357C121332964 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConceptScore W2120496357C126965237 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConceptScore W2120496357C24890656 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConceptScore W2120496357C2776814716 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConceptScore W2120496357C2778162923 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConceptScore W2120496357C2781302539 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConceptScore W2120496357C42219234 @default.
• W2120496357 hasConceptScore W2120496357C71924100 @default.
• W2120496357 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2120496357 hasLocation W21204963571 @default.
• W2120496357 hasLocation W21204963572 @default.
• W2120496357 hasOpenAccess W2120496357 @default.
• W2120496357 hasPrimaryLocation W21204963571 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W2000717433 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W2046103402 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W2097241596 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W2110127181 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W2320756689 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W2337962040 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W2367312788 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W3048333975 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W3212247066 @default.
• W2120496357 hasRelatedWork W4221103757 @default.
• W2120496357 hasVolume "102" @default.
• W2120496357 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2120496357 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2120496357 magId "2120496357" @default.
• W2120496357 workType "article" @default.