-
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology Jun 2022While laparoscopic surgical procedures have various advantages over traditional open techniques, artificial pneumoperitoneum is associated with severe bradycardia and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
While laparoscopic surgical procedures have various advantages over traditional open techniques, artificial pneumoperitoneum is associated with severe bradycardia and cardiac arrest. Dexmedetomidine, an imidazole derivative that selectively binds to α2-receptors and has sedative and analgesic properties, can cause hypotension and bradycardia. Our primary aim was to assess the association between dexmedetomidine use and intraoperative bradycardia during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis using the following PICOS: adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (P); intravenous dexmedetomidine before tracheal intubation (I); no intervention or placebo administration (C); intraoperative bradycardia (primary outcome), intraoperative hypotension, hemodynamics at intubation (systolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate), dose needed for induction of anesthesia, total anesthesia requirements (both hypnotics and opioids) throughout the procedure, and percentage of patients requiring postoperative analgesics and experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting and/or shivering (O); randomized controlled trials (S).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis (980 patients). Compared to patients that did not receive dexmedetomidine, those who did had a higher risk of developing intraoperative bradycardia (RR: 2.81, 95% CI [1.34, 5.91]) and hypotension (1.66 [0.92,2.98]); however, they required a lower dose of intraoperative anesthetics and had a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. In the trial sequential analysis for bradycardia, the cumulative z-score crossed the monitoring boundary for harm at the tenth trial.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy who receive dexmedetomidine during tracheal intubation are more likely to develop intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension.
Topics: Adult; Bradycardia; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35016498
DOI: 10.4097/kja.21359 -
Cureus Aug 2023Dexmedetomidine has been widely studied in many surgical settings, with possible benefits in lowering anesthetic requirements, improving perioperative hemodynamic... (Review)
Review
Dexmedetomidine in Patients Undergoing Transsphenoidal Resection of Pituitary Adenoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.
Dexmedetomidine has been widely studied in many surgical settings, with possible benefits in lowering anesthetic requirements, improving perioperative hemodynamic stability, and improving postoperative outcomes. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenoma, shedding light on its potential as an adjunctive agent in anesthesia for this specific surgical population. In this review, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to July 20, 2023. A total of six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of dexmedetomidine versus placebo in patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenoma were included in this review. The outcomes of interest were extracted from the included studies as mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD), then analyzed using the Review Manager (RevMan, RevMan International Inc., New York, USA) software. Our literature search process retrieved 274 records. Of them, six studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between the dexmedetomidine group compared to the placebo group in terms of heart rate at the end of the surgery (MD = -16.5; CI = [-25.36 to -7.64]; P value = 0.0003) and after extubation (MD = -16.81; CI = [-23.18 to -10.43]; P values < 0.00001). Furthermore, dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) at after both intubation and extubation (MD = -9.11 and -21.5; CI = [-13.56 to -4.65] and [-30.93 to -12.06]; P values < 0.00001). This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that dexmedetomidine appears to have several potential benefits in patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenoma. The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with reductions in heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, blood loss, and duration of surgery, while showing no significant difference in propofol dose or time to extubation of the trachea.
PubMed: 37641722
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44132 -
Medicine Oct 2020Dexmedetomidine and midazolam have become important approaches for the sedation of dental surgery. However, the comparison of these 2 drugs for the sedation of dental... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam have become important approaches for the sedation of dental surgery. However, the comparison of these 2 drugs for the sedation of dental surgery has not been well established. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for dental surgery.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials are searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam on dental surgery are included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Five RCTs and 420 patients are included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam intervention for dental surgery, dexmedetomidine intervention has similar lowest SpO2, lowest heart rate and lowest systolic blood pressure, duration of surgery, and total volume of local anesthetic, but is associated with stable and reduced lowest diastolic blood pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
Similar benefits of dexmedetomidine and midazolam intervention are observed for the sedation of dental surgery in terms of SpO2, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and the volume of local anesthetic, but dexmedetomidine may result in more stable diastolic blood pressure.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Blood Pressure; Dexmedetomidine; Diastole; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Operative Time; Oral Surgical Procedures; Oxygen; Systole
PubMed: 33120732
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022288 -
Medicine Jul 2020To evaluate the efficacy and safety of caudal dexmedetomidine in pediatric caudal anesthesia (CA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of caudal dexmedetomidine in pediatric caudal anesthesia (CA).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embased, and Cochrane Library (from inception to June 2019) for eligible studies. The primary outcomes were the time to first analgesia, time of postoperative eye opening, intraoperative endtidal sevoflurane concentration, and postoperative sedation score. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs using random- or fixed-effects models.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials involving 793 patients were found. Meta-analysis showed that the time to first rescue pain medication and the time from the end of anesthesia to eye opening in the CA+dexmedetomidine group were significantly longer than in the CA group (P < .00001). The intraoperative end-tidal sevoflurane concentration in the CA+dexmedetomidine group was significantly decreased (P < .00001). Dexmedetomidine appeared to increase the rate of bradycardia in the CA+dexmedetomidine group (P = .04). Additionally, the sedation score in the CA+ dexmedetomidine group was significantly higher at 2 hours after the operation compared with the CA group (P < .00001 at 2 hours).
CONCLUSIONS
Caudally administered dexmedetomidine is a good alternative for prolonging postoperative analgesia with less pain, decreased intraoperative end-tidal sevoflurane concentration, and full postoperative sedation.
Topics: Anesthesia, Caudal; Child; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32756133
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021397 -
Journal of Anesthesia Apr 2021This review compares the effects of peripheral dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia. We included six randomized controlled trials (354 patients)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects in response to either dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine as local anesthetic adjuvants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
This review compares the effects of peripheral dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia. We included six randomized controlled trials (354 patients) through a systematic literature search. We found that analgesia duration was comparable between dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine (58.59 min, 95% CI (confidence interval), - 66.13, 183.31 min) with extreme heterogeneity. Secondary outcome was also compared and no significant difference was observed in sensory block onset and duration and motor block duration and also for postoperative nausea and vomiting. It is noteworthy that dexamethasone reduced analgesic consumption (fentanyl) by 29.12 mcg compared with dexmedetomidine. We performed subgroup analyses and found no significant difference between the following: (1) lidocaine vs ropivacaine (P = 0.28), (2) nerve block vs nerve block + general anesthesia (P = 0.47), and (3) upper limb surgery vs thoracoscopic pneumonectomy (P = 0.27). We applied trial sequential analysis to assess the risks of type I and II errors and concluded that the meta-analysis was insufficiently powered to answer the clinical question, and further analysis is needed to establish which adjuvant is better. In conclusion, we believe that existing research indicates that dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine have equivalent analgesic effects in peripheral nerve blocks.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Local; Dexamethasone; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33515302
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-021-02895-y -
Medicine Apr 2021Awake fiberoptic endoscope intubation (AFOI) is the primary strategy for managing anticipated difficult airways. Adequate sedation, most commonly being achieved with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Awake fiberoptic endoscope intubation (AFOI) is the primary strategy for managing anticipated difficult airways. Adequate sedation, most commonly being achieved with remifentanil and dexmedetomidine, is integral to this procedure. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of these 2 sedatives.
METHODS
We conducted electronic searches in Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, Springer, and Web of Science with no language restrictions. Studies comparing safety and efficacy between the sole use of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine among patients who underwent AFOI were included. Eight randomized controlled trials, comprising 412 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were first attempt intubation success rate and incidence of hypoxia. The secondary outcomes were the Ramsay Sedation Scale score at intubation, memory recall of endoscopy, and unstable hemodynamic parameters during intubation.
RESULTS
Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia during AFOI (risk ratio: 2.47; 95% confidence [CI]: 1.32-4.64]) compared with remifentanil; however, the first intubation success rates were equivalent (risk ratio: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.87-1.46]. No significant differences between the 2 sedatives were found for the Ramsay Sedation Scale score at intubation (mean difference: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.66-0.38) or unstable hemodynamic parameters during intubation (risk ratio: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.59-1.17). Dexmedetomidine reduced memory recall of endoscopy (risk ratio: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.13-1.72).
CONCLUSIONS
While both remifentanil and dexmedetomidine are effective for AFOI and well-tolerated, dexmedetomidine may be more effective in reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and memory recall of endoscopy.
PROSPERP REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020169612.
Topics: Conscious Sedation; Dexmedetomidine; Endoscopy; Fiber Optic Technology; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypoxia; Intubation, Intratracheal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil
PubMed: 33832107
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025324 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2024: Our understanding of dexmedetomidine, as an adjuvant to nerve blocks in cancer surgery, is characterized by a current lack of compelling evidence, and it remains... (Review)
Review
: Our understanding of dexmedetomidine, as an adjuvant to nerve blocks in cancer surgery, is characterized by a current lack of compelling evidence, and it remains unknown whether the potential benefits of use outweigh the risks. The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit and safety profiles of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to nerve blocks in cancer surgery. : Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Springer, medRxiv, and Scopus up to 17 May 2024. Risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes were quantified. : Twenty studies were identified. In breast cancer surgery, the use of dexmedetomidine reduced 24 h total morphine consumption (SMD = -1.99 [95% CI -3.01 to -0.98], = 0.0001, I2 = 91%, random effects) and prolonged the requirement for morphine rescue analgesia (SMD = 2.98 [95% CI 0.01 to 5.95], = 0.05, I2 = 98%, random effects). In abdominal cancer surgery, the dexmedetomidine group had lower total sufentanil consumption (SMD = -1.34 [95% CI -2.29 to -0.40], = 0.005, I2 = 84%, random effects). Dexmedetomidine reduced the VAS score and decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). No studies using dexmedetomidine reported serious adverse events. : Using dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to nerve blocks in cancer surgery could lower the VAS pain score and prolong the regional anesthesia duration, which would lead to a decrease in total opioid consumption and possibly contribute to fewer PONV events. Furthermore, the reports of no serious adverse events indicate its good safety profile.
PubMed: 38892876
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113166 -
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics &... Mar 2023This study investigated the efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to general anesthesia in patients undergoing gynecological surgery. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to general anesthesia in gynecological surgeries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
This study investigated the efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to general anesthesia in patients undergoing gynecological surgery. We systemically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and performed a meta-analysis on studies that met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), bradycardia, hypotension, and 24 h opioid consumption. The secondary outcomes include postoperative shivering, postoperative pain score, intraoperative anesthetic consumption, extubation time, postoperative sedation, and the time to first flatus. Twenty-five RCTs were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the risk of PONV (RR, 0.57 [0.47, 0.68]) and postoperative shivering (RR: 0.31 [0.22, 0.42]), 24 h opioid consumption (Mean Difference: - 4.85 mg [-8.60, -1.11]) and postoperative pain score within 24 h. However, these benefits were at the cost of increased bradycardia (RR, 3.21 [2.41, 4.28]) and hypotension (RR, 2.17 [1.50, 3.14]). Notably, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the included studies. Thus, our study showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine provided significant antiemetic and anti-shivering effects and moderate analgesic effects in patients that underwent gynecological surgery. However, its benefits should be weighed against the significantly increased risk of bradycardia and hypotension.
Topics: Humans; Female; Dexmedetomidine; Analgesics, Opioid; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Bradycardia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthesia, General; Pain, Postoperative; Hypotension; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 36965890
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2022.11.010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Critically ill newborn infants undergo a variety of painful procedures or experience a variety of painful conditions during their early life in the neonatal unit. In...
BACKGROUND
Critically ill newborn infants undergo a variety of painful procedures or experience a variety of painful conditions during their early life in the neonatal unit. In the critically ill paediatric and neonatal population, clonidine is prescribed as an adjunct to opioids or benzodiazepines aiming to reduce the doses of these drugs that are required for analgesia or sedation, or to facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation. It has been shown that clonidine premedication might have a positive effect on postoperative pain in children.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefit and harms of clonidine for the prevention or treatment of procedural pain; postoperative pain; or pain associated with clinical conditions in non-ventilated neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL to December 2018. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We ran an updated search from 1 January 2018 to 11 March 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web, MEDLINE via Ovid, and CINAHL via EBSCOhost.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine to placebo or no treatment, opioids, paracetamol, dexmedetomidine, or non-pharmacological pain-reducing interventions for the management of procedural pain, postoperative pain, and pain associated with clinical conditions in preterm and term newborns.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently planned to extract data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, modality of administration, and dose of clonidine) and assess the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcome considered was pain: for procedural pain, the mean values of each analgesia scale assessed during the procedure and at one to two hours after the procedure; for postoperative pain and for pain associated with clinical conditions, the mean values of each analgesia scale assessed at 30 minutes, three hours, and 12 hours after the administration of the intervention. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search strategy yielded 3383 references. Two review authors independently assessed all references for inclusion. We did not find any completed studies for inclusion. We excluded three trials where clonidine was administered for spinal anaesthesia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria and hence there is no evidence to recommend or refute the use of clonidine for the prevention or treatment of procedural or postoperative pain, or pain associated with clinical conditions in neonates.
Topics: Analgesics; Clonidine; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural
PubMed: 32270873
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013104.pub2 -
BMJ Open Aug 2021To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as an anaesthesia adjuvant for cleft lip and palate (CLP) repair in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as an anaesthesia adjuvant for cleft lip and palate (CLP) repair in children.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) and Wanfang (up to October 2020). Studies in languages other than English and Chinese were excluded.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of dexmedetomidine on emergence agitation (EA), the need for postoperative rescue analgesics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and other adverse events in paediatric patients during CLP repair.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The quality of evidence was assessed by using the Cochrane Review Methods and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data were screened, extracted and assessed by two independent authors. Outcomes were reported as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% CI. A random-effect model was used when heterogeneity was detected.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies including 1040 children met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of EA was significantly decreased in the dexmedetomidine group (RR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36; p<0.00001; I=56%) as compared with the control group. Paediatric patients receiving dexmedetomidine had lower postoperative analgesic requirements (RR, 0.27; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.73; p=0.01; I=84%) and a lower incidence of respiratory adverse events (RR, 0.49; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.78; p=0.003; I=0%). There were no significant differences in the risk of PONV and cardiovascular adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a lack of high-quality studies in this field. Perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine reduced the need for postoperative rescue analgesics and the incidence of EA in children without side effects undergoing CLP repair. However, further verification with larger samples and higher-quality RCTs is needed.
Topics: Anesthesia; Child; Cleft Lip; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Palate; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 34400450
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046798