-
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common postoperative complication in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery and associated with poor outcomes. Dexmedetomidine has...
BACKGROUND
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common postoperative complication in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery and associated with poor outcomes. Dexmedetomidine has the pharmacological features of organ protection in cardiac surgery patients. The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine infusion on the incidence of AKI after cardiac surgery in pediatric patients.
METHODS
The databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until April 24, 2022 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RevMan 5.3 was used to perform statistical analyses.
RESULTS
Five relevant trials with a total of 630 patients were included. The pooled result using fixed-effects model with OR demonstrated significant difference in the incidence of AKI between patients with dexmedetomidine and placebo (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: [0.33, 0.73], = 0%, for effect = 0.0004). Subgroup analyses were performed based on congenital heart disease (CHD) types and dexmedetomidine intervention time. Pooled results did not demonstrate considerable difference in the incidence of AKI in pediatric patients receiving intraoperative (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: [0.29, 0.99], = 0%, for effect = 0.05) or postoperative dexmedetomidine infusion (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: [0.31, 1.04], for effect = 0.07), but a significant difference in patients receiving combination of intra- and postoperative dexmedetomidine infusion (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: [0.09, 0.77], for effect = 0.01). Besides, there was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD: -0.19, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.08, for effect = 0.16; SMD: -0.16, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.06, for effect = 0.15), length of ICU (SMD: 0.02, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.44, for effect = 0.93) and hospital stay (SMD: 0.2, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.54, for effect = 0.23), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.33-4.84, for effect = 0.73) after surgery according to the pooled results of the secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Compared to placebo, dexmedetomidine could significantly reduce the postoperative incidence of AKI in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), but the considerable difference was reflected in the pediatric patients receiving combination of intra- and postoperative dexmedetomidine infusion. Besides, there was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, or in-hospital mortality after surgery.
PubMed: 36093139
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.938790 -
PloS One 2020Common complications of pediatric strabismus surgery, including emergence agitation (EA), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative pain, may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Common complications of pediatric strabismus surgery, including emergence agitation (EA), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative pain, may be prevented using dexmedetomidine, which is an anxiolytic and analgesic. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of dexmedetomidine in patients who had undergone pediatric strabismus surgery.
METHOD
Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published from database inception to April 2020 that compared dexmedetomidine use with placebo or active comparator use and evaluated EA, PONV, or postoperative pain incidence (main outcomes) in patients who had undergone pediatric strabismus surgery. Oculocardiac reflex (OCR) incidence and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay duration were considered as safety outcomes. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
In the nine studies meeting our inclusion criteria, compared with placebo use, dexmedetomidine use reduced EA incidence [risk ratio (RR): 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.62, I2 = 66%], severe EA incidence (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.43, I2 = 0%), PONV incidence (RR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54, I2 = 0%), analgesia requirement (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25-0.57, I2 = 0%), and pain scores (standardized mean difference: -1.02, 95% CI: -1.44 to -0.61, I2 = 75%). Dexmedetomidine also led to lower EA incidence in the sevoflurane group than in the desflurane group (RR: 0.26 for sevoflurane vs. 0.45 for desflurane). Continuous dexmedetomidine infusion (RR: 0.19) led to better EA incidence reduction than did bolus dexmedetomidine infusion at the end of surgery (RR: 0.26) or during the peri-induction period (RR: 0.36). Compared with placebo use, dexmedetomidine use reduced OCR incidence (RR: 0.63; I2 = 40%). No significant between-group differences were noted for PACU stay duration.
CONCLUSION
In patients who have undergone pediatric strabismus surgery, dexmedetomidine use may alleviate EA, PONV, and postoperative pain and reduce OCR incidence. Moreover, dexmedetomidine use does not affect the PACU stay duration.
Topics: Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Male; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reflex, Oculocardiac; Strabismus
PubMed: 33045022
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240553 -
BMC Anesthesiology May 2024Nasal surgeries, addressing anatomical variations for form and function, require careful anesthesia administration, including dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Nasal surgeries, addressing anatomical variations for form and function, require careful anesthesia administration, including dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. This meta-analysis evaluates their safety and efficacy variations in nasal surgeries, emphasizing patient comfort and optimal outcomes.
METHODS
Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete) were searched for records in English. Studies that measure the effect of dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil on patients underwent nasal surgery were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A random-effect model was preferred and statistical analysis was performed by Stata software version 17.
RESULTS
Out of an initial pool of 63 articles, five studies were selected for this analysis. All of these chosen studies were Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The meta-analysis involved a total of 302 participants, with 152 in the remifentanil group and 150 in the dexmedetomidine group. The analysis aimed to compare the effects of Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil on heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) during surgery. Both groups exhibited similar MAP and HR, with the exception of a slightly lower HR in the remifentanil group at the 15th minute of surgery (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.24 [-0.83, 0.34]). Furthermore, when evaluating the impact of these medications on post-surgery outcomes, including pain levels, the use of pain relief medications, patient-surgeon satisfaction, agitation scores, and recovery time, no significant differences were observed between the two medications in any of these aspects.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the study compared Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil in nasal surgeries anesthesia. No significant differences were found in heart rate, blood pressure, satisfaction, pain, agitation, or recovery time. The study had limitations, and future research should establish standardized protocols and consider various surgical factors.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Remifentanil; Nasal Surgical Procedures; Heart Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 38816731
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02563-0 -
PloS One 2023Ropivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic that is used to treat postoperative pain. Adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine in regional anesthesia may prolong the duration... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine or ropivacaine alone on duration of postoperative analgesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Ropivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic that is used to treat postoperative pain. Adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine in regional anesthesia may prolong the duration of analgesia. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the duration and effect of ropivacaine alone vs. ropivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ropivacaine alone or ropivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine for regional anesthesia. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia, defined as the time from onset of the block to the time of the first analgesic request or initial pain report. Secondary outcomes were duration of sensory block, duration of motor block, consumption of sufentanil for analgesia, length of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with 1148 patients were included. Overall quality of the RCTs, as assessed by the Jadad scale, was high. The meta-analysis demonstrated that ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia from local anesthetics compared to ropivacaine alone (WMD: 4.14h; 95%CI: 3.29~5.0h; P<0.00001; I2 = 99%). There was evidence of high heterogeneity between studies. The duration of sensory and motor block was significantly increased, and consumption of sufentanil for analgesia and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced in patients who received ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine compared to ropivacaine alone. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to ropivacaine alone, ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia and sensory and motor block, and reduced consumption of sufentanil for analgesia and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, across an array of surgeries.
Topics: Humans; Ropivacaine; Dexmedetomidine; Sufentanil; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthetics, Local; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesia
PubMed: 37819905
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287296 -
Disease Markers 2022Hysteroscopy is a minimally invasive gynecologic technique that is widely practiced in outpatient procedures. The choice of anesthesia is a key factor for the surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Hysteroscopy is a minimally invasive gynecologic technique that is widely practiced in outpatient procedures. The choice of anesthesia is a key factor for the surgical outcome and postoperative recovery. This study was conducted to assess the effects of different anesthetic modalities based on dexmedetomidine in outpatient hysteroscopic surgery anesthesia.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of outpatient hysteroscopic surgery anesthesia. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane-Library from database inception to December 31, 2021. Duplicate literature was excluded and screened separately for initial screening at three tiers: article title, abstract, and full text before deciding whether to include in this study against the above criteria. Results after analysis of categorical variables were expressed as ORR Ratio (95% CI) and continuous variables were expressed as Mean Difference (95% CI). Data collation and analyses were performed using the gemtc package in the R language.
RESULTS
Four trials were finally included with data for 301 participants, three anesthetic drugs, and five anesthetic modalities. A fixed-effects model was used for the different anesthesia modalities without significant heterogeneity (all I2<20%) in the analysis of adverse events (AEs), the incidence of respiratory depression, operative time, and time in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Remimazolam tosylate was associated with a lower incidence of AEs versus dexmedetomidine, and significant differences between dexmedetomidine and propofol were absent. Propofol and various doses of remimazolam tosylate resulted in a lower incidence of respiratory depression versus dexmedetomidine, with an absence of differences between propofol and dexmedetomidine. The operative time for different anesthetic modalities was, in descending order, dexmedetomidine < remimazolam tosylate (0.60 mg/kg/h <0.48 mg/kg/h) < propofol < remimazolam tosylate (1.00 mg/kg/h), despite the absence of intergroup differences. Propofol was associated with a longer time in PACU versus dexmedetomidine and remimazolam tosylate (1.00 mg/kg/h); those of dexmedetomidine and remimazolam tosylate (1.00 mg/kg/h) were similar. The time in PACU for different anesthetic modalities, in descending order, was dexmedetomidine < remimazolam tosylate (1.00 mg/kg/h) < propofol. Propofol was associated with a longer time in PACU versus dexmedetomidine and remimazolam tosylate.
CONCLUSION
In outpatient hysteroscopic surgery anesthesia, dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher incidence of AEs and respiratory depression and a shorter operative time and time in PACU versus remimazolam tosylate and propofol. Remimazolam tosylate showed safety benefits with a similar duration of PACU stay versus dexmedetomidine. Therefore, the choice of anesthetic drugs in outpatient surgery requires consideration of the patient's conditions and preferences.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthetics; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Network Meta-Analysis; Outpatients; Pregnancy; Propofol; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 36188426
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2408685 -
Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology... Sep 2021One-lung ventilation (OLV), a common ventilation technique, is associated with perioperative lung injury, tightly connected with inflammatory responses. Dexmedetomidine... (Review)
Review Meta-Analysis
One-lung ventilation (OLV), a common ventilation technique, is associated with perioperative lung injury, tightly connected with inflammatory responses. Dexmedetomidine has shown positive anti-inflammatory effects in lung tissues in pre-clinical models. This study investigated the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for suppressing inflammatory responses in patients requiring OLV. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Ovid, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials focusing on dexmedetomidine's anti-inflammatory effects on patients requiring OLV without any limitation on the year of publication or languages. 20 clinical trials were assessed with 870 patients in the dexmedetomidine group and 844 in the control group. Our meta-analysis investigated the anti-inflammatory property of dexmedetomidine perioperatively [T1 (30-min OLV), T2 (90-min OLV), T3 (end of surgery) and T4 (postoperative day 1)], demonstrating that dexmedetomidine's intraoperative administration resulted in a significant reduction in serum concentration of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α and other inflammatory cytokines perioperatively. By calculating specific I index, significant heterogeneity was observed on all occasions, with I index ranging from 95% to 99%. For IL-6 changes, sensitivity analysis showed that the exclusion of a single study led to a significant decrease of heterogeneity (96%-0%; p < 0.00001). Besides, pulmonary oxygenation was ameliorated in the dexmedetomidine group comparing with the control group. In conclusion, perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine can attenuate OLV induced inflammation, ameliorate pulmonary oxygenation, and may be conducive to a decreased occurrence of postoperative complications and better prognosis. However, the results should be prudently interpreted due to the evidence of heterogeneity and the limited number of studies.
Topics: Lung Injury
PubMed: 34042207
DOI: 10.1111/1440-1681.13525 -
PloS One 2023This meta-analysis aimed to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension under general... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis aimed to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension under general anesthesia. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP databases, as well as dissertations and conference papers, to obtain randomized controlled trials comparing remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension before August 23, 2021. The primary outcomes included hemodynamic profiles, surgical field score, and blood loss. Extubation time, sedation and pain score at the PACU, and perioperative adverse events were the secondary outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials with 543 patients (272 in the dexmedetomidine group and 271 in the remifentanil group) were eventually included. This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between dexmedetomidine and remifentanil in terms of surgical field score, blood loss, minimum values of mean arterial pressure (MD 0.24 with 95% CI [-1.65, 2.13], P = 0.80, I2 = 66%) and heart rate (MD 0.42 [-1.33, 2.17], P = 0.64, I2 = 40%), sedation scores at the PACU (MD -0.09 [-0.69, 0.50], P = 0.76, I2 = 92%), and incidence of bradycardia (OR 2.24 [0.70, 7.15], P = 0.17, I2 = 0%). Compared with remifentanil, dexmedetomidine as the controlled hypotensive agent showed a lower visual analogue score at the PACU (MD -1.01 [-1.25, -0.77], P<0.00001, I2 = 0%) and incidence of shivering (OR 0.22 [0.08, 0.60], P = 0.003, I2 = 0%), nausea, and vomiting (OR 0.34 [0.13, 0.89], P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). However, extubation time was shorter in the remifentanil group (MD 3.34 [0.75, 5.93], P = 0.01, I2 = 90%). In conclusion, dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are both effective in providing satisfactory controlled hypotension and surgical conditions. Dexmedetomidine is better in easing postoperative pain at the PACU and reducing the occurrence of shivering, nausea, and vomiting. Meanwhile, remifentanil is a fast-track anesthesia with a shorter extubation time. Given the limitations of this meta-analysis, further studies are needed for a more definitive comparison of the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil.
Topics: Humans; Remifentanil; Dexmedetomidine; Hypotension, Controlled; Anesthesia, General; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 36649357
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278846 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) May 2023Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a valuable diagnostic tool but often requires sedation to complete, especially in children. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an a2 agonist,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a valuable diagnostic tool but often requires sedation to complete, especially in children. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an a2 agonist, for which there are experimental findings that support its potential neuroprotective effects. Given the potential risks of anesthetic drugs, we ran this study to examine DEX's effectiveness and cardiopulmonary safety as a sedative drug for children undergoing MRI.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic research was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 6th/2022 and involving children undergoing MRI who received DEX as sedative medication. The records which met the including criteria, after indexing via the PRISMA chart and assessing for bias, were processed, and a meta-analysis was carried out with the random effects method.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included. Out of 6204 measurements obtained, in 4626, it was planned for the participants to only receive DEX (measure group) as an anesthetic drug throughout the procedure. The participants' mean age was 57 months (Ι = 4%, τ = 0.5317, = 0.40). A total of 5.6% (95% CI: 0.6-14.1%, I = 98%, < 0.01) of the patients needed a second dose of DEX. In total, 6% (95% CI: 1-15%, I = 93%, τ = 0.0454, < 0.01) required the administration of another drug, besides DEX, to complete the imaging (sedation failure). The effectiveness of the only-DEX method was 99% (95% CI: 97.5-100%, I = 81%, τ = 0.0107, < 0.01). The whole rate of adverse events was 15% (95% CI: 9.3-21.5%, I = 92%, < 0.01). Hypotension was reported in 8.7% of the cases (95% CI: 3.1-16.4%, I = 84%, < 0.01), hypertension in 1.1% (95% CI: 0-5.4%, I = 89%, < 0.01), bradycardia in 10% (95% CI: 4-18%, I = 95%, < 0.01) and desaturation in 1.2% (95% CI: 0-4%, I = 68%, < 0.01). There was no statistically significant incidence in respiratory rate decrease (comparing the children who received DEX to their baseline). Five cases of vomiting and one of apnea were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS
Given that DEX seems to be an effective as well as respiratory and hemodynamically safe drug, it may be a future spotlight in (pediatric) sedation for imaging procedures such as MRI.
PubMed: 37371178
DOI: 10.3390/children10060948 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Mar 2023Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a centrally acting alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly used for sedation in multiple clinical settings. Evidence from the intensive care unit and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a centrally acting alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly used for sedation in multiple clinical settings. Evidence from the intensive care unit and operative settings suggests DEX may have significant advantages over traditional GABAergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines. There has been limited research on the use of DEX in the emergency department (ED).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the medical literature to identify all published evidence regarding the use of DEX in the ED. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies and studies reporting any use of DEX in the ED, even when it was not the primary focus of the study. Two authors reviewed studies for inclusion, and a single author assessed studies for quality and risk of bias and abstracted data.
RESULTS
We identified 35 studies meeting inclusion criteria, including 11 randomized controlled trials, 13 cohort and other nonrandomized studies, and 11 case reports and case series. Significant heterogeneity in interventions, comparators, indications, and outcomes precluded data pooling and meta-analysis. We found modest evidence that DEX was efficacious in facilitating medical imaging and mixed and limited evidence regarding its efficacy for procedural sedation and sedation of nonintubated medical and psychiatric patients. Our results suggested that DEX is associated with bradycardia and hypotension, which are generally transient and infrequently require medical intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
A limited body of generally poor- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that the use of DEX may be efficacious in certain clinical scenarios in the ED and that DEX use in the ED is likely safe. Further high-quality research into DEX use in the ED setting is needed, with a particular focus on clear and consistent selection of indications, identification of clear and clinically relevant primary outcomes, and careful assessment of the clinical implications of the hemodynamic effects of DEX therapy.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Benzodiazepines; Hypotension; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 36448276
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14636 -
Cureus Aug 2022Children are particularly terrified of having dental treatment. They are physically resistant, frail, and unwilling to cooperate. This severe distress during the... (Review)
Review
Children are particularly terrified of having dental treatment. They are physically resistant, frail, and unwilling to cooperate. This severe distress during the pre-operative phase could cause the dentist to have issues with behavior control. Additionally, it may make pediatric dental treatments less effective. In order to reduce anxiety and control behavior in children receiving dental care, sedation is a pharmacological management technique that supports the provision of effective and high-quality dental services. The aim is to compare and evaluate the efficacy of sedative agents like dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric dental practice. A thorough review of the literature was conducted using electronic databases like "MEDLINE, PubMed, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, www.clinicaltrials.gov, conference proceedings abstracts, a bibliography of pertinent references, and manual searches of journals, conferences, and books". There were no restrictions on the language or the date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials were included which compared dexmedetomidine and midazolam in children up to 16 years of age subjected to dental treatment. Information on procedures, participants, interventions, outcome measures, and results were independently extracted by three review writers (TS, SL, and RO). Trial authors were contacted for papers that were confusing or lacking information. The risk of bias was evaluated for each study. We adhered to the Cochrane statistical recommendations. Three trials totaling 229 participants were included. All three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias, with none of them having a high or unclear risk. Meta-analysis was done for the available data for the primary outcomes like sedation level and recovery time. We searched for randomized controlled trials up to Jan 31, 2020. Participants are randomly assigned to an intervention or control group in randomized controlled trial research. While patients in the control group often get a placebo therapy or procedure, those in the interventional group receive the treatment being studied. We found three studies eligible to include in the review. One study evaluated 73 individuals who received general anesthesia for dental treatment. There were 72 and 84 individuals in the second and third investigations, respectively. All the participants of the three studies were divided randomly into two groups and were subjected to dexmedetomidine and midazolam as sedative agents. We gave the evidence an "extremely low certainty" rating. Because there are just three short trials with unusual parameters for comparison, the results are questionable. Overall, the results do not allow us to draw any firm conclusions. Three randomized controlled trials included in this systematic review reported data with varying conclusions; hence we recommend more randomized controlled trials to be conducted on this subject matter.
PubMed: 36176880
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28452