-
Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.PloS One 2017To systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (≥18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for conscious sedation and at least one group receiving dexmedetomidine and one group receiving midazolam. Exclusion criteria: patients in intensive care, pediatric subjects and per protocol use of additional sedative medication other than rescue medication. Outcome measures for efficacy comparison were patient and clinician satisfaction scores and pain scores; outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications.
RESULTS
We identified 89 papers, of which 12 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 883 patients were included in these studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher patient and operator satisfaction than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced less pain and had lower analgesic requirements. Respiratory and hemodynamic safety were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine is a promising alternative to midazolam for use in procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine provides more comfort during the procedure for the patient and clinician. If carefully titrated, the safety profiles are similar.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Respiration
PubMed: 28107373
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169525 -
Anaesthesia Mar 2023The effects of dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing cardiac surgery are inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing cardiac surgery are inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse the effects of peri-operative dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE via Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane for relevant randomised controlled trials between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2022. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology checklist to assess study quality and the GRADE approach to certainty of evidence. We assessed the sensitivity of results to false data. We used random-effects meta-analyses to analyse the primary outcomes: durations of intensive care and tracheal intubation. We included 48 trials of 6273 participants. Dexmedetomidine reduced the mean (95%CI) duration of intensive care by 5.0 (2.2-7.7) h, p = 0.001, and tracheal intubation by 1.6 (0.6-2.7) h, p = 0.003. The relative risk (95%CI) for postoperative delirium was 0.58 (0.43-0.78), p = 0.001; 0.76 (0.61-0.95) for atrial fibrillation, p = 0.015; and 0.49 (0.25-0.97) for short-term mortality, p = 0.041. Bradycardia and hypotension were not significantly affected. Trial sequential analysis was consistent with the primary meta-analysis. Adjustments for possible false data reduced the mean (95%CI) reduction in duration of intensive care and tracheal intubation by dexmedetomidine to 3.6 (1.8-5.4) h and 0.8 (0.2-1.4) h, respectively. Binary adjustment for methodological quality at a Joanna Briggs Institute score threshold of 10 did not alter the results significantly. In summary, peri-operative dexmedetomidine reduced the durations of intensive care and tracheal intubation and the incidence of short-term mortality after adult cardiac surgery. The reductions in intensive care stay and tracheal intubation may or may not be considered clinically useful, particularly after adjustment for possible false data.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Emergence Delirium; Critical Care; Bradycardia
PubMed: 36535747
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15947 -
Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2022Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI - 2.89 to - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD - 0.32 days, 95% CI - 0.42 to - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.
Topics: Adult; Bradycardia; Critical Illness; Delirium; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Intensive Care Units; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 35648198
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-022-06712-2 -
Anaesthesia Jun 2019Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it may substitute for intra-operative remifentanil during general anaesthesia, but existing literature has reported conflicting results. We undertook this meta-analysis to investigate whether general anaesthesia including dexmedetomidine would result in less postoperative pain than general anaesthesia including remifentanil. The MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were searched up to October 2018. Only randomised trials including patients receiving general anaesthesia and comparing dexmedetomidine with remifentanil administration were included. Meta-analyses were performed mostly employing a random effects model. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (visual analogue scale, 0-10) at two postoperative hours. The secondary outcomes included: pain score at rest at 24 postoperative hours; opioid consumption at 2 and 24 postoperative hours; and rates of hypotension, bradycardia, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Twenty-one randomised trials, including 1309 patients, were identified. Pain scores at rest at two postoperative hours were lower in the dexmedetomidine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -0.7 (-1.2 to -0.2), I = 85%, p = 0.004, and a moderate quality of evidence. Secondary pain outcomes were also significantly better in the dexmedetomidine group. Rates of hypotension, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting were at least twice as frequent in patients who received remifentanil. Time to analgesia request was longer, and use of postoperative morphine and rescue analgesia were less, with dexmedetomidine, whereas episodes of bradycardia were similar between groups. There is moderate evidence that intra-operative dexmedetomidine during general anaesthesia improves pain outcomes during the first 24 postoperative hours, when compared with remifentanil, with fewer side effects.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, General; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Pain, Postoperative; Remifentanil
PubMed: 30950522
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14657 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2023Chronic postsurgical pain is common after surgery. Identification of non-opioid analgesics with potential for preventing chronic postsurgical pain is important, although... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic postsurgical pain is common after surgery. Identification of non-opioid analgesics with potential for preventing chronic postsurgical pain is important, although trials are often underpowered. Network meta-analysis offers an opportunity to improve power and to identify the most promising therapy for clinical use and future studies.
METHODS
We conducted a PRISMA-NMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-opioid analgesics for chronic postsurgical pain. Outcomes included incidence and severity of chronic postsurgical pain, serious adverse events, and chronic opioid use.
RESULTS
We included 132 randomised controlled trials with 23 902 participants. In order of efficacy, i.v. lidocaine (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.17-0.58), ketamine (OR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.44-0.92), gabapentinoids (OR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.47-0.92), and possibly dexmedetomidine (OR 0.36; 95% CrI 0.12-1.00) reduced the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain at ≤6 months. There was little available evidence for chronic postsurgical pain at >6 months, combinations agents, chronic opioid use, and serious adverse events. Variable baseline risk was identified as a potential violation to the network meta-analysis transitivity assumption, so results are reported from a fixed value of this, with analgesics more effective at higher baseline risk. The confidence in these findings was low because of problems with risk of bias and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS
Lidocaine (most effective), ketamine, and gabapentinoids could be effective in reducing chronic postsurgical pain ≤6 months although confidence is low. Moreover, variable baseline risk might violate transitivity in network meta-analysis of analgesics; this recommends use of our methods in future network meta-analyses.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42021269642.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Network Meta-Analysis; Ketamine; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Lidocaine; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 37059625
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.02.041 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2019Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly selective alpha2 adrenoceptor agonist with broad pharmacological effects, including sedation, analgesia, anxiolysis, and sympathetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly selective alpha2 adrenoceptor agonist with broad pharmacological effects, including sedation, analgesia, anxiolysis, and sympathetic tone inhibition. Here we report a systematic review and meta-analysis of its effects on stress, inflammation, and immunity in surgical patients during the perioperative period.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, METSTR, Embase, and Web of Science for clinical studies or trials to analyse the effects of DEX on perioperative stress, inflammation, and immune function.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven studies (including randomised controlled trials and eight cohort studies) with 4842 patients were assessed, of which 2454 patients were in DEX groups and 2388 patients were in control (without DEX) groups. DEX infusion during the perioperative period inhibited release of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol; decreased blood glucose, interleukin (IL)-6, tumour necrosis factor-α, and C-reactive protein; and increased interleukin-10 in surgical patients. In addition, the numbers of natural killer cells, B cells, and CD4 T cells, and the ratios of CD4:CD8 and Th1:Th2 were significantly increased; CD8 T-cells were decreased in the DEX group when compared with the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
DEX, an anaesthesia adjuvant, can attenuate perioperative stress and inflammation, and protect the immune function of surgical patients, all of which may contribute to decreased postoperative complications and improved clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Immunity; Inflammation; Intraoperative Complications; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Period; Stress, Physiological
PubMed: 31668347
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.07.027 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Oct 2022Guidelines have recommended the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery, and propofol monotherapy for other patients. Further outcome data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Outcomes of dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Guidelines have recommended the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation after cardiac surgery, and propofol monotherapy for other patients. Further outcome data are required for these drugs.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU delirium, all-cause mortality, and haemodynamic effects. Intensive care patients were analysed separately as cardiac surgical, medical/noncardiac surgical, those with sepsis, and patients in neurocritical care. Subgroup analyses based on age and dosage were conducted.
RESULTS
Forty-one trials (N=3948) were included. Dexmedetomidine did not significantly affect ICU length of stay across any ICU patient subtype when compared with propofol, but it reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -0.67 h; 95% confidence interval: -1.31 to -0.03 h; P=0.041; low certainty) and the risk of ICU delirium (risk ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.87; P=0.019; high certainty) across cardiac surgical patients. Dexmedetomidine was also associated with a greater risk of bradycardia across a variety of ICU patients. Subgroup analyses revealed that age might affect the incidence of haemodynamic side-effects and mortality among cardiac surgical and medical/other surgical patients.
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine did not significantly impact ICU length of stay compared with propofol, but it significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and the risk of delirium in cardiac surgical patients. It also significantly increased the risk of bradycardia across ICU patient subsets.
Topics: Adult; Bradycardia; Critical Illness; Delirium; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 35961815
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.06.020 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2021Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved...
BACKGROUND
Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved outcomes including early ambulation and early discharge.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after complex spine surgery.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
A systematic review using the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from January 2008 to April 2020 assessing postoperative pain after complex spine surgery using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.
RESULTS
Out of 111 eligible studies identified, 31 randomised controlled trials and four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous ketamine infusion and regional analgesia techniques including epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Limited evidence was found for local wound infiltration, intrathecal and epidural opioids, erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for complex spine surgery should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. Other recommendations are intra-operative ketamine and epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Although there is procedure-specific evidence in favour of intra-operative methadone, it is not recommended as it was compared with shorter-acting opioids and due to its limited safety profile. Furthermore, the methadone studies did not use non-opioid analgesics, which should be the primary analgesics to ultimately reduce overall opioid requirements, including methadone. Further qualitative randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these recommended analgesics on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34397527
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001448 -
Anaesthesia Mar 2022Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular due to faster recovery times and reduced postoperative pain compared with thoracotomy. However,...
Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular due to faster recovery times and reduced postoperative pain compared with thoracotomy. However, analgesic regimens for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery vary significantly. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. A systematic review was undertaken using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language, between January 2010 and January 2021 assessing the effect of analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. We retrieved 1070 studies of which 69 randomised controlled trials and two reviews met inclusion criteria. We recommend the administration of basic analgesia including paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitors pre-operatively or intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra-operative intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion may be used, specifically when basic analgesia and regional analgesic techniques could not be given. In addition, a paravertebral block or erector spinae plane block is recommended as a first-choice option. A serratus anterior plane block could also be administered as a second-choice option. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted
PubMed: 34739134
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15609 -
Anaesthesia Mar 2019Delirium is common in intensive care patients. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for sedation in this setting, but its effect on delirium remains unclear. The primary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Delirium is common in intensive care patients. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for sedation in this setting, but its effect on delirium remains unclear. The primary aim of this review was to examine whether dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of delirium and agitation in intensive care patients. We sought randomised clinical trials in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and CENTRAL from their inception until June 2018. Observational studies, case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded. Twenty-five trials including 3240 patients were eligible for inclusion in the data synthesis. In the patients who received dexmedetomidine (eight trials, 1425 patients), delirium was reduced, odds ratio (95%CI) 0.36 (0.26-0.51), p < 0.001 and high quality of evidence. The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with a reduced incidence of agitation, OR (95%CI) 0.34 (0.20-0.59), p < 0.001, moderate quality of evidence. Patients who were randomly assigned to dexmedetomidine had a significantly higher incidence of bradycardia, OR (95%CI) 2.18 (1.46-3.24), p < 0.001, moderate quality of evidence; and hypotension, OR (95%CI) 1.89 (1.48-2.41), p < 0.001, high quality of evidence. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality, OR (95%CI) 0.86 (0.66-1.10), p = 0.23, moderate quality of evidence. The trial sequential analyses for the incidence of delirium, bradycardia and hypotension was conclusive but not for the incidence of agitation and mortality. In summary, this meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of delirium and agitation in intensive care patients. The general quality of evidence ranged from moderate to high.
Topics: Delirium; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 30367689
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14472