This study consisted of 70 patients, divided into two groups of 35, 8 patients (11.4% male) and 62 patients (88.6% female) with the average age of the dexmedetomidine group 50.7 ± 10.2 years and the control group 46.4 ± 12.3 years. The prevalence of emergence coughing was 40% in the present study in the intervention group and 71% in the control group, which showed a significant difference (p-value: 0.008). The prevalence of emergence cough in the present study was comparable to previous studies (11, 12). There was a significant difference between the frequency and severity of cough in the two groups receiving dexmedetomidine and placebo in postoperative recovery (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the frequency of shivering, the average systolic/diastolic blood pressure and the average heart rate (P > 0.05).
Post-operative bleeding is an uncommon yet critical complication of thyroidectomy, which may necessitate intensive care (13). The risk factors of post-operative bleeding include male sex, older age, and post-operative coughing (2). The bleeding that precedes coughing can be explained by (a) the fact that the cough lifts the thyroid cartilage and (b) that severe cough increases venous return (10). Furthermore, thyroidectomy is a surgery inherently associated with increased risk of emergence cough and post-operative bleeding (11 and 2). Therefore, the importance of alleviating emergence cough seems of paramount importance in these patients. Therefore, this study examined the effect of dexmedetomidine on preventing emergence cough among thyroidectomy patients.
So far, different drugs have been applied to attenuate emergence coughing, including use of lidocaine either locally before intubation or intravenously after the surgery and administration of opioids such as remifentanil and sufentanil (14). In fact, use of lidocaine/prilocaine and tetracaine spray is currently the most commonly used alternative (15). However, despite the benefits, application of each of these potions is faced by challenges; opioids on the one hand, are perceived to cause delayed emergence, increased risk of vomiting, and suppressed respiration (11). On the other hand, the application of tetracaine on mucosal surface could be limited due to its inconvenience particularly among patients with respiratory infectious diseases. Moreover, administering anesthetics prior to the surgery provides only a limited time because these compounds are easily absorbed by the endotracheal mucus (16, 17). Overall, the debate is still going, as the significantly more optimal choice has not yet been introduced. A systematic review and meta-analysis in 2020 compared the use of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, fentanyl, lidocaine i.v., intracuff lidocaine, and lidocaine via tracheal or topical route in reducing emergence coughing. The results showed that there is no significant difference between the outcome (18). Therefore, the research on this matter is still ongoing.
The sedative, analgesic, and non-respiratory-suppressive attributes of dexmedetomidine make it a potentially useful alternative. Several studies have used dexmedetomidine either alone or in conjunction with another drug. Kim et al. administered a 0.4 µg/kg/h intraoperative infusion of dexmedetomidine during nasal surgery. Their results showed that dexmedetomidine caused a smooth and hemodynamically stable emergence, but at the same time did not lead to decreased cough severity (19). Furthermore, another study reported that co-administration of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine significantly decreased emergence cough while the use of dexmedetomidine alone did not have such effect (20). These results were not consistent with our findings, which could be explained by the differences in the study population (age and gender distribution, ethnicity) and the type of surgery. However, another study backed our finding, reporting that the use of dexmedetomidine alone significantly decreased the emergence cough. Kim et al. mentioned the fact that there is controversy between their findings and those of others in this regard, and they perceived that because their study population was consisted of only females, this could explain the difference (21); and given that the majority of our study population were female, the explanation could be used here.
The present study had some limitations. The sample size of this study was relatively small and larger sample size might provide more statistical power and enhance the generalizability of the results to a broader population of thyroidectomy patients. Also, this research was conducted on a single research which could lead to a set of biases. Finally, the gender distribution of the patients was significantly imbalanced. Therefore, the results may not be fully generalizable.