-
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 -
Minerva Anestesiologica May 2024Peripheral nerve block, a common technique for managing postoperative pain and providing intraoperative analgesia, often includes adjuncts like dexmedetomidine (DEX) to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Peripheral nerve block, a common technique for managing postoperative pain and providing intraoperative analgesia, often includes adjuncts like dexmedetomidine (DEX) to enhance the effectiveness of local anesthetics. DEX, known for its α2-adrenoceptor agonist properties, extends sensory blockade and improves postoperative analgesia while offering sedative benefits. The objective of this study is to rigorously assess the effectiveness and safety of perineural DEX injection in orthopedic nerve block procedures, focusing on orthopedic surgeries to minimize heterogeneity and provide clearer insights for clinical practice.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
This meta-analysis, registered on PROSPERO, involved a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases, focusing on RCTs comparing DEX with local anesthetics for peripheral nerve blocks in orthopedic surgery patients. The eligibility criteria included adult participants and various nerve block methods in orthopedic surgeries. Studies were rigorously appraised for methodological quality using Cochrane Handbook guidelines. GRADE profiler 3.6 was used for evidence grading.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Among 1391 documents, 21 studies were included, focusing on DEX with local anesthetics in orthopedic nerve blocks. Findings showed significant improvements in analgesia duration, sensory and motor block duration, and reduced postoperative opioid consumption, with an increased risk of bradycardia. Quality assessments indicated moderate bias risk.
CONCLUSIONS
DEX with local anesthetics significantly enhances nerve block effectiveness, extending analgesia and block durations while reducing opioid need. However, it requires careful monitoring due to increased bradycardia risk. These findings highlight the need for cautious use in clinical practice, considering both potential benefits and adverse effects.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Nerve Block; Anesthetics, Local; Orthopedic Procedures; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Pain, Postoperative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38771166
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.24.17879-0 -
Journal of Palliative Medicine May 2024At the end of life, the prevalence of delirium and pain is high. Current therapy is not satisfactory. Dexmedetomidine could be useful in the control of delirium and... (Review)
Review
At the end of life, the prevalence of delirium and pain is high. Current therapy is not satisfactory. Dexmedetomidine could be useful in the control of delirium and pain but is not approved outside of intensive care setting. Our objectives are to evaluate existing evidence in the literature that assessed the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in pain and delirium control and its safety in palliative care patients outside intensive care units. This systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO and included a risk of bias assessment. PubMed and SCOPUS were examined for literature published until 2023. Experimental, cohort, cross-sectional, case-control studies, and case series/reports were included if they evaluate the use of dexmedetomidine in delirium and/or pain management in hospitalized palliative care adult patients. Studies were excluded if they were carried out in intensive care units. Of the initial 529 records, 14 were included. Although only two studies were randomized trials, most were small and only one had low risk of bias. In most case reports and in the two retrospective cohort studies, dexmedetomidine appears to be a better option for these symptoms, although differences were not significant in the randomized trials. Dexmedetomidine seems to be a promising option for refractory pain and delirium and may contribute to a reduction in opioid administration to control pain. This is the first systematic review of dexmedetomidine in palliative care. Quality evidence is limited, but clinical properties of dexmedetomidine justify the conduction of controlled trials in palliative care.
PubMed: 38770684
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2023.0609 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia May 2024Tracheal extubation often causes cardiovascular and airway responses, potentially resulting in hazardous consequences. It remains unknown whether dexmedetomidine or...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Tracheal extubation often causes cardiovascular and airway responses, potentially resulting in hazardous consequences. It remains unknown whether dexmedetomidine or lidocaine is more effective for cough suppression. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine in reducing cough response after tracheal extubation in adult patients.
METHODS
A thorough search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify relevant studies (from inception to 31 January 2023). Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine versus IV lidocaine administration during emergence from anaesthesia to prevent tracheal extubation response in adult patients under general anaesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of post-extubation cough. Secondary outcomes included emergence time, extubation time, residual sedation, and incidences of bradycardia. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the potential risk for bias.
RESULTS
In total, seven studies with 450 participants were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cough between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine groups [Risk Ratio = 0.76; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.46, 1.24]. Emergence and extubation times were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analysis revealed a higher incidence of bradycardia and residual sedation in dexmedetomidine compared to the lidocaine group.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis found no difference in cough, emergence, and extubation time between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine after tracheal extubation. However, residual sedation and bradycardia were more significant in dexmedetomidine than in lidocaine.
PubMed: 38764958
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_790_23 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are drugs currently used for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly being used in children and infants despite not being licenced for analgesia in this group.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the increasing use of dexmedetomidine, there is insufficient evidence supporting its routine use for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, data on dexmedetomidine safety are scarce, and there are no data available on its long-term effects. Future studies should address the efficacy, safety, and long-term effects of dexmedetomidine as a single drug therapy for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Infant, Newborn; Respiration, Artificial; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic
PubMed: 38695625
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012361.pub2 -
Medicine Apr 2024Remifentanil (or fentanyl) and dexmedetomidine may have some potential to improve the analgesia of rhinoplasty, and this meta-analysis aims to compare their efficacy for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remifentanil (or fentanyl) and dexmedetomidine may have some potential to improve the analgesia of rhinoplasty, and this meta-analysis aims to compare their efficacy for the analgesia of rhinoplasty.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched, and we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the analgesic effect of remifentanil (or fentanyl) versus dexmedetomidine for rhinoplasty.
RESULTS
Four RCTs were finally included in the meta-analysis. In patients undergoing rhinoplasty, remifentanil (or fentanyl) infusion and dexmedetomidine infusion resulted in similar good patient satisfaction (odd ratio [OR] = 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63 to 11.64; P = .18), good surgeon satisfaction (OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 0.02 to 181.40; P = .83), extubation time (mean difference [MD] = 7.56; 95% CI = -11.00 to 26.12; P = .42), recovery time (MD = -2.25; 95% CI = -23.41 to 18.91; P = .83), additional analgesic requirement (OR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0 to 8.65; P = .37) and adverse events (OR = 8.50; 95% CI = 0.47 to 153.30; P = .15).
CONCLUSIONS
Remifentanil (or fentanyl) and dexmedetomidine may have comparable analgesia for patients undergoing rhinoplasty.
Topics: Humans; Fentanyl; Remifentanil; Dexmedetomidine; Rhinoplasty; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics; Analgesia
PubMed: 38640315
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037020 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... May 2024The efficacy of perioperative dexmedetomidine (DEX) infusion as a precaution against postpartum depression (PPD) in women undergoing cesarean section has not been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy of perioperative dexmedetomidine (DEX) infusion as a precaution against postpartum depression (PPD) in women undergoing cesarean section has not been substantiated systematically. A literature search for RCTs on DEX against PPD was retrieved in the following databases from inception to January 3, 2024: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, VIP, etc. A total of 13 RCTs with 1711 participants were included. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan5.3 and Stata16 using a random-effects model. EPDS scores were significantly decreased in the DEX group within one week or over one week postpartum compared to the control group (SMD = -1.25, 95 %CI: -1.73 to -0.77; SMD = -1.08, 95 %CI: -1.43 to -0.73). The prevalence of PPD was significantly inferior to the control at both time points (RR = 0.36, 95 %CI: 0.24 to 0.54; RR = 0.39, 95 %CI: 0.26 to 0.57). Univariate meta-regression suggested that age influenced the heterogeneity of the EPDS scores (P = 0.039), and DEX infusion dose was a potential moderator (P = 0.074). The subgroup analysis results of PPD scores at both time points were consistent, showing that: ① Mothers younger than 30 years old had better sensitivity to DEX for treating PPD. ② The anti-PPD efficacy of continuous infusion of DEX by PCIA was superior to both single infusion and combined infusion. ③ DEX showed a better anti-PPD effect when the total infusion dose was ≤ 2 μg/kg. Moreover, DEX improved analgesia and sleep quality, provided appropriate sedation, and reduced the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and chills. The current evidence confirmed the prophylaxis and superiority of DEX for PPD. More high-quality, large-scale RCTs are required for verifying the reliability and formulating administration methods.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Adult; Dexmedetomidine; Infusions, Intravenous; Cesarean Section; Depression, Postpartum; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 38531179
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.03.024 -
International Journal of Surgery... Mar 2024Postoperative paralytic ileus (POI) is a significant concern following gastrointestinal tumor surgery. Effective preventive and therapeutic strategies are crucial but...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative paralytic ileus (POI) is a significant concern following gastrointestinal tumor surgery. Effective preventive and therapeutic strategies are crucial but remain elusive. Current evidence from randomized-controlled trials on pharmacological interventions for prevention or treatment of POI are systematically reviewed to guide clinical practice and future research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature was systematically searched for prospective randomized-controlled trials testing pharmacological interventions for prevention or treatment of POI after gastrointestinal tumor surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to determine risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed.
RESULTS
Results from 55 studies, involving 5078 patients who received experimental interventions, indicate that approaches of opioid-sparing analgesia, peripheral opioid antagonism, reduction of sympathetic hyperreactivity, and early use of laxatives effectively prevent POI. Perioperative oral Alvimopan or intravenous administration of Lidocaine or Dexmedetomidine, while safe regarding cardio-pulmonary complications, demonstrated effectiveness concerning various aspects of postoperative bowel recovery (Lidocaine: -5.97 [-7.20 - -4.74]h, P<0.0001; Dexmedetomidine: -13.00 [-24.87 - -1.14]h, P=0.03 for time to first defecation; Alvimopan: -15.33 [-21.22 - -9.44]h, P<0.0001 for time to GI-2) and length of hospitalization (Lidocaine: -0.67 [-1.24 - -0.09]d, P=0.02; Dexmedetomidine: -1.28 [-1.96 - -0.60]d, P=0.0002; Alvimopan: -0.58 [-0.84 - -0.32]d, P<0.0001) across wide ranges of evidence quality. Perioperative non-opioid analgesic use showed efficacy concerning bowel recovery as well as length of hospitalization (-1.29 [-1.95 - -0.62]d, P=0.0001). Laxatives showed efficacy regarding bowel movements, but not food tolerance and hospitalization. Evidence supporting pharmacological treatment for clinically evident POI is limited. Results from one single study suggest that Neostigmine reduces time to flatus and accelerates bowel movements (-37.06 [-40.26 - -33.87]h, P<0.0001 and -42.97 [-47.60 - -38.35]h, P<0.0001, respectively) with low evidence quality.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence concerning pharmacological prevention and treatment of POI following gastrointestinal tumor surgery is limited. Opioid-sparing concepts, reduction of sympathetic hyperreactivity, and laxatives should be implemented into multimodal perioperative approaches.
PubMed: 38526522
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001393 -
Heliyon Mar 2024The reciprocal nexus between sleep and pain is well-documented, with the deleterious impact of operative trauma potentially playing a pivotal role in the dysregulation...
Impact of the addition of dexmedetomidine to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia on postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle and delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
The reciprocal nexus between sleep and pain is well-documented, with the deleterious impact of operative trauma potentially playing a pivotal role in the dysregulation of this interplay, which could significantly contribute to the manifestation of postoperative delirium (POD). Studies have investigated the effect of adding dexmedetomidine (DEX) to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) pumps on postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle and POD, but conclusions remained uncertain. The objective of this investigation is to perform a meta-analysis that thoroughly assesses the impact of integrating DEX into PCIA, focusing on analgesic effectiveness, sleep quality, and the incidence of delirium in postoperative patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform were searched, for publications in any language, from database inception to September 2023. Our analysis encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examine the therapeutic efficacy and risk profile of adding DEX to the PCIA on the postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle, by focusing on changes in postoperative analgesia (Visual analog scale (VAS) score), sleep efficiency, sleep structure, subjective sleep score (Assen insomnia scale and numerical rating scale) and adverse event rate.
RESULTS
34 RCTs (4324 patients) were analyzed. This study shows DEX improved analgesia and reduced VAS scores at 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Sleep efficiency was enhanced on the 1st and 2nd postoperative night. DEX improved sleep structure at the 1st postoperative night by reducing non-rapid eye movement stage 1 (N1) sleep and increasing non-rapid eye movement stage 2 (N2) and non-rapid eye movement stage 3 (N3) sleep. At the 2nd night, DEX reduced N1 sleep and increased N2 sleep, but not N3 sleep. Data from AIS and NRS showed improvement in subjective sleep scores on the 1st postoperative night and 2nd night. Additionally, DEX decreased the occurrence of POD on the 24 h and first-three days.
CONCLUSION
This study shows that the typical DEX doses added to PCIA with sufentanil were 2-5 μg/kg or approximately 200-250 μg, and the addition of DEX to PCIA can improve pain-sleep interaction cycle from multiple perspectives, and further decrease the occurrence of POD.
PubMed: 38524538
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27623 -
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and... Apr 2024This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence.
METHODS
Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients.
CONCLUSION
Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Midazolam; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Dexmedetomidine; Bradycardia; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Respiratory Insufficiency; Hypoxia; Hypotension
PubMed: 38467278
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2024.102315