-
Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing :... Apr 2021Pain control during and after breast surgery is still a challenging task. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is considered as a sedative agent that is widely used perineurally or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Pain control during and after breast surgery is still a challenging task. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is considered as a sedative agent that is widely used perineurally or intravenously as an adjuvant in general anesthesia and critical care medicine practice. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of perineural DEX and intravenous (IV) DEX and their effects on postoperative complications in breast surgeries.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The present study systematically reviewed all identified randomized controlled trials for efficacy and safety of IV and perineural use of DEX in breast surgeries. Databases were searched for articles published before October 2019.
FINDINGS
Twelve trials were identified including 803 patients undergoing breast surgery. Although administration of IV DEX and its use with pectoral nerve (Pecs) block significantly postponed time for first analgesic request and decreased pain score at 1 and 12 hours after surgery, paravertebral use of DEX had no statistically significant effect. Pooled data about perineural DEX showed no significant effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), whereas IV DEX significantly reduced PONV. Pooled analysis also showed that DEX administration did not significantly affect postoperative complications, such as postoperative itching, bradycardia, and pneumothorax in patients undergoing breast surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
The results showed that unlike paravertebral DEX, both DEX use with Pecs blocks and IV DEX were effective in control of postoperative pain in patients undergoing breast surgeries. Unlike perineural DEX, IV DEX significantly reduced PONV.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 33303343
DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2020.09.011 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Mar 2022Currently, dexmedetomidine is widely used in the treatment of sepsis patients requiring mechanical ventilation; however, its role remains controversial. The aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Currently, dexmedetomidine is widely used in the treatment of sepsis patients requiring mechanical ventilation; however, its role remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in sepsis patients requiring mechanical ventilation.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies; Review Manager version 5.4 was used to perform the meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included the all-cause mortality rate at the longest follow-up available and the duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, and adverse events (bradycardia).
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 926 patients, were assessed. Overall, dexmedetomidine did not reduce all-cause mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis (relative risk [RR]: 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77 to 1.05, p = 0.18, I = 37%). However, dexmedetomidine was associated with decreases in the length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: -2.99, 95% CI: -4.72 to -1.26, p = 0.0007, I = 0%), ICU length of stay (MD: -1.15, 95% CI: -2.06 to -0.24, p = 0.01, I = 32%) and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD: -0.72, 95% CI: -1.38 to -0.07, p = 0.03, I = 20%). However, dexmedetomidine increased the risk for bradycardia (22% versus 12.6%, respectively; RR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.41, p = 0.001, I = 0%).
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Results suggested that dexmedetomidine did not reduce all-cause mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. However, it was associated with decreases in length of hospital stay, ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, although it increased the risk for bradycardia.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Respiration, Artificial; Sepsis
PubMed: 34664723
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13548 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Jun 2023To investigate whether dexmedetomidine (DEX), as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepine (BZD), is superior to BZD alone in critically ill patients with alcohol withdrawal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether dexmedetomidine (DEX), as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepine (BZD), is superior to BZD alone in critically ill patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed Central, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar were used as search databases. Specific keywords and MeSH terms were "dexmedetomidine," "benzodiazepine," and "alcohol withdrawal syndrome." The last search was on September 16, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized/cohort studies exploring the use of DEX in the management of AWS were included. A total of 12 studies were included in the systematic review and 7 in the meta-analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) was found to have a mean difference (MD) of 48.06 [37.48, 58.64], = <0.001 for the cohort subgroup, significantly favoring the DEX arm, but, in contrast, pooled RCT data showed a result of -20.07 [-36.86, -3.28], = 0.02, a shorter ICU LOS for the DEX arm. Bradycardia and hypotension incidence significantly favored the BZD arm in both subgroups. This study compares the effectiveness of adjunctive DEX in clinical practice and aims to help providers in critical decision-making by compiling and analyzing the best current available evidence of its use in AWS.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on low to very low level of evidence, adjunctive DEX showed no significant difference for ICU LOS when compared with BZD alone. Pooled randomized trials potentially show a benefit but are similarly limited by their low quality of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Benzodiazepines; Cohort Studies
PubMed: 36258676
DOI: 10.1177/10600280221130458 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Nov 2014Premedication is important in pediatric anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of dexmedetomidine as a premedicant for pediatric patients. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Premedication is important in pediatric anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of dexmedetomidine as a premedicant for pediatric patients. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine premedication with midazolam or ketamine premedication or placebo in children. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. The original data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager 5. The main parameters investigated included satisfactory separation from parents, satisfactory mask induction, postoperative rescue analgesia, emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1190 patients were included. When compared with midazolam, premedication with dexmedetomidine resulted in an increase in satisfactory separation from parents (RD = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.30, p = 0.003) and a decrease in the use of postoperative rescue analgesia (RD = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.09, p = 0.0003). Children treated with dexmedetomidine had a lower heart rate before induction. The incidence of satisfactory mask induction, emergence agitation and PONV did not differ between the groups. Dexmedetomidine was superior in providing satisfactory intravenous cannulation compared to placebo. This meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is superior to midazolam premedication because it resulted in enhanced preoperative sedation and decreased postoperative pain. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the dosing schemes and long-term outcomes of dexmedetomidine premedication in pediatric anesthesia.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Dissociative; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Ketamine; Male; Midazolam; Premedication; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25518037
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2014(11)12 -
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 -
The Laryngoscope Mar 2018The goal of this meta-analysis was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the effect of dexmedetomidine on perioperative morbidity following nasal surgery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The goal of this meta-analysis was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the effect of dexmedetomidine on perioperative morbidity following nasal surgery and on the adverse effects of dexmedetomidine.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
REVIEW METHODS
Two authors independently searched scientific and medical databases from their inception of article collection to March 2017. Studies that compared perioperative dexmedetomidine administration (dexmedetomidine group) with another agent under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia (control group) with outcomes of interest that were perioperative pain intensity; rescue analgesic consumption; or adverse effects such as hemodynamic instability, nausea, and vomiting (PONV), and operative bleeding were included in the analysis.
RESULTS
Perioperative pain scores and postoperative need for analgesics were significantly decreased in the dexmedetomidine group versus control group (other agent or general anesthesia). In subgroup analysis according to anesthesia type (general anesthesia and other sedatives in MAC), dexmedetomidine showed a similar effect on bradycardia, hypotension, and desaturation with general anesthesia, but it reduced PONV effectively compared with general anesthesia. Additionally, dexmedetomidine satisfied patient significantly. By contrast, compared with other sedative under MAC, it provoked bradycardia significantly.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis showed that systemic administration of dexmedetomidine efficiently can decrease intraoperative and postoperative pain without adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression. Dexmedetomidine also can decrease analgesic consumption. However, clinicians should be aware of the potential for intraoperative bradycardia; patients also should be educated regarding these possibilities.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
NA. Laryngoscope, 128:573-580, 2018.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anesthesia; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Nasal Surgical Procedures; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Perioperative Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28944481
DOI: 10.1002/lary.26787 -
The Journal of ECT Sep 2017The aim of this study was to investigate how the combined use of dexmedetomidine with intravenous anesthetics influences seizure duration and circulatory dynamics in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate how the combined use of dexmedetomidine with intravenous anesthetics influences seizure duration and circulatory dynamics in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).
METHODS
A literature search was performed to identify studies that evaluated the effect of dexmedetomidine on motor- or electroencephalogram (EEG)-based seizure durations and maximum mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) after ECT. Moreover, recovery time and post-ECT agitation were evaluated.
RESULTS
Six studies enrolling 166 patients in 706 ECT sessions were included. There was no significant difference in motor or EEG seizure duration between dexmedetomidine and nondexmedetomidine groups [motor: 6 studies; mean difference (MD), 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.24 to 5.49; P = 0.41; EEG: 3 studies; MD, 2.34; 95% CI, -6.03 to 10.71; P = 0.58]. Both maximum MAP and HR after ECT were significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine group (MAP: 6 studies; MD, -4.83; 95% CI, -8.43 to -1.22; P = 0.009; HR: 6 studies; MD, -6.68; 95% CI, -10.74 to -2.62; P = 0.001). Moreover, the addition of dexmedetomidine did not significantly prolong recovery time when the reduced-dose propofol was used (4 studies; MD, 63.27; 95% CI, -15.41 to 141.96; P = 0.12).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of dexmedetomidine in ECT did not interfere with motor and EEG seizure durations but could reduce maximum MAP and HR after ECT. Besides, the addition of dexmedetomidine in ECT did not prolong recovery time when reduced-dose propofol was used. It might be worthwhile for patients to receive dexmedetomidine before the induction of anesthesia in ECT.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthetics; Dexmedetomidine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Seizures
PubMed: 28263242
DOI: 10.1097/YCT.0000000000000398 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jun 2024Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.
METHODS
The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I = 30%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38907338
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02570-1 -
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Dec 2023Pediatric dental surgeries are associated with the emotions of fear, anxiety, and other behavioral disturbances of children that need to be managed. Sedation using drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of dexmedetomidine to midazolam as premedication and a sedative agent in pediatric patients undergoing dental procedures.
INTRODUCTION
Pediatric dental surgeries are associated with the emotions of fear, anxiety, and other behavioral disturbances of children that need to be managed. Sedation using drugs like dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MID) is a common pharmacological behavior managing technique. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of both these drugs in current literature.
METHODOLOGY
A thorough literature search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane's database for randomized studies that compared sedative efficacy of dexmedetomidine with midazolam in children of 0-15 years of age undergoing dental surgeries. Sedation in children during dental procedure, when used as a premedication, at the time of separation from parents and at the time of mask induction, onset time, duration of anesthesia, and surgery were evaluated. The mean differences (MDs), odds ratio (OR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated both for continuous and dichotomous outcome data using random-effects model.
RESULTS
Seven studies met out inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results of premedication with DEX was associated with more anxiolysis (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.52, p=0.0001; I=0%) and at the time of separation from parents (OR=0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.69, p=0.002; I=52%) in comparison to MID. No significant differences in results were seen at mask induction (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.34-1.18, p=0.15; I=47%) and for sedation in children during dental procedures (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.07-3.70, p=0.51; I=72%). Also, there were no significant differences in onset time, duration of anesthesia, and surgery between the two agents.
CONCLUSION
DEX proved to be a better premedicant than MID for pediatric patients. No significant difference in efficacy of both sedative agents was observed in children undergoing dental treatment. More clinical trials need to be conducted to see its efficacy in dental surgeries in children of standardized ages and with standard doses.
Topics: Child; Humans; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Premedication; Anesthesia, Dental
PubMed: 35759132
DOI: 10.1007/s10006-022-01087-6 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jul 2023Dexmedetomidine is a medication that has analgesic, sedative, and anti-anxiety properties. In the clinical, it is often used to prevent common complications associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Dexmedetomidine is a medication that has analgesic, sedative, and anti-anxiety properties. In the clinical, it is often used to prevent common complications associated with strabismus surgery, including postoperative delirium, postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, and oculocardiac reflex. However, its effectiveness and side effects of the present studies are different. The sample sizes of the present studies on the prevention of complications of dexmedetomidine are small. Therefore, this study evaluates the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in preventing anesthesia-related complications in strabismus surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Literature was retrieved from 10 commonly used databases and randomized controlled trials published up to May 2022 were sought. The included studies compared the intervention effects of dexmedetomidine versus placebo on anesthesia-related complications in surgery. The occurrence rates of postoperative delirium, postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, and oculocardiac reflex in patients undergoing strabismus surgery were evaluated. Statistical analyses and forest plots were generated using Review Manager and STATA software. Binary outcomes were measured using relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each outcome. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and risk in the studies that met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 13 articles were ultimately included in the analysis, comprising 1,018 patients who underwent strabismus surgery. The dexmedetomidine group, compared to the placebo group, demonstrated significant reductions in the incidence of postoperative delirium (RR = 0.73, P = 0.001), severe postoperative delirium (RR = 0.45, P = 0.005), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.48, P < 0.0001), and the need for supplemental analgesia postoperatively (RR = 0.60, P = 0.004). Additionally, subgroup analysis revealed that intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of oculocardiac reflex (RR = 0.50, P = 0.001). In contrast, intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine did not have a significant effect on the incidence of oculocardiac reflex (RR = 1.22, P = 0.15). There was a significant difference between the subgroups (P = 0.0005, I2 = 91.7%).
CONCLUSION
Among patients undergoing strabismus surgery, the use of dexmedetomidine can alleviate postoperative delirium and reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as postoperative pain. Moreover, intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine can lower the occurrence rate of the oculocardiac reflex.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Pain, Postoperative; Strabismus; Anesthesia
PubMed: 37491215
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02215-9