-
Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing :... Apr 2021Pain control during and after breast surgery is still a challenging task. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is considered as a sedative agent that is widely used perineurally or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Pain control during and after breast surgery is still a challenging task. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is considered as a sedative agent that is widely used perineurally or intravenously as an adjuvant in general anesthesia and critical care medicine practice. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of perineural DEX and intravenous (IV) DEX and their effects on postoperative complications in breast surgeries.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The present study systematically reviewed all identified randomized controlled trials for efficacy and safety of IV and perineural use of DEX in breast surgeries. Databases were searched for articles published before October 2019.
FINDINGS
Twelve trials were identified including 803 patients undergoing breast surgery. Although administration of IV DEX and its use with pectoral nerve (Pecs) block significantly postponed time for first analgesic request and decreased pain score at 1 and 12 hours after surgery, paravertebral use of DEX had no statistically significant effect. Pooled data about perineural DEX showed no significant effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), whereas IV DEX significantly reduced PONV. Pooled analysis also showed that DEX administration did not significantly affect postoperative complications, such as postoperative itching, bradycardia, and pneumothorax in patients undergoing breast surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
The results showed that unlike paravertebral DEX, both DEX use with Pecs blocks and IV DEX were effective in control of postoperative pain in patients undergoing breast surgeries. Unlike perineural DEX, IV DEX significantly reduced PONV.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 33303343
DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2020.09.011 -
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine : a... Jan 2024To systematically review literature describing the clinical presentation, risk factors, and treatment for dexmedetomidine withdrawal in the PICU (PROSPERO:... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review literature describing the clinical presentation, risk factors, and treatment for dexmedetomidine withdrawal in the PICU (PROSPERO: CRD42022307178).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies were published from January 2000 to January 2022 and reported clinical data for patients younger than 21 years old following discontinuation of dexmedetomidine after greater than or equal to 24 hours of infusion.
DATA EXTRACTION
Abstracts identified during an initial search were screened and data were manually abstracted after full-text review of eligible articles. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Summary statistics were provided and Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to identify relationships between covariates and withdrawal signs. A weighted prevalence for each withdrawal sign was generated using a random-effects model.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-three studies (22 of which were retrospective cohort studies) containing 28 distinct cohorts were included. Median cumulative dexmedetomidine exposure by dose was 105.95 μg/kg (range, 30-232.7 μg/kg), median dexmedetomidine infusion duration was 131.75 hours (range, 20.5-525.6 hr). Weighted estimates for proportion (95% CI) of subjects experiencing withdrawal signs across all cohorts were: hypertension 0.34 (range, 0.0-0.92), tachycardia 0.26 (range, 0.0-0.87), and agitation 0.26 (range, 0.09-0.77). Meta-analysis revealed no correlation between dexmedetomidine exposure variables and withdrawal signs. A moderate negative monotonic relationship existed between the proportion of patients who had undergone cardiac surgery and the proportion experiencing hypertension (correlation coefficient, -0.47; p = 0.048) and tachycardia (correlation coefficient, -0.57; p = 0.008), indicating that in cohorts with a higher proportion of patients who were postcardiac surgery, there were fewer occurrences of hypertension and or tachycardia.
CONCLUSIONS
On review of the 2000-2022 literature, dexmedetomidine withdrawal may be characterized by tachycardia, hypertension, or agitation, particularly with higher cumulative doses or prolonged durations. Since most studies included in the review were retrospective, prospective studies are needed to further clarify risk factors, establish diagnostic criteria, and identify optimal management strategies.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Hypertension; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric; Retrospective Studies; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tachycardia
PubMed: 37855676
DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000003376 -
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine : a... Jul 2020We aimed to systematically describe the use of dexmedetomidine as a treatment regimen for prolonged sedation in children and perform a meta-analysis of its safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to systematically describe the use of dexmedetomidine as a treatment regimen for prolonged sedation in children and perform a meta-analysis of its safety profile.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 30, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
We included studies involving hospitalized critically ill patients less than or equal to 18 years old receiving dexmedetomidine for prolonged infusion (≥ 24 hr).
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction included study characteristics, patient demographics, modality of dexmedetomidine use, associated analgesia and sedation details, comfort and withdrawal evaluation scales, withdrawal symptoms, and side effects.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Literature search identified 32 studies, including a total of 3,267 patients. Most of the studies were monocentric (91%) and retrospective (88%); one was a randomized trial. Minimum and maximum infusion dosages varied from 0.1-0.5 µg/kg/hr to 0.3-2.5 µg/kg/hr, respectively. The mean/median duration range was 25-540 hours. The use of a loading bolus was reported in eight studies (25%) (range, 0.5-1 µg/kg), the mode of weaning in 11 (34%), and the weaning time in six of 11 (55%; range, 9-96 hr). The pooled prevalence of bradycardia was 2.6% (n = 10 studies; 14/387 patients; 95% CI, 0.3-7.3; I = 75%), the pooled prevalence incidence of bradycardia was 2.6% (n = 10 studies; 14/387 patients; 95% CI, 0.3-7.3; I = 75%), the pooled incidence of hypotension was 6.1% (n = 8 studies; 19/304 patients; 95% CI, 0.8-15.9; I = 84%). Three studies (9%) reported side effects' onset time which in all cases was within 12 hours of the infusion starting.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality data on dexmedetomidine use for prolonged sedation and a consensus on correct dosing and weaning protocols in children are currently missing. Infusion of dexmedetomidine can be considered relatively safe in pediatrics even when longer than 24 hours.
Topics: Adolescent; Anesthesia; Child; Critical Illness; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 32453924
DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000002325 -
Cureus Jun 2022Delirium is defined by the DSM-5 as a fluctuating course of disturbance in attention, cognition, and awareness that develops over a short period without any... (Review)
Review
Delirium is defined by the DSM-5 as a fluctuating course of disturbance in attention, cognition, and awareness that develops over a short period without any pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. As people age, there is an increased risk of complications that may occur following a surgical procedure and one such acute complication is delirium. Studies are emerging to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium, and one such preventive measures implemented in recent years include the administration of dexmedetomidine, a high selectivity α-2 adrenoceptor agonist. This study aims to review the efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in the prevention of postoperative delirium in randomized controlled trials in patients older than 18 years of age. The literature was explored in three online databases, namely, PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus. Appropriate keywords and MesH terms were employed to scrutinize relevant articles that demonstrated the effects of dexmedetomidine in the prevention of postoperative delirium. The data was restricted to randomized controlled trials and clinical trials published from 2017 to 2021 in human patients older than >18 years of age undergoing non-cardiac-related procedures. The randomized clinical trials were critically assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We proceeded to screen 428 records with the assessment of the PRISMA chart and filtered out 420 papers to obtain a total of eight studies where we identified data such as sample size, types of surgeries in which the patients were involved, the delirium assessment tool, the plan of the administration of dexmedetomidine and the outcomes evaluated in each study. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) was the prevailing assessment tool used with the sole purpose to evaluate the incidence of postoperative delirium as the primary outcome, and assessment of inflammatory cytokines, sleep quality, and pain scales were considered as secondary outcomes. The dosage of dexmedetomidine varied among studies, and it displayed varying impacts on postoperative delirium and the secondary outcomes as well. Limitations include varying ages and ethnicities of the population. It was concluded that dexmedetomidine prevents the development of postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing non-cardiac surgical interventions by modulating important predisposing factors such as neuroinflammation, pain, and sleep quality. No funding was made for this study.
PubMed: 35812638
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25639 -
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Oct 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative during paediatric procedural sedation outside the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative during paediatric procedural sedation outside the operating room.
METHODS
Relevant literature identified by PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2019 was systematically reviewed. Randomised controlled trials that compared intranasal dexmedetomidine with another sedative or placebo during paediatric procedural sedation were included. Trials that studied intranasal dexmedetomidine as a premedication before anaesthesia were excluded. The primary outcome was the success of the planned procedure.
RESULTS
We analysed seven randomised controlled trials of 730 patients: four trials with 570 patients compared dexmedetomidine with chloral hydrate and three trials with 160 patients compared dexmedetomidine with midazolam. The incidence of successfully completing the procedure did not differ between dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate, but dexmedetomidine had a higher success rate than midazolam. The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia or respiratory complications did not differ between the sedatives used. Nausea and vomiting were more common in children treated with chloral hydrate than in those treated with other sedatives.
CONCLUSION
Intranasal dexmedetomidine was a safe and effective sedative for minor paediatric procedures.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anesthesia; Child; Chloral Hydrate; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32400892
DOI: 10.1111/apa.15348 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Jun 2023To investigate whether dexmedetomidine (DEX), as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepine (BZD), is superior to BZD alone in critically ill patients with alcohol withdrawal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether dexmedetomidine (DEX), as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepine (BZD), is superior to BZD alone in critically ill patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed Central, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar were used as search databases. Specific keywords and MeSH terms were "dexmedetomidine," "benzodiazepine," and "alcohol withdrawal syndrome." The last search was on September 16, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized/cohort studies exploring the use of DEX in the management of AWS were included. A total of 12 studies were included in the systematic review and 7 in the meta-analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) was found to have a mean difference (MD) of 48.06 [37.48, 58.64], = <0.001 for the cohort subgroup, significantly favoring the DEX arm, but, in contrast, pooled RCT data showed a result of -20.07 [-36.86, -3.28], = 0.02, a shorter ICU LOS for the DEX arm. Bradycardia and hypotension incidence significantly favored the BZD arm in both subgroups. This study compares the effectiveness of adjunctive DEX in clinical practice and aims to help providers in critical decision-making by compiling and analyzing the best current available evidence of its use in AWS.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on low to very low level of evidence, adjunctive DEX showed no significant difference for ICU LOS when compared with BZD alone. Pooled randomized trials potentially show a benefit but are similarly limited by their low quality of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Benzodiazepines; Cohort Studies
PubMed: 36258676
DOI: 10.1177/10600280221130458 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... Nov 2021Dexmedetomidine is commonly used in small animal anesthesia for its potent sedative and analgesic properties; however, concerns regarding its cardiovascular effects... (Review)
Review
Dexmedetomidine is commonly used in small animal anesthesia for its potent sedative and analgesic properties; however, concerns regarding its cardiovascular effects prevent its full adoption into veterinary clinical practice. This meta-analysis was to determine the effects of dexmedetomidine on sedation, analgesia, cardiovascular and adverse reactions in dogs compared to other premedications. Following the study protocol based on the Cochrane Review Methods, thirteen studies were included in this meta-analysis ultimately, involving a total of 576 dogs. Dexmedetomidine administration probably improved in sedation and analgesia in comparison to acepromazine, ketamine and lidocaine (MD: 1.96, 95% CI: [-0.08, 4.00], = 0.06; MD: -0.95, 95% CI: [-1.52, -0.37] = 0.001; respectively). Hemodynamic outcomes showed that dogs probably experienced lower heart rate and higher systolic arterial blood pressure and mean arterial blood pressure with dexmedetomidine at 30 min after premedication (MD: -13.25, 95% CI: [-19.67, -6.81], < 0.0001; MD: 7.78, 95% CI: [1.83, 13.74], = 0.01; MD: 8.32, 95% CI: [3.95, 12.70], = 0.0002; respectively). The incidence of adverse effects was comparable between dexmedetomidine and other premedications (RR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.58, 1.29], = 0.47). In summary, dexmedetomidine provides satisfactory sedative and analgesic effects, and its safety is proved despite its significant hemodynamic effects as part of balanced anesthesia of dogs.
PubMed: 34827988
DOI: 10.3390/ani11113254 -
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Dec 2023Pediatric dental surgeries are associated with the emotions of fear, anxiety, and other behavioral disturbances of children that need to be managed. Sedation using drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of dexmedetomidine to midazolam as premedication and a sedative agent in pediatric patients undergoing dental procedures.
INTRODUCTION
Pediatric dental surgeries are associated with the emotions of fear, anxiety, and other behavioral disturbances of children that need to be managed. Sedation using drugs like dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MID) is a common pharmacological behavior managing technique. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of both these drugs in current literature.
METHODOLOGY
A thorough literature search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane's database for randomized studies that compared sedative efficacy of dexmedetomidine with midazolam in children of 0-15 years of age undergoing dental surgeries. Sedation in children during dental procedure, when used as a premedication, at the time of separation from parents and at the time of mask induction, onset time, duration of anesthesia, and surgery were evaluated. The mean differences (MDs), odds ratio (OR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated both for continuous and dichotomous outcome data using random-effects model.
RESULTS
Seven studies met out inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results of premedication with DEX was associated with more anxiolysis (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.52, p=0.0001; I=0%) and at the time of separation from parents (OR=0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.69, p=0.002; I=52%) in comparison to MID. No significant differences in results were seen at mask induction (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.34-1.18, p=0.15; I=47%) and for sedation in children during dental procedures (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.07-3.70, p=0.51; I=72%). Also, there were no significant differences in onset time, duration of anesthesia, and surgery between the two agents.
CONCLUSION
DEX proved to be a better premedicant than MID for pediatric patients. No significant difference in efficacy of both sedative agents was observed in children undergoing dental treatment. More clinical trials need to be conducted to see its efficacy in dental surgeries in children of standardized ages and with standard doses.
Topics: Child; Humans; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Premedication; Anesthesia, Dental
PubMed: 35759132
DOI: 10.1007/s10006-022-01087-6 -
Translational Pediatrics Jul 2022The incidence of restlessness in the wake-up period of sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia is high. Although many studies have explored the relationship between...
BACKGROUND
The incidence of restlessness in the wake-up period of sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia is high. Although many studies have explored the relationship between dexmedetomidine and restlessness in the wake-up period of sevoflurane anesthesia in children, they can't keep consistent conclusions and lack evidence-based medical evidence. Meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in the treatment of restlessness during the recovery period of sevoflurane anesthesia in children, and to provide reference for clinic.
METHODS
Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Science Direct, The Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, the Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM). The Chinese and English search keywords included "dexmedetomidine", "children", "sevoflurane", and "emergence agitation". The articles included were independently evaluated and cross-checked by 2 professionals in strict accordance with the 5 evaluation criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.0.1).
RESULTS
A total of 16 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Of the 16 RCTs, 14 described the generation of random sequences in detail, 8 described allocation concealment in detail, no patient blinding was described due to different surgical methods, 8 articles used operator blinding, and all 16 articles had complete outcome measures. The incidence of emergence agitation in the 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant [odds ratio (OR) =0.22, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.40, P<0.00001]. The incidence of analgesic rescue in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (OR =0.29, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.63, Z =3.13, P=0.002). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (OR =0.33, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.55, Z =4.29, P<0.0001).
DISCUSSION
The results of this meta-analysis confirmed that dexmedetomidine could reduce the incidence of emergence agitation, postoperative analgesic rescue, and nausea and vomiting in children after sevoflurane anesthesia.
PubMed: 35957999
DOI: 10.21037/tp-22-172 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intranasal Dex vs. oral midazolam in pediatric premedication were collected. Stata 15.0 statistical software was used to analyze the collected data. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect sizes.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies with 824 children were included, containing 415 patients in the Dex group and 409 patients in the midazolam group. Compared with the oral midazolam group, the intranasal Dex group had a better preoperative sedation effect at parent-child separation (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14-1.64) and anesthesia induction (RR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03-4.22). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of analgesia remedy (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-1.00) the acceptance of anesthesia masks (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12), and incidence of adverse events between (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06-1.13, = 0.072) between the intranasal Dex and oral midazolam groups.
CONCLUSION
Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex has better sedative effects of parent-child separation and anesthesia induction in pediatric premedication, but there was no difference in the incidence of anesthesia remedy, anesthesia mask acceptance, and incidence of adverse events. Therefore, compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex is a better choice for premedication in children.
PubMed: 38027288
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1264081