-
International Journal of Surgery... Jan 2023Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The authors performed this network meta-analysis to compare different anesthetic drugs in reducing the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing the different anesthetic drugs for noncardiac surgery in elderly from inception until July, 2022. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD#42020183014). A total of 34 trials involving 4314 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery in elderly were included. The incidence of POCD for each anesthetic drug was placebo (27.7%), dexmedetomidine (12.9%), ketamine (15.2%), propofol (16.8%), fentanyl (23.9%), midazolam (11.3%), sufentanil (6.3%), sevoflurane (24.0%), and desflurane (28.3%). Pairwise and network meta-analysis showed dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis also suggested dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with sevoflurane. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine ranked the first and second in reducing the incidence of POCD with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 87.4 and 81.5%. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine had the greatest possibility to reduce the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Sevoflurane; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Dexmedetomidine; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Sufentanil; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36799783
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000001 -
Journal of Neurology Dec 2023Our systematic review examines the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions in preventing or treating traumatic brain injury...
BACKGROUND
Our systematic review examines the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions in preventing or treating traumatic brain injury (TBI)-related delirium in acute care.
METHODS
We searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CDSR, and PsycINFO) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies. Eligible studies included adults with TBI, at least one comparator group, delirium as an outcome and took place in acute care. Two reviewers independently completed all study screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for RCTs or risk of bias in non-randomized studies-of interventions tool for observational studies. We implemented the PROGRESS-Plus framework to describe social determinants of health (SDoH) reporting.
RESULTS
We identified 20,022 citations, reviewed 301 in full text, and included eight studies in the descriptive synthesis. The mean age of study participants ranged from 32 to 62 years. 12.5% of included studies reported SDoH. Included studies had moderate-to-high risk of bias. Studies compared reorientation programs and an intervention bundle to usual care, but these interventions were not better than usual care in treating TBI-related delirium. Individual studies found that rosuvastatin and aripiprazole were more efficacious than placebo, and dexmedetomidine was more efficacious than propofol and haloperidol for preventing TBI-related delirium. No studies reported safety as the primary outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified efficacious pharmacologic interventions for preventing TBI-related delirium, but these studies were at moderate-to-high risk of bias, which limits our confidence in these findings. Future studies should incorporate safety outcomes, and a diverse study population, including older adults.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Adult; Middle Aged; Haloperidol; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Propofol; Delirium
PubMed: 37634162
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11889-7 -
Sleep & Breathing = Schlaf & Atmung Sep 2017The purpose of the present study is to review the international literature, using a systematic review, for studies comparing propofol and dexmedetomidine for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the present study is to review the international literature, using a systematic review, for studies comparing propofol and dexmedetomidine for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) or sedation in which there is a description of the effect of the agents on the upper airway and associated variables (e.g., vital signs, sedation scores).
METHODS
This is a systematic review through October 4, 2016. PubMed/MEDLINE and four additional databases were accessed for this study.
RESULTS
Two hundred twenty studies were screened, 79 were downloaded, and 10 met criteria. The majority of the studies identified dexmedetomidine as the preferred pharmacologic agent for DISE due to an overall safer and more stable profile based upon hemodynamic stability. However, propofol provided greater airway obstruction with oxygen desaturations. With either agent, the degree of obstruction in the upper airway lacks some degree of validity as to whether the obstructions accurately represent natural sleep or are simply a drug-induced effect.
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine and propofol have their advantages and disadvantages during DISE. Generally, dexmedetomidine was preferred and seemed to provide a more stable profile based upon cardiopulmonary status. However, propofol has a quicker onset, has a shorter half-life, and can demonstrate larger degrees of obstruction, which might more accurately reflect what happens during REM sleep. Additional research is recommended.
Topics: Anesthesia; Dexmedetomidine; Endoscopy; Humans; Propofol; Sleep
PubMed: 28130737
DOI: 10.1007/s11325-017-1465-x -
Journal of Perinatology : Official... Feb 2024Opioids and benzodiazepines have historically been employed for pain relief; however, they are associated with detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental consequences.... (Review)
Review
Opioids and benzodiazepines have historically been employed for pain relief; however, they are associated with detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental consequences. Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective alpha-2-adrenoreceptor agonist, has piqued interest as a viable alternative for neonates, owing to its potential analgesic and neuroprotective attributes. We conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine utilization in neonates. We conducted a comprehensive search of Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL, spanning from January 2010 to September 2022. Our review encompassed six studies involving 252 neonates. Overall, dexmedetomidine may be effective in achieving sedation and analgesia. Furthermore, it may reduce the need for adjunctive sedation or analgesia, shorten the time to extubation, decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation, and accelerate the attainment of full enteral feeds. Notably, no significant adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were reported. Nevertheless, additional well-designed studies to establish both the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in neonatal care are needed.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Pain; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Pain Management; Analgesia
PubMed: 37845426
DOI: 10.1038/s41372-023-01802-5 -
AANA Journal Dec 2023Effective control of labor pain is critical to the birthing experience. Dexmedetomidine is an alternative adjunct to labor analgesia without the risk of opioid-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effective control of labor pain is critical to the birthing experience. Dexmedetomidine is an alternative adjunct to labor analgesia without the risk of opioid-related adverse effects. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of neuraxial dexmedetomidine versus neuraxial opioids in labor analgesia. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and grey literature were searched for evidence. Risk ratio and mean difference (MD) were used to estimate outcomes. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias and GRADE system. Sixteen studies including 1,669 patients were analyzed. Compared with opioids, dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of analgesia (MD, 47.58 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57 to 93.58; = .04), reduced pain score (MD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.17 to -0.24; = .003), and shortened the onset of analgesia (MD, -1.14 minutes; 95% CI, -1.93 to -0.35; = .005). Dexmedetomidine did not affect the duration of first and second stages of labor, number of spontaneous, assisted, and cesarean delivery. Additionally, dexmedetomidine had little to no effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Neuraxial dexmedetomidine is more favorable than neuraxial opioids for labor analgesia. Extrapolation of the findings to clinical practice should take into considerations the review limitations.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Dexmedetomidine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics; Analgesia
PubMed: 37987724
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Mar 2022Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complication following surgery and has been associated with worsened patient outcomes. Providers have used agents that may confer a degree... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complication following surgery and has been associated with worsened patient outcomes. Providers have used agents that may confer a degree of renal protection in the perioperative stage. Such is the case of dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2 adrenergic agonist used in the intensive care unit (ICU) as a sedative agent. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to characterize the use of dexmedetomidine and to evaluate its impact on renal markers and outcomes in patients after surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review of manuscripts was performed to identify patients who received dexmedetomidine after surgery by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The following parameters were captured: blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipoprotein (NGAL), cystatin C, urine output, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, AKI, need for dialysis, and mortality.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Nineteen studies with 3,395 patients were included in the analyses. The mean bolus and infusion dose of dexmedetomidine were 0.82 µg/kg and 0.54 mcg/kg/hr, respectively. There was a significant difference in creatinine clearance and NGAL in favour of the dexmedetomidine group. In addition, the dexmedetomidine group had a shorter ICU length of stay, and a lower risk of acute kidney injury and mortality compared to the control. There was no difference in the rest of the parameters.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine appears to have postoperative renal protective effects. This is evidenced by lower NGAL levels and increased creatinine clearance in those who received dexmedetomidine. These effects are associated with decreases in ICU length of stay and risk of AKI and mortality.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Kidney
PubMed: 34510502
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13527 -
Cureus Dec 2022Dexmedetomidine has been approved as a sedative agent in critical patients. It is also frequently used as an adjuvant with local anesthetic in spinal anesthesia.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine has been approved as a sedative agent in critical patients. It is also frequently used as an adjuvant with local anesthetic in spinal anesthesia. However, its use as an adjuvant has not been approved due to the paucity of data. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to synthesize evidence for efficacy and safety when dexmedetomidine is combined with bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia.
METHODS
A literature search was done using PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Search results were screened and eligible studies were included to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using the software 'Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1' using a random effect model. Cochrane's' Risk of Bias tool (RoB2)' was used for quality assessment. Mean and standard deviation was used to calculate the standardized mean difference and its forest plot for efficacy measures. For the adverse event, a number of events were used to determine the risk ratio and its forest plot using RevMan software. Publication bias is visualized using a funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 21 randomized control trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of intrathecal dexmedetomidine were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 1382 participants was included in this meta-analysis. The effect estimates for efficacy parameters, i.e. duration of the sensory block having SMD 2.33; CI, 1.83-2.83, motor block with SMD 1.83, CI 1.21, 2.46, and analgesia SMD 2.81; CI, 2.11-3.51. The risk ratio for adverse effects, i.e. nausea/vomiting, bradycardia, hypotension was not significant whereas it was significant for the incidence of shivering with RR 0.38; CI 0.23-0.97. The overall risk of bias among included studies was either of 'some concern' or 'high risk.'
CONCLUSIONS
Intrathecal dexmedetomidine when combined with bupivacaine was found to significantly increase the three efficacy parameters, i.e. duration of sensory block, motor block, and analgesia. It also appears to be safe with no increased risk of bradycardia or hypotension. It is also associated with decreased postoperative shivering.
PubMed: 36644042
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32425 -
Pain Physician Oct 2023Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several concerns. Various studies have investigated the application prospect of using opioid-free general anesthesia, such as dexmedetomidine, as an opioid substitute.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore and highlight the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as an opioid substitute for opioid-free anesthesia.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
We screened for suitable clinical trials from electronic databases, including "PubMed," "Cochrane Library," "EMBASE," and "Web of Science." Eligible trials were included in this meta-analysis.
METHODS
The quality of the screened randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was determined using the risk of bias assessment criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We used the "Review Manager 5.3" and "Stata 10.0" software to perform the meta-analysis. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" approach.
RESULTS
For the analysis, we included 32 RCTs encompassing 2,509 patients. In the opioid-free group, the 2-hour postoperative pain score of patients (mean difference = -0.53, 95% CI: -1.00, -0.07; P = 0.02, I2=78%) was significantly lower compared to those in the opioid-based group. In addition, several patients required rescue analgesia (risk ratio = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.84, P < 0.05, I2 = 71%) and opioids postsurgery. However, the duration of extubation and postanesthesia care unit, as well as the incidences of bradycardia, were high in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as opioid-free general anesthesia.
LIMITATIONS
Subgroup analysis for different anesthesia-maintaining drugs had not been conducted. The heterogeneity did not reduce after subgroup analysis. Different doses of dexmedetomidine had not been evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate that opioid-free general anesthesia based on dexmedetomidine could be effective; however, prolonged extubation time and cardiovascular complications are a few risks associated with dexmedetomidine.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, General; Analgesia
PubMed: 37847917
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Nov 2014Premedication is important in pediatric anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of dexmedetomidine as a premedicant for pediatric patients. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Premedication is important in pediatric anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of dexmedetomidine as a premedicant for pediatric patients. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine premedication with midazolam or ketamine premedication or placebo in children. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. The original data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager 5. The main parameters investigated included satisfactory separation from parents, satisfactory mask induction, postoperative rescue analgesia, emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1190 patients were included. When compared with midazolam, premedication with dexmedetomidine resulted in an increase in satisfactory separation from parents (RD = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.30, p = 0.003) and a decrease in the use of postoperative rescue analgesia (RD = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.09, p = 0.0003). Children treated with dexmedetomidine had a lower heart rate before induction. The incidence of satisfactory mask induction, emergence agitation and PONV did not differ between the groups. Dexmedetomidine was superior in providing satisfactory intravenous cannulation compared to placebo. This meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is superior to midazolam premedication because it resulted in enhanced preoperative sedation and decreased postoperative pain. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the dosing schemes and long-term outcomes of dexmedetomidine premedication in pediatric anesthesia.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Dissociative; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Ketamine; Male; Midazolam; Premedication; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25518037
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2014(11)12