<p>Effect of perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine on delirium after cardiac surgery in elderly patients: a double-blinded, multi-center, randomized study</p>
Authors: Leyan Qiao
Jiahai Ma
Jin Jin
Tao Li
Zhikun Ma
Cunxian Shi
Journal: Clinical Interventions in Aging (2019)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: anesthesia; cardiac surgery; dexmedetomidine; elderly patients; postoperative delirium.
Affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai 264000, Shandong, China, .

Abstract:  Objective: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a serious complication in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This study was aimed at investigating the effect of perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine for general anesthesia maintenance on occurrence and duration of POD in elderly patients after cardiac surgery. Methods: One hundred and sixty-four patients were enrolled after cardiac surgery between June 2009 and December 2016. Patients were assigned by a computer-generated randomization sequence in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexmedetomidine general anesthesia maintenance or propofol general anesthesia maintenance. POD was assessed every day with confusion assessment method for intensive care units (ICU) during the first 5 postoperative days. Results: There was no significance in incidence of POD between the dexmedetomidine group and the propofol group (P=0.0758). In patients treated with dexmedetomidine, the median onset time of delirium was delayed (second day vs first day) and the duration of delirium reduced (2 days vs 3 days) when compared with propofol-treated patients. The dexmedetomidine-treated patients also displayed a lower VAS score and less opiate analgesic consumption. No difference was observed in respect to other postoperative outcomes. Conclusion: For elderly patients, perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine reduced incidence, delayed onset and shortened duration of POD after cardiac surgery. 

Retracted: Yes

PubPeer comments:
 We have two quick inquiries for the authors: 1) The registration number provided by the author for the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-IOR-17014122) seems to correspond to a different trial than the one described in the article: http: www.chictr.org.cn showproj.aspx?proj=24187 The registration describes a trial assessing the sedative effect of dexmedetomidine in laparoscopic colon operations rather than cardiac operations. Can the authors provide the correct registration number to show that the trial had been prospectively registered? 2) It is not entirely clear whether dexmedetomidine was administered for postoperative sedation after ICU admission. Did the patients in the DEX group continue to receive DEX postoperatively or did all patients receive the same PROP regimen for post-op sedation? , 
 Retracted [19 April 2022] . ------------------------- At the request of the authors, the Editor and Publisher of Clinical Interventions in Aging wish to retract the published article. Following publication, concerns were raised that the reported study did not match with details of the associated study that had been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry under registration number, ChiCTR-IOR-17014122. The authors responded to our queries and explained that they failed to complete registration of the study to the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry before starting their clinical research. Their request to retrospectively register the study prior to publication was declined by the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry because the trial had already been completed for three years. To comply with journal requirements the authors provided the clinical registration number (ChiCTR-IOR-17014122) from an unrelated dexmedetomidine study by members of their own research group. The owners of the study associated with registration number, ChiCTR-IOR-17014122, were unaware this number had been used in the publication of another study. The authors contacted the journal to request that the article be retracted and put this error in judgement down to inexperience and wish to apologise for any confusion that was caused. Our decision-making was informed by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines on retraction. The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as u201cRetractedu201d. , 
 See also https: retractionwatch.com 2022 05 20 failed-to-properly-register-your-trial-just-use-a-different-studys-number-actually-dont ,