-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2022Delirium is a common neurocognitive complication after cardiac surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether the administration of dexmedetomidine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Delirium is a common neurocognitive complication after cardiac surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether the administration of dexmedetomidine in the perioperative period decreases the incidence of postoperative delirium in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
METHODS
Central, CINAHL, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases were searched for RCTs of adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery where participants received i.v. dexmedetomidine or control in the perioperative period. The methods included systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratio (RR) using the Mantel-Haenszel method, and continuous variables were presented as mean difference with the inverse variance method.
RESULTS
Thirty trials, comprising 4090 patients, were included. With unselected inclusion of trials, dexmedetomidine vs control was associated with decreased incidence of postoperative delirium (12.4% vs 16.2%; RR=0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.86; P=0.005; I=61%). If trials at high risk of bias were excluded, the incidence of postoperative delirium was not significantly different between groups (RR=0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.03; P=0.070; I=58%). Postoperative delirium was not a reliably determined outcome across trials because of methodological and reporting limitations, including the heterogeneity of delirium diagnostic approach. Trial sequential analysis revealed that the optimal information size was not reached, and the Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential boundaries for benefit or futility. With respect to safety concerns, dexmedetomidine was not significantly associated with incident bradycardia or hypotension, or with the duration of mechanical ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS
When trials at high risk of bias were excluded, the use of perioperative dexmedetomidine was not associated with decreased incidence of postoperative delirium.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD 42021252779.
Topics: Adult; Bradycardia; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Delirium; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Incidence; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35279278
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.11.041 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2022Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties.... (Review)
Review
Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties. Dexketoprofen has a stronger effect than ketoprofen, which makes it a readily used preparation. The review aims to find in recent original publications data about dexketoprofen and its comparison with other painkilling medications. The systematic literature review was conducted in November 2021 (2018 onwards). We selected 12 articles from PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline Complete databases. In the last 4 years, there have been many publications that shed a new light on dexketoprofen. The article is a comparative analysis of dexketoprofen's action vs other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the combination of dexketoprofen with tramadol vs paracetamol with tramadol. The findings of the review confirm that dexketoprofen is a very good pain reliever more potent than paracetamol. Dexketoprofen produces similar effects to lidocaine and dexmedetomidine. Complex preparations containing dexketoprofen and tramadol are very effective painkilling tandem and are more effective than tramadol and paracetamol therapy in the treatment of acute pain.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketoprofen; Tramadol; Tromethamine
PubMed: 35299123
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112819 -
Translational Pediatrics Jul 2022The incidence of restlessness in the wake-up period of sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia is high. Although many studies have explored the relationship between...
BACKGROUND
The incidence of restlessness in the wake-up period of sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia is high. Although many studies have explored the relationship between dexmedetomidine and restlessness in the wake-up period of sevoflurane anesthesia in children, they can't keep consistent conclusions and lack evidence-based medical evidence. Meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in the treatment of restlessness during the recovery period of sevoflurane anesthesia in children, and to provide reference for clinic.
METHODS
Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Science Direct, The Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, the Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM). The Chinese and English search keywords included "dexmedetomidine", "children", "sevoflurane", and "emergence agitation". The articles included were independently evaluated and cross-checked by 2 professionals in strict accordance with the 5 evaluation criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.0.1).
RESULTS
A total of 16 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Of the 16 RCTs, 14 described the generation of random sequences in detail, 8 described allocation concealment in detail, no patient blinding was described due to different surgical methods, 8 articles used operator blinding, and all 16 articles had complete outcome measures. The incidence of emergence agitation in the 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant [odds ratio (OR) =0.22, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.40, P<0.00001]. The incidence of analgesic rescue in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (OR =0.29, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.63, Z =3.13, P=0.002). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (OR =0.33, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.55, Z =4.29, P<0.0001).
DISCUSSION
The results of this meta-analysis confirmed that dexmedetomidine could reduce the incidence of emergence agitation, postoperative analgesic rescue, and nausea and vomiting in children after sevoflurane anesthesia.
PubMed: 35957999
DOI: 10.21037/tp-22-172 -
Anaesthesia Jul 2021Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are used as local anaesthetic adjuncts to enhance peripheral nerve block characteristics. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are used as local anaesthetic adjuncts to enhance peripheral nerve block characteristics. However, the effects of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine based on their administration routes have not been directly compared, and the relative extent to which each adjunct prolongs sensory blockade remains unclear. This network meta-analysis sought to compare and rank the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as supraclavicular block adjuncts. We sought randomised trials investigating the effects of adding perineural and intravenous dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine to long-acting local anaesthetics on supraclavicular block characteristics, including time to block onset and durations of sensory, motor and analgesic blockade. Data were compared and ranked according to relative effectiveness for each outcome. Our primary outcome was sensory block duration, with a 2-h difference considered clinically important. We performed a frequentist analysis, using the GRADE framework to appraise evidence. One-hundred trials (5728 patients) were included. Expressed as mean (95%CI), the control group (local anaesthetic alone) had a duration of sensory block of 401 (366-435) min, motor block duration of 369 (330-408) min and analgesic duration of 435 (386-483) min. Compared with control, sensory block was prolonged most by intravenous dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 477 (160-795) min], followed by perineural dexamethasone [411 (343-480) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [284 (235-333) min]. Motor block was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 294 (236-352) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [289 (129-448)min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [258 (212-304)min]. Analgesic duration was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 518 (448-589) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [478 (277-679) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [318 (266-371) min]. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not prolong sensory, motor or analgesic block durations. No major network inconsistencies were found. The quality of evidence for intravenous dexamethasone, perineural dexamethasone and perineural dexmedetomidine for prolongation of supraclavicular sensory block duration was 'low', 'very low' and 'low', respectively. Regardless of route, dexamethasone as an adjunct prolonged the durations of sensory and analgesic blockade to a greater extent than dexmedetomidine. Differences in block characteristics between perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were not clinically important. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not affect block characteristics.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Administration, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Local; Brachial Plexus Block; Dexamethasone; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33118163
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15288 -
World Journal of Critical Care Medicine Jan 2023Dexmedetomidine is a centrally acting alpha-2A adrenergic agonist that is commonly used as a sedative and anxiolytic in the intensive care unit (ICU), with prolonged use...
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine is a centrally acting alpha-2A adrenergic agonist that is commonly used as a sedative and anxiolytic in the intensive care unit (ICU), with prolonged use increasing risk of withdrawal symptoms upon sudden discontinuation. As clonidine is an enterally available alpha-2A adrenergic agonist, it may be a suitable agent to taper off dexmedetomidine and reduce withdrawal syndromes. The appropriate dosing and conversion strategies for using enteral clonidine in this context are not known. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the evidence of enteral clonidine application during dexmedetomidine weaning for prevention of withdrawal symptoms.
AIM
To systematically review the practice, dosing schema, and outcomes of enteral clonidine use during dexmedetomidine weaning in critically ill adults.
METHODS
This was a systematic review of enteral clonidine used during dexmedetomidine weaning in critically ill adults (≥ 18 years). Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohorts, and retrospective cohorts evaluating the use of clonidine to wean patients from dexmedetomidine in the critically ill were included. The primary outcomes of interest were dosing and titration schema of enteral clonidine and dexmedetomidine and risk factors for dexmedetomidine withdrawal. Other secondary outcomes included prevalence of adverse events associated with enteral clonidine use, re-initiation of dexmedetomidine, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay.
RESULTS
A total of 3427 studies were screened for inclusion with three meeting inclusion criteria with a total of 88 patients. All three studies were observational, two being prospective and one retrospective. In all included studies, the choice to start enteral clonidine to wean off dexmedetomidine was made at the discretion of the physician. Weaning time ranged from 13 to 167 h on average. Enteral clonidine was started in the prospective studies in a similar protocolized method, with 0.3 mg every 6 h. After starting clonidine, patients remained on dexmedetomidine for a median of 1-28 h. Following the termination of dexmedetomidine, two trials tapered enteral clonidine by increasing the interval every 24 h from 6 h to 8h, 12h, and 24 h, followed by clonidine discontinuation. For indicators of enteral clonidine withdrawal, the previously tolerable dosage was reinstated for several days before resuming the taper on the same protocol. The adverse events associated with enteral clonidine use were higher than patients on dexmedetomidine taper alone with increased agitation. The re-initiation of dexmedetomidine was not documented in any study. Only 17 (37%) patients were mechanically ventilated with median duration of 3.5 d for 13 patients in one of the 2 studies. ICU lengths of stay were similar.
CONCLUSION
Enteral clonidine is a strategy to wean critically ill patients from dexmedetomidine. There is an association of increased withdrawal symptoms and agitation with the use of a clonidine taper.
PubMed: 36683967
DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v12.i1.18