-
European Journal of Pharmacology Nov 2023Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is a multifactorial, complex pathophysiological process in clinical settings. In recent years, intestinal IRI has received... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is a multifactorial, complex pathophysiological process in clinical settings. In recent years, intestinal IRI has received increasing attention due to increased morbidity and mortality. To date, there are no effective treatments. Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a highly selective α-adrenergic receptor agonist, has been demonstrated to be effective against intestinal IRI. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and potential mechanisms of DEX as a treatment for intestinal IRI in animal models.
METHODS
Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) were searched until March 15, 2023. Using the SYRCLE risk bias tool, we assessed methodological quality. Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA 12 and R 4.2.2. We analyzed the related outcomes (mucosa damage-related indicators; inflammation-relevant markers, oxidative stress markers) relied on the fixed or random-effects models.
RESULTS
There were 15 articles including 18 studies included, and 309 animals were involved in the studies. Compared to the model groups, DEX improved intestinal IRI. DEX decreased Chiu's score and serum diamine oxidase (DAO) level. DEX reduced the level of inflammation-relevant markers (interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α). DEX also improved oxidative stress (decreased malondialdehyde (MDA), increased superoxide dismutase (SOD)).
CONCLUSIONS
DEX's effectiveness in ameliorating intestinal IRI has been demonstrated in animal models. Antioxidation, anti-inflammation, anti-apoptotic, anti-pyroptosis, anti-ferroptosis, enhancing mitophagy, reshaping the gut microbiota, and gut barrier protection are possible mechanisms. However, in light of the heterogeneity and methodological quality of these studies, further well-designed preclinical studies are warranted before clinical implication.
Topics: Rats; Animals; Dexmedetomidine; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Reperfusion Injury; Inflammation; Ischemia
PubMed: 37778612
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2023.176090 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2023(1) Background: Anesthetic sedatives are widely used for bronchoscopy, and controversy surrounds the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives.... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Anesthetic sedatives are widely used for bronchoscopy, and controversy surrounds the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine in bronchoscopy through a systematic review. (2) Methods: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched for a randomized controlled study of dexmedetomidine (Group D) or other sedative drugs (Group C) for bronchoscopy. Data extraction, quality assessment, and risk of bias analysis were performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis requirements. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. (3) Results: Nine studies were included, with a total of 765 cases. Compared to Group C, the incidence of hypoxemia (OR = 0.40, 95% CI (0.25, 0.64) = 0.0001, I = 8%) and tachycardia (OR = 0.44, 95% CI (0.26,0.74), = 0.002, I = 14%) were lower, but bradycardia (OR = 3.71, 95% CI (1.84, 7.47), = 0.0002, I = 0%) was higher in Group D; no significant difference was observed in other outcome indicators. (4) Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of hypoxemia and tachycardia during bronchoscopy but is more likely to provoke bradycardia.
PubMed: 36836142
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041607 -
Journal of Neurology Dec 2023Our systematic review examines the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions in preventing or treating traumatic brain injury...
BACKGROUND
Our systematic review examines the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions in preventing or treating traumatic brain injury (TBI)-related delirium in acute care.
METHODS
We searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CDSR, and PsycINFO) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies. Eligible studies included adults with TBI, at least one comparator group, delirium as an outcome and took place in acute care. Two reviewers independently completed all study screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for RCTs or risk of bias in non-randomized studies-of interventions tool for observational studies. We implemented the PROGRESS-Plus framework to describe social determinants of health (SDoH) reporting.
RESULTS
We identified 20,022 citations, reviewed 301 in full text, and included eight studies in the descriptive synthesis. The mean age of study participants ranged from 32 to 62 years. 12.5% of included studies reported SDoH. Included studies had moderate-to-high risk of bias. Studies compared reorientation programs and an intervention bundle to usual care, but these interventions were not better than usual care in treating TBI-related delirium. Individual studies found that rosuvastatin and aripiprazole were more efficacious than placebo, and dexmedetomidine was more efficacious than propofol and haloperidol for preventing TBI-related delirium. No studies reported safety as the primary outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified efficacious pharmacologic interventions for preventing TBI-related delirium, but these studies were at moderate-to-high risk of bias, which limits our confidence in these findings. Future studies should incorporate safety outcomes, and a diverse study population, including older adults.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Adult; Middle Aged; Haloperidol; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Propofol; Delirium
PubMed: 37634162
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11889-7 -
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 -
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 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Oct 2023Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
BACKGROUND
Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after craniotomy.
DESIGN
A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken.
DATA SOURCES
Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021 assessing pain after craniotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and NSAIDs, and current clinical relevance.
RESULTS
Out of 126 eligible studies identified, 53 RCTs and seven systematic review or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion, regional analgesia techniques, including incision-site infiltration, scalp nerve block and acupuncture. Limited evidence was found for flupirtine, intra-operative magnesium sulphate infusion, intra-operative lidocaine infusion, infiltration adjuvants (hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and α-adrenergic agonist added to local anaesthetic solution). No evidence was found for metamizole, postoperative subcutaneous sumatriptan, pre-operative oral vitamin D, bilateral maxillary block or superficial cervical plexus block.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for craniotomy should include paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion and a regional analgesic technique (either incision-site infiltration or scalp nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Dexmedetomidine; Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Craniotomy; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37417808
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001877 -
Sleep & Breathing = Schlaf & Atmung Sep 2017The purpose of the present study is to review the international literature, using a systematic review, for studies comparing propofol and dexmedetomidine for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the present study is to review the international literature, using a systematic review, for studies comparing propofol and dexmedetomidine for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) or sedation in which there is a description of the effect of the agents on the upper airway and associated variables (e.g., vital signs, sedation scores).
METHODS
This is a systematic review through October 4, 2016. PubMed/MEDLINE and four additional databases were accessed for this study.
RESULTS
Two hundred twenty studies were screened, 79 were downloaded, and 10 met criteria. The majority of the studies identified dexmedetomidine as the preferred pharmacologic agent for DISE due to an overall safer and more stable profile based upon hemodynamic stability. However, propofol provided greater airway obstruction with oxygen desaturations. With either agent, the degree of obstruction in the upper airway lacks some degree of validity as to whether the obstructions accurately represent natural sleep or are simply a drug-induced effect.
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine and propofol have their advantages and disadvantages during DISE. Generally, dexmedetomidine was preferred and seemed to provide a more stable profile based upon cardiopulmonary status. However, propofol has a quicker onset, has a shorter half-life, and can demonstrate larger degrees of obstruction, which might more accurately reflect what happens during REM sleep. Additional research is recommended.
Topics: Anesthesia; Dexmedetomidine; Endoscopy; Humans; Propofol; Sleep
PubMed: 28130737
DOI: 10.1007/s11325-017-1465-x -
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine : a... Jan 2024To systematically review literature describing the clinical presentation, risk factors, and treatment for dexmedetomidine withdrawal in the PICU (PROSPERO:... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review literature describing the clinical presentation, risk factors, and treatment for dexmedetomidine withdrawal in the PICU (PROSPERO: CRD42022307178).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies were published from January 2000 to January 2022 and reported clinical data for patients younger than 21 years old following discontinuation of dexmedetomidine after greater than or equal to 24 hours of infusion.
DATA EXTRACTION
Abstracts identified during an initial search were screened and data were manually abstracted after full-text review of eligible articles. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Summary statistics were provided and Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to identify relationships between covariates and withdrawal signs. A weighted prevalence for each withdrawal sign was generated using a random-effects model.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-three studies (22 of which were retrospective cohort studies) containing 28 distinct cohorts were included. Median cumulative dexmedetomidine exposure by dose was 105.95 μg/kg (range, 30-232.7 μg/kg), median dexmedetomidine infusion duration was 131.75 hours (range, 20.5-525.6 hr). Weighted estimates for proportion (95% CI) of subjects experiencing withdrawal signs across all cohorts were: hypertension 0.34 (range, 0.0-0.92), tachycardia 0.26 (range, 0.0-0.87), and agitation 0.26 (range, 0.09-0.77). Meta-analysis revealed no correlation between dexmedetomidine exposure variables and withdrawal signs. A moderate negative monotonic relationship existed between the proportion of patients who had undergone cardiac surgery and the proportion experiencing hypertension (correlation coefficient, -0.47; p = 0.048) and tachycardia (correlation coefficient, -0.57; p = 0.008), indicating that in cohorts with a higher proportion of patients who were postcardiac surgery, there were fewer occurrences of hypertension and or tachycardia.
CONCLUSIONS
On review of the 2000-2022 literature, dexmedetomidine withdrawal may be characterized by tachycardia, hypertension, or agitation, particularly with higher cumulative doses or prolonged durations. Since most studies included in the review were retrospective, prospective studies are needed to further clarify risk factors, establish diagnostic criteria, and identify optimal management strategies.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Hypertension; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric; Retrospective Studies; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tachycardia
PubMed: 37855676
DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000003376 -
AANA Journal Dec 2023Effective control of labor pain is critical to the birthing experience. Dexmedetomidine is an alternative adjunct to labor analgesia without the risk of opioid-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effective control of labor pain is critical to the birthing experience. Dexmedetomidine is an alternative adjunct to labor analgesia without the risk of opioid-related adverse effects. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of neuraxial dexmedetomidine versus neuraxial opioids in labor analgesia. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and grey literature were searched for evidence. Risk ratio and mean difference (MD) were used to estimate outcomes. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias and GRADE system. Sixteen studies including 1,669 patients were analyzed. Compared with opioids, dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of analgesia (MD, 47.58 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57 to 93.58; = .04), reduced pain score (MD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.17 to -0.24; = .003), and shortened the onset of analgesia (MD, -1.14 minutes; 95% CI, -1.93 to -0.35; = .005). Dexmedetomidine did not affect the duration of first and second stages of labor, number of spontaneous, assisted, and cesarean delivery. Additionally, dexmedetomidine had little to no effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Neuraxial dexmedetomidine is more favorable than neuraxial opioids for labor analgesia. Extrapolation of the findings to clinical practice should take into considerations the review limitations.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Dexmedetomidine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics; Analgesia
PubMed: 37987724
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intranasal Dex vs. oral midazolam in pediatric premedication were collected. Stata 15.0 statistical software was used to analyze the collected data. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect sizes.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies with 824 children were included, containing 415 patients in the Dex group and 409 patients in the midazolam group. Compared with the oral midazolam group, the intranasal Dex group had a better preoperative sedation effect at parent-child separation (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14-1.64) and anesthesia induction (RR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03-4.22). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of analgesia remedy (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-1.00) the acceptance of anesthesia masks (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12), and incidence of adverse events between (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06-1.13, = 0.072) between the intranasal Dex and oral midazolam groups.
CONCLUSION
Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex has better sedative effects of parent-child separation and anesthesia induction in pediatric premedication, but there was no difference in the incidence of anesthesia remedy, anesthesia mask acceptance, and incidence of adverse events. Therefore, compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex is a better choice for premedication in children.
PubMed: 38027288
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1264081