-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Newborn infants affected by hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) undergo therapeutic hypothermia. As this treatment seems to be associated with pain, and intensive and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants affected by hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) undergo therapeutic hypothermia. As this treatment seems to be associated with pain, and intensive and invasive care is needed, pharmacological interventions are often used. Moreover, painful procedures in the newborn period can affect pain responses later in life, impair brain development, and possibly have a long-term negative impact on neurodevelopment and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management in newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. Primary outcomes were analgesia and sedation, and all-cause mortality to discharge.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the trial register ISRCTN in August 2021. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs and cluster-randomized trials comparing drugs used for the management of pain or sedation, or both, during therapeutic hypothermia: any opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl), alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine), N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist (e.g. ketamine), other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol), and sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) versus another drug, placebo, no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions. Primary outcomes were analgesia and sedation, and all-cause mortality to discharge.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. We planned to assess the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomization, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We planned to evaluate treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any completed studies for inclusion. Amongst the four excluded studies, topiramate and atropine were used in two and one trial, respectively; one study used dexmedetomidine and was initially reported in 2019 to be a randomized trial. However, it was an observational study (correction in 2021). We identified one ongoing study comparing dexmedetomidine to morphine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no studies that met our inclusion criteria and hence there is no evidence to recommend or refute the use of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management in newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Clonidine; Hypothermia, Induced; Pain; Morphine Derivatives; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36354070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015023.pub2 -
Annals of Intensive Care Aug 2022Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine is widely used in patients with sepsis. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to summarize all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining dexmedetomidine use in sepsis patients.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included RCTs comparing dexmedetomidine with other sedatives in adult sepsis patients. We generated pooled relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences and performed trial sequential analysis and a cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of the intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, number of ventilation-free days, incidence of total adverse event, incidence of delirium, and levels of interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and alanine aminotransferase.
RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs that enrolled 1929 patients. Compared with other sedatives, dexmedetomidine decreased the all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.69, 0.99]) and inflammatory response (interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels at 24 h: standardized mean difference (SMD) - 2.15; 95% CI [- 3.25, - 1.05] and SMD - 1.07, 95% CI [- 1.92, - 0.22], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that it is not up to required information size. The overall risk adverse events was similar between dexmedetomidine and the other sedatives (RR 1.27, 95% CI [0.69, 2.36]), but dexmedetomidine increased the risk of arrhythmias (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.59, 3.51]). Length of intensive care unit stay (SMD - 0.22; 95% CI [- 0.85, - 0.41]), duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD 0.12; 95% CI [- 1.10, 1.35]), incidence of delirium (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.72, 1.33]), and levels of alanine aminotransferase and creatinine at 24 h were not significantly reduced.
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine in sepsis patients could significantly reduce mortality compared with benzodiazepines but not with propofol. In addition, dexmedetomidine can significantly decrease inflammatory response in patients with sepsis compared with other sedatives. Dexmedetomidine might lead to an increased incidence of arrhythmias, but its safety profile did not show significant differences in the incidence of total adverse events. Future RCTs are needed to determine the sepsis patient population that would benefit most from dexmedetomidine and its optimal dosing regimen.
PubMed: 36029410
DOI: 10.1186/s13613-022-01052-2 -
Cureus Dec 2022Dexmedetomidine has been approved as a sedative agent in critical patients. It is also frequently used as an adjuvant with local anesthetic in spinal anesthesia.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine has been approved as a sedative agent in critical patients. It is also frequently used as an adjuvant with local anesthetic in spinal anesthesia. However, its use as an adjuvant has not been approved due to the paucity of data. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to synthesize evidence for efficacy and safety when dexmedetomidine is combined with bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia.
METHODS
A literature search was done using PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Search results were screened and eligible studies were included to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using the software 'Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1' using a random effect model. Cochrane's' Risk of Bias tool (RoB2)' was used for quality assessment. Mean and standard deviation was used to calculate the standardized mean difference and its forest plot for efficacy measures. For the adverse event, a number of events were used to determine the risk ratio and its forest plot using RevMan software. Publication bias is visualized using a funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 21 randomized control trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of intrathecal dexmedetomidine were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 1382 participants was included in this meta-analysis. The effect estimates for efficacy parameters, i.e. duration of the sensory block having SMD 2.33; CI, 1.83-2.83, motor block with SMD 1.83, CI 1.21, 2.46, and analgesia SMD 2.81; CI, 2.11-3.51. The risk ratio for adverse effects, i.e. nausea/vomiting, bradycardia, hypotension was not significant whereas it was significant for the incidence of shivering with RR 0.38; CI 0.23-0.97. The overall risk of bias among included studies was either of 'some concern' or 'high risk.'
CONCLUSIONS
Intrathecal dexmedetomidine when combined with bupivacaine was found to significantly increase the three efficacy parameters, i.e. duration of sensory block, motor block, and analgesia. It also appears to be safe with no increased risk of bradycardia or hypotension. It is also associated with decreased postoperative shivering.
PubMed: 36644042
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32425 -
The Journal of Clinical Pediatric... 2015Dexmedetomidine is a central α-2 agonist, similar to Clonidine, but 8 times more specific for the central α-2 receptor which causes sedation with minimal depression of... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Dexmedetomidine is a central α-2 agonist, similar to Clonidine, but 8 times more specific for the central α-2 receptor which causes sedation with minimal depression of respiration, making it safe for sedation during procedures. It is widely used in the field of medicine for many procedures especially premedication, awake intubation, and sedation of patients in intensive care units and pediatric procedural sedation.
OBJECTIVE
To do a systematic review of the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, as well as the usage of newer sedative drug- Dexmedetomidine in dentistry.
STUDY DESIGN
The search for articles was conducted in Pub Med, including the articles published in English until Oct 2014. Both animal and human studies were included using the key words, "Dexmedetomidine", "Dexmedetomidine in sedation", "Dexmedetomidine in Dentistry", and "Dexmedetomidine in Pediatric dentistry". The Articles obtained were checked for their quality methodology and inference of the studies and selected for review.
RESULTS
Initial search retrieved 2436 articles, out of which 44 articles were on the subject of Dexmedetomidine in dentistry. Five of which articles were on the usage of Dexmedetomidine in pediatric dentistry. These studies were included in systematic review.
CONCLUSION
The study revealed that Dexmedetomidine being a new drug with its added advantages makes a better choice for sedation in dentistry. But with limited studies on Dexmedetomidine, the recommendation to use the drug exclusively is still under debate.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Anesthesia, Dental; Conscious Sedation; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 26551360
DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-39.5.401 -
Cureus Jun 2022Delirium is defined by the DSM-5 as a fluctuating course of disturbance in attention, cognition, and awareness that develops over a short period without any... (Review)
Review
Delirium is defined by the DSM-5 as a fluctuating course of disturbance in attention, cognition, and awareness that develops over a short period without any pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. As people age, there is an increased risk of complications that may occur following a surgical procedure and one such acute complication is delirium. Studies are emerging to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium, and one such preventive measures implemented in recent years include the administration of dexmedetomidine, a high selectivity α-2 adrenoceptor agonist. This study aims to review the efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in the prevention of postoperative delirium in randomized controlled trials in patients older than 18 years of age. The literature was explored in three online databases, namely, PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus. Appropriate keywords and MesH terms were employed to scrutinize relevant articles that demonstrated the effects of dexmedetomidine in the prevention of postoperative delirium. The data was restricted to randomized controlled trials and clinical trials published from 2017 to 2021 in human patients older than >18 years of age undergoing non-cardiac-related procedures. The randomized clinical trials were critically assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We proceeded to screen 428 records with the assessment of the PRISMA chart and filtered out 420 papers to obtain a total of eight studies where we identified data such as sample size, types of surgeries in which the patients were involved, the delirium assessment tool, the plan of the administration of dexmedetomidine and the outcomes evaluated in each study. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) was the prevailing assessment tool used with the sole purpose to evaluate the incidence of postoperative delirium as the primary outcome, and assessment of inflammatory cytokines, sleep quality, and pain scales were considered as secondary outcomes. The dosage of dexmedetomidine varied among studies, and it displayed varying impacts on postoperative delirium and the secondary outcomes as well. Limitations include varying ages and ethnicities of the population. It was concluded that dexmedetomidine prevents the development of postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing non-cardiac surgical interventions by modulating important predisposing factors such as neuroinflammation, pain, and sleep quality. No funding was made for this study.
PubMed: 35812638
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25639 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Mar 2022Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complication following surgery and has been associated with worsened patient outcomes. Providers have used agents that may confer a degree... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complication following surgery and has been associated with worsened patient outcomes. Providers have used agents that may confer a degree of renal protection in the perioperative stage. Such is the case of dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2 adrenergic agonist used in the intensive care unit (ICU) as a sedative agent. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to characterize the use of dexmedetomidine and to evaluate its impact on renal markers and outcomes in patients after surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review of manuscripts was performed to identify patients who received dexmedetomidine after surgery by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The following parameters were captured: blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipoprotein (NGAL), cystatin C, urine output, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, AKI, need for dialysis, and mortality.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Nineteen studies with 3,395 patients were included in the analyses. The mean bolus and infusion dose of dexmedetomidine were 0.82 µg/kg and 0.54 mcg/kg/hr, respectively. There was a significant difference in creatinine clearance and NGAL in favour of the dexmedetomidine group. In addition, the dexmedetomidine group had a shorter ICU length of stay, and a lower risk of acute kidney injury and mortality compared to the control. There was no difference in the rest of the parameters.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine appears to have postoperative renal protective effects. This is evidenced by lower NGAL levels and increased creatinine clearance in those who received dexmedetomidine. These effects are associated with decreases in ICU length of stay and risk of AKI and mortality.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Kidney
PubMed: 34510502
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13527 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... Nov 2021Dexmedetomidine is commonly used in small animal anesthesia for its potent sedative and analgesic properties; however, concerns regarding its cardiovascular effects... (Review)
Review
Dexmedetomidine is commonly used in small animal anesthesia for its potent sedative and analgesic properties; however, concerns regarding its cardiovascular effects prevent its full adoption into veterinary clinical practice. This meta-analysis was to determine the effects of dexmedetomidine on sedation, analgesia, cardiovascular and adverse reactions in dogs compared to other premedications. Following the study protocol based on the Cochrane Review Methods, thirteen studies were included in this meta-analysis ultimately, involving a total of 576 dogs. Dexmedetomidine administration probably improved in sedation and analgesia in comparison to acepromazine, ketamine and lidocaine (MD: 1.96, 95% CI: [-0.08, 4.00], = 0.06; MD: -0.95, 95% CI: [-1.52, -0.37] = 0.001; respectively). Hemodynamic outcomes showed that dogs probably experienced lower heart rate and higher systolic arterial blood pressure and mean arterial blood pressure with dexmedetomidine at 30 min after premedication (MD: -13.25, 95% CI: [-19.67, -6.81], < 0.0001; MD: 7.78, 95% CI: [1.83, 13.74], = 0.01; MD: 8.32, 95% CI: [3.95, 12.70], = 0.0002; respectively). The incidence of adverse effects was comparable between dexmedetomidine and other premedications (RR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.58, 1.29], = 0.47). In summary, dexmedetomidine provides satisfactory sedative and analgesic effects, and its safety is proved despite its significant hemodynamic effects as part of balanced anesthesia of dogs.
PubMed: 34827988
DOI: 10.3390/ani11113254 -
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Oct 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative during paediatric procedural sedation outside the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative during paediatric procedural sedation outside the operating room.
METHODS
Relevant literature identified by PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2019 was systematically reviewed. Randomised controlled trials that compared intranasal dexmedetomidine with another sedative or placebo during paediatric procedural sedation were included. Trials that studied intranasal dexmedetomidine as a premedication before anaesthesia were excluded. The primary outcome was the success of the planned procedure.
RESULTS
We analysed seven randomised controlled trials of 730 patients: four trials with 570 patients compared dexmedetomidine with chloral hydrate and three trials with 160 patients compared dexmedetomidine with midazolam. The incidence of successfully completing the procedure did not differ between dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate, but dexmedetomidine had a higher success rate than midazolam. The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia or respiratory complications did not differ between the sedatives used. Nausea and vomiting were more common in children treated with chloral hydrate than in those treated with other sedatives.
CONCLUSION
Intranasal dexmedetomidine was a safe and effective sedative for minor paediatric procedures.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anesthesia; Child; Chloral Hydrate; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32400892
DOI: 10.1111/apa.15348 -
Pain Physician Oct 2023Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several concerns. Various studies have investigated the application prospect of using opioid-free general anesthesia, such as dexmedetomidine, as an opioid substitute.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore and highlight the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as an opioid substitute for opioid-free anesthesia.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
We screened for suitable clinical trials from electronic databases, including "PubMed," "Cochrane Library," "EMBASE," and "Web of Science." Eligible trials were included in this meta-analysis.
METHODS
The quality of the screened randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was determined using the risk of bias assessment criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We used the "Review Manager 5.3" and "Stata 10.0" software to perform the meta-analysis. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" approach.
RESULTS
For the analysis, we included 32 RCTs encompassing 2,509 patients. In the opioid-free group, the 2-hour postoperative pain score of patients (mean difference = -0.53, 95% CI: -1.00, -0.07; P = 0.02, I2=78%) was significantly lower compared to those in the opioid-based group. In addition, several patients required rescue analgesia (risk ratio = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.84, P < 0.05, I2 = 71%) and opioids postsurgery. However, the duration of extubation and postanesthesia care unit, as well as the incidences of bradycardia, were high in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as opioid-free general anesthesia.
LIMITATIONS
Subgroup analysis for different anesthesia-maintaining drugs had not been conducted. The heterogeneity did not reduce after subgroup analysis. Different doses of dexmedetomidine had not been evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate that opioid-free general anesthesia based on dexmedetomidine could be effective; however, prolonged extubation time and cardiovascular complications are a few risks associated with dexmedetomidine.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, General; Analgesia
PubMed: 37847917
DOI: No ID Found -
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