-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Heart & Lung : the Journal of Critical... 2024The use of sedative and analgesic drugs during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of sedative and analgesic drugs during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness of sedative and analgesic medications used during NIV for patients with ARF to no sedation or analgesia. In addition, to investigate the characteristics of dexmedetomidine in comparison to other medications.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched. Mean differences (MDs) or pooled risk ratios (RRs) were computed using random-effects models. We applied the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies and the GRADE approach to evaluate the evidence certainty.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were selected. Whether in Group A (using sedative and analgesic drugs vs. nonuse) or Group B (using dexmedetomidine vs. other drugs), the rates of tracheal intubation and delirium, the length of NIV, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU LOS) all decreased in both experimental groups (P < 0.05). And there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality and the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (P > 0.05), while both Group A and Group B's experimental groups had greater incidences of bradycardia.
CONCLUSIONS
Administering sedative and analgesic medications during NIV can reduce the risk of tracheal intubation and delirium. Additionally, dexmedetomidine outperformed other sedative medications in terms of these clinical outcomes, making it the better option when closely monitoring patients' vital signs.
Topics: Humans; Respiration, Artificial; Dexmedetomidine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain; Intensive Care Units; Noninvasive Ventilation; Analgesics; Analgesia; Delirium
PubMed: 37769542
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2023.09.005 -
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