-
L'Encephale Dec 2022Drug-induced hypersalivation is a frequent drug adverse event of psychotropic drugs. This excess salivary pooling in the mouth can cause an impairment of a patient's...
OBJECTIVES
Drug-induced hypersalivation is a frequent drug adverse event of psychotropic drugs. This excess salivary pooling in the mouth can cause an impairment of a patient's quality of life leading to low rates of medication adherence. The optimal management of hypersalivation is thus crucial to improve patient care. To date, no recommendations for limiting drug-induced hypersalivation have been published. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing drug-induced hypersalivation.
METHODS
Treatment of drug-induced sialorrhea based on case reports and clinical studies were sought in May 2021 from PubMed, Google Scholar and Science Direct (keywords : « treatment », « hypersalivation », « induced », « drug », « clozapine »). Articles published between 1966 to May 2021 on the treatment of drug-induced hypersalivation were included in this study.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven articles were selected in this narrative review. First, patient education associated with non-drug related management are essential to improve the compliance to drugs inducing hypersalivation. The non-drug related management should be initiated with an increase in the frequency of swallowing with chewing gum. In the case of ineffectiveness, the dosage of drug responsive of sialorrhea can be adjusted according to the patient's response and his/her medical history (i.e. reducing the dose or splitting the daily dose). Finally, if the problem persists, a symptomatic treatment can be added according to the type of sialorrhea (diurnal or nocturnal), preferred galenic by patient, tolerance and availability of drugs. Several drugs have been tested to reduce hypersalivation induced by clozapine (61/67), risperidone (3/67), quetiapine (2/67) and aripiprazole (2/67). Among the 63 articles targeting a specific corrective treatment, anticholinergic agents were most described in the literature (41 cases out of 63) with atropine, glycopyrrolate and scopolamine (6/41 each). Other agents were described as clinically effective on hypersalivation: dopamine antagonists (9/63) with amisulpride (5/9), alpha-2-adrenergic agonists (5/63) with clonidine (3/5), botulinic toxin (4/63), and terazosine, moclobemide, bupropion and N-acetylcysteine (for each 1/63).
CONCLUSIONS
In the case of drug-induced hypersalivation, after failure of non-drug therapies and dosage optimization of the causative treatment, an anticholinergic drug can be initiated. In case of insufficient response, the different treatments presented can be used depending on the galenic form, tolerance and access to those medications. The assessment of the risk-benefit balance should be systematic. The heterogeneity of the studies, the little knowledge about the pharmacological mechanism of saliva flow modulation and the unavailability of corrective drugs are different factors contributing to the complexity of therapeutic optimization.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Sialorrhea; Clozapine; Quality of Life; Amisulpride; Scopolamine; Cholinergic Antagonists; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 35989107
DOI: 10.1016/j.encep.2022.03.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.
Topics: Adult; Male; Adolescent; Humans; Middle Aged; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Asthma; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Administration, Inhalation
PubMed: 36472162
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013799.pub2 -
Journal of Perinatology : Official... Feb 2024Opioids and benzodiazepines have historically been employed for pain relief; however, they are associated with detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental consequences.... (Review)
Review
Opioids and benzodiazepines have historically been employed for pain relief; however, they are associated with detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental consequences. Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective alpha-2-adrenoreceptor agonist, has piqued interest as a viable alternative for neonates, owing to its potential analgesic and neuroprotective attributes. We conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine utilization in neonates. We conducted a comprehensive search of Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL, spanning from January 2010 to September 2022. Our review encompassed six studies involving 252 neonates. Overall, dexmedetomidine may be effective in achieving sedation and analgesia. Furthermore, it may reduce the need for adjunctive sedation or analgesia, shorten the time to extubation, decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation, and accelerate the attainment of full enteral feeds. Notably, no significant adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were reported. Nevertheless, additional well-designed studies to establish both the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in neonatal care are needed.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Pain; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Pain Management; Analgesia
PubMed: 37845426
DOI: 10.1038/s41372-023-01802-5 -
Drugs in Context 2022Few randomized controlled trials evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for overactive bladder (OAB). This network meta- analysis compares the...
BACKGROUND
Few randomized controlled trials evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for overactive bladder (OAB). This network meta- analysis compares the long-term (52-week) efficacy and safety of vibegron, mirabegron and anticholinergics for the treatment of OAB.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and terms related to OAB. Efficacy outcomes included change from baseline to week 48-52 in mean daily total urinary incontinence (UI) episodes, mean daily number of micturitions and volume voided/micturition. Efficacy outcomes were analysed using Bayesian models. Commonly reported adverse events (AEs) are described.
RESULTS
Of 2098 hits retrieved, 5 publications and 1 study report describing 5 unique randomized controlled trials were included in the analyses. Mean (95% credible interval) change from baseline in total UI episodes for vibegron 75 mg (-2.2; -2.9 to -1.5) showed a significantly greater reduction than mirabegron 50 mg (-1.3; -1.9 to -0.8) and tolterodine 4 mg extended release (-1.6; -2.1 to -1.1). No significant differences were observed between vibegron and comparators for daily micturitions or volume voided/micturition. Within the manuscripts, the 4 most common AEs (range) for anticholinergics included dry mouth (5.2-90.0%), constipation (7.7-65.0%), blurred vision (3.8-35.0%) and hypertension (8.6-9.6%); the 4 most commonly reported AEs for β-adrenergic agonists included hypertension (8.8-9.2%), urinary tract infection (5.9-6.6%), headache (5.5%) and nasopharyngitis (4.8-5.2%).
CONCLUSION
Vibegron was associated with significantly greater improvement in daily total UI episodes at 52 weeks than mirabegron and tolterodine. When reported, the most common AE for anticholinergics was dry mouth and for β-adrenergic agonists was hypertension. Hypertension incidence was similar between drug classes.
PubMed: 36303599
DOI: 10.7573/dic.2022-4-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Transient tachypnea of the newborn is characterized by tachypnea and signs of respiratory distress. Transient tachypnea typically appears within the first two hours of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Transient tachypnea of the newborn is characterized by tachypnea and signs of respiratory distress. Transient tachypnea typically appears within the first two hours of life in term and late preterm newborns. Although transient tachypnea of the newborn is usually a self limited condition, it is associated with wheezing syndromes in late childhood. The rationale for the use of epinephrine (adrenaline) for transient tachypnea of the newborn is based on studies showing that β-agonists can accelerate the rate of alveolar fluid clearance.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether epinephrine compared to placebo, no treatment or any other drugs (excluding salbutamol) is effective and safe in the treatment of transient tachypnea of the newborn in infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1996 to March 2016), EMBASE (1980 to March 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to March 2016). We applied no language restrictions. We searched the abstracts of the major congresses in the field (Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Pediatric Academic Societies) from 2000 to 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials and cluster trials comparing epinephrine versus placebo or no treatment or any other drugs administered to infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more and less than three days of age with transient tachypnea of the newborn.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, duration of oxygen therapy (hours), need for continuous positive airway pressure and need for mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review were duration of oxygen therapy (hours), need for continuous positive airway pressure and need for mechanical ventilation.
MAIN RESULTS
One trial, which included 20 infants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study authors administered three doses of nebulized 2.25% racemic epinephrine or placebo. We found no differences between the two group in the duration of supplemental oxygen therapy (mean difference (MD) -6.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -54.80 to 41.60 hours) and need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.88; risk difference (RD) -0.07, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.32). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of initiation of oral feeding. The quality of the evidence was limited due to the imprecision of the estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of epinephrine in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Transient Tachypnea of the Newborn
PubMed: 27211231
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011877.pub2 -
Clinical Journal of the American... Oct 2021AKI is a common complication after pediatric cardiac surgery and has been associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare the efficacy of available... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
AKI is a common complication after pediatric cardiac surgery and has been associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare the efficacy of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies to prevent AKI after pediatric cardiac surgery.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for randomized controlled trials from inception until August 2020. Random effects traditional pairwise, Bayesian network meta-analyses, and trial sequential analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty randomized controlled trials including 2339 patients and 11 preventive strategies met the eligibility criteria. No overall significant differences were observed compared with control for corticosteroids, fenoldopam, hydroxyethyl starch, or remote ischemic preconditioning in traditional pairwise meta-analysis. In contrast, trial sequential analysis suggested a 80% relative risk reduction with dexmedetomidine and evidence of <57% relative risk reduction with remote ischemic preconditioning. Nonetheless, the network meta-analysis was unable to demonstrate any significant differences among the examined treatments, including also acetaminophen, aminophylline, levosimendan, milrinone, and normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve probabilities showed that milrinone (76%) was most likely to result in the lowest risk of AKI, followed by dexmedetomidine (70%), levosimendan (70%), aminophylline (59%), normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass (57%), and remote ischemic preconditioning (55%), although all showing important overlap.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the efficacy of most strategies to prevent AKI in the pediatric population, apart from limited evidence for dexmedetomidine and remote ischemic preconditioning.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Age Factors; Bayes Theorem; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Child, Preschool; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Ischemic Preconditioning; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34620647
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05800421 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo, reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications, or an alpha2-adrenergic agonist regimen different to the experimental intervention, for the management of the acute phase of opioid withdrawal. Outcomes included the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration of treatment, occurrence of adverse effects, and completion of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 2, 2015), EMBASE (January 1985 to November week 2, 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to November week 2, 2015), Web of Science, and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine, lofexidine, guanfacine, tizanidine) with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2-adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were opioid dependent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 randomised controlled trials involving 1728 participants. Six studies compared an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with placebo, 12 with reducing doses of methadone, four with symptomatic medications, and five compared different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. We assessed 10 studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one of the methodological domains that were considered.We found moderate-quality evidence that alpha2-adrenergic agonists were more effective than placebo in ameliorating withdrawal in terms of the likelihood of severe withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.57; 3 studies; 148 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that completion of treatment was significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.84; 3 studies; 148 participants).Peak withdrawal severity may be greater with alpha2-adrenergic agonists than with reducing doses of methadone, as measured by the likelihood of severe withdrawal (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.73; 5 studies; 340 participants; low quality), and peak withdrawal score (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.46; 2 studies; 263 participants; moderate quality), but these differences were not significant and there is no significant difference in severity when considered over the entire duration of the withdrawal episode (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.49; 3 studies; 119 participants; moderate quality). The signs and symptoms of withdrawal occurred and resolved earlier with alpha2-adrenergic agonists. The duration of treatment was significantly longer with reducing doses of methadone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.83; 3 studies; 310 participants; low quality). Hypotensive or other adverse effects were significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.10; 6 studies; 464 participants; low quality), but there was no significant difference in rates of completion of withdrawal treatment (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; 9 studies; 659 participants; low quality).There were insufficient data for quantitative comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. Available data suggest that lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Clonidine and lofexidine are more effective than placebo for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. We detected no significant difference in efficacy between treatment regimens based on clonidine or lofexidine and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days, but methadone was associated with fewer adverse effects than clonidine, and lofexidine has a better safety profile than clonidine.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Clonidine; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 27140827
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002024.pub5 -
Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal... May 2021The objective was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effects of dietary supplementation with beta-adrenergic agonists on calpains and calpastatin activity in...
The objective was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effects of dietary supplementation with beta-adrenergic agonists on calpains and calpastatin activity in bovine muscle and changes in meat tenderness. A survey was conducted in June 2019 on Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Capes Periodicals, using four keyword combinations: agonist and calpain and cattle; agonist and calpain and bovine; agonist and calpain and heifers; agonist and calpain and steers. Thirteen studies were selected, 54% concluded that supplementation with beta-adrenergic agonists increases calpastatin activity, 23% observed increase in their gene expression and 23% reported no effect on activity or expression of this enzyme. Nine studies evaluated the influence of beta-adrenergic agonists supplementation on meat texture and all found an increase in shear force values. There is strong evidence that beta-adrenergic agonists may increase calpastatin activity in the muscle, causing damage to meat tenderness.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Animals; Calpain; Cattle; Female; Meat; Muscle, Skeletal; Muscles; Proteolysis
PubMed: 33452737
DOI: 10.1111/jpn.13479 -
Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal... Jan 2015Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require sedatives such as midazolam and the more recently developed alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine. To assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require sedatives such as midazolam and the more recently developed alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine. To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with midazolam.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD).
RESULTS
We identified nine randomized trials from the database search. Compared to that of midazolam, the pooled OR for restlessness of dexmedetomidine was 0.078 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.013-0.453, P < 0.0001), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. Dexmedetomidine significantly increased Ramsay sedation score compared with midazolam (WMD: 0.401, 95% CI: 0.110-0.692, P = 0.0069), without significant heterogeneity. Compared with midazolam, the pooled OR for hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were 0.454 (95% CI: 0.098-2.11), 1.370 (95% CI: 0.516-3.637), and 2.575 (95% CI: 0.978-6.785), respectively, with no significant differences detected between the groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis shows that dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Conscious Sedation; Dexmedetomidine; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam
PubMed: 25369736
DOI: 10.1111/den.12399 -
Psychopharmacology Bulletin Oct 2020This evidence-based systematic review will focus on the use of dexmedetomidine and its role as adjuvant anesthetics in regional blocks to help better guide physicians in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This evidence-based systematic review will focus on the use of dexmedetomidine and its role as adjuvant anesthetics in regional blocks to help better guide physicians in their practice. This review will cover background and mechanism of dexmedetomidine as well as the use in various regional blocks.
RECENT FINDINGS
Local anesthetics are preferred for nerve blocks over opioids; however, both due come with its own side effects. Local anesthetics may be toxic as they disrupt cell membrane and proteins, but by using adjuvants such as dexmedetomidine, that can prolong sensory and motor blocks can reduce total amount of local anesthetics needed. Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2-adrenergic agonist used as additive for regional nerve block. It has a relatively low side effect profile and have been researched in various regional blocks (intrathecal, paravertebral, axillary, infraclavicular brachial plexus, interscalene). Dexmedetomidine shows promising results as adjuvant anesthetics in most regional blocks.
SUMMARY
Many studies have been done and many show promising results for the use of dexmedetomidine in regional blocks. It may significantly increase in duration of sensory and motor blocks that correlates with lower pain scores and less need of morphine in various regional blocks.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthetics, Local; Brachial Plexus Block; Dexmedetomidine
PubMed: 33633422
DOI: No ID Found