-
Current Pain and Headache Reports Apr 2024The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events.
RECENT FINDINGS
Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Propofol; Dexmedetomidine; Ketamine; Anesthesia, General; Vomiting; Pain; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 38214834
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-023-01208-0 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Feb 2024Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in children. Since most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to support surgical...
PURPOSE
Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in children. Since most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to support surgical decisions, none are specifically designed for the perioperative management of children undergoing tonsillectomy. We aimed to identify and analyze the existing CPGs with recommendations for the perioperative management of children undergoing tonsillectomy by conducting a systematic review.
SOURCE
We searched Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE ePub Ahead of Print, and CINAHL for relevant articles published from inception to 3 August 2022. The inclusion criteria were: 1) CPG of perioperative recommendations for tonsillectomy under general anesthesia in children, 2) CPG that include at least one evidence-based recommendation, 3) peer-reviewed CPG published in English after 2000. We extracted data on baseline characteristics of each CPG and general recommendations for perioperative interventions or complications.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Out of five eligible CPGs, AGREE II and REX confirmed that two CPGs were high quality while only one of the two was recommended for implementation without modifications. Most of the recommendations were for pain management. Acetaminophen was the only medication recommended in all five CPG. Except for the oldest CPG, the CPG all supported of the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids as a pain adjunct.
CONCLUSIONS
Acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and steroids are recommended in the perioperative management of pediatric tonsillectomy. Future CPG should further clarify the safe use of opioids based on severity of obstructive sleep apnea and in the context of opioid-sparing techniques, such as dexmedetomidine, high-dose dexamethasone, and gabapentinoids.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021253374); first submitted 18 June 2021.
Topics: Humans; Child; Tonsillectomy; Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Opioid; Steroids; Anti-Inflammatory Agents
PubMed: 38182827
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02668-z -
Obesity Surgery Feb 2024This study aims to determine the effects of perioperative dexmedetomidine infusion (PDI) on Asian patients undergoing bariatric-metabolic surgery (BMS), focusing on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This study aims to determine the effects of perioperative dexmedetomidine infusion (PDI) on Asian patients undergoing bariatric-metabolic surgery (BMS), focusing on the need for pain medications and management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and to investigate the association with these variables, including patients' characteristics and BMS data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted in an Asian weight management center from August 2016 to October 2021. A total of 147 native patients with severe obesity were enrolled. All patients were informed of the full support of perioperative pain medications for BMS. The pain numeric rating scale scores, events of PONV, needs for pain medications, and the associated patients' characteristics were analyzed. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Furthermore, to verify the effects of perioperative usage of dexmedetomidine for BMS, a systematic review with meta-analysis of currently available randomized control trials was performed.
RESULTS
Among the 147 enrolled patients, 107 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and 40 underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. PDI has been used as an adjunct multimodal analgesia for BMS in our institution since June 2017 (group D; n = 114). In comparison with those not administered with perioperative dexmedetomidine (group C; n = 33), lower pain numeric rating scale scores (2.52 ± 2.46 vs. 4.27 ± 2.95, p = 0.007) in the postanesthesia care unit, fewer PONV (32.46% vs. 51.52%; p = 0.046), and infrequent needs of additional pain medications (19.47% vs. 45.45%; p = 0.003) were observed in group D. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that type II diabetes mellitus was correlated with the decreased need of pain medications other than PDI (p = 0.035). Moreover, dexmedetomidine seemed to have a better analgesic effect for patients with longer surgical time based on our meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Based on our limited experience, PDI could be a practical solution to alleviate pain and PONV in Asian patients undergoing BMS. Moreover, it might reduce the need for rescue painkillers with better postoperative pain management for patients with type II diabetes mellitus or longer surgical time.
Topics: Humans; Bariatric Surgery; Dexmedetomidine; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Gastric Bypass; Laparoscopy; Obesity, Morbid; Pain, Postoperative; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 38177557
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-023-07036-w -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2023Effective postoperative pain management is critical for recovery after orthopedic surgery, but often remains inadequate despite multimodal analgesia. This systematic... (Review)
Review
Effective postoperative pain management is critical for recovery after orthopedic surgery, but often remains inadequate despite multimodal analgesia. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on innovative modalities for enhancing pain control following major orthopedic procedures. Fifteen randomized controlled trials and comparative studies evaluating peripheral nerve blocks, local anesthetic infiltration, cryotherapy, transcutaneous electrical stimulation, adjunct medications, and other techniques are included. Thematic analysis reveals that peripheral nerve blocks and local anesthetic infiltration consistently demonstrate reduced pain scores, opioid consumption, and side effects versus conventional analgesia alone. Oral multimodal medications also show promise as part of opioid-sparing regimens. Adjunctive approaches like cryotherapy, music, and dexmedetomidine require further research to optimize protocols. Despite promising innovations, critical knowledge gaps persist regarding comparative effectiveness, optimal interventions and dosing, combination strategies, cost-effectiveness, and implementation. High-quality randomized controlled trials using standardized protocols are essential to guide the translation of enhanced multimodal regimens into clinical practice. This review provides a framework for pursuing research priorities and advancing evidence-based postoperative pain management across orthopedic surgeries.
PubMed: 38137952
DOI: 10.3390/life13122351 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Jan 2024Cleft palate surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. Effective pain control can decrease stress and agitation in children undergoing cleft palate... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE
Cleft palate surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. Effective pain control can decrease stress and agitation in children undergoing cleft palate surgery and improve surgical outcomes. However, limited evidence often results in inadequate pain control after cleft palate surgery.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence and to develop recommendations for optimal pain management after cleft palate surgery using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews assessing pain in children undergoing cleft palate repair published in English language from July 2002, through August 2023.
FINDINGS
Of 1048 identified studies, 19 randomized controlled trials and 4 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Interventions that improved postoperative pain, and are recommended, include suprazygomatic maxillary nerve block or palatal nerve block (if maxillary nerve block cannot be performed). Addition of dexmedetomidine to local anesthetic for suprazygomatic maxillary nerve block or, alternatively, as intravenous administration perioperatively is recommended. These interventions should be combined with a basic analgesic regimen including acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Of note, pre-incisional local anesthetic infiltration and dexamethasone were administered as a routine in several studies, however, because of limited procedure-specific evidence their contribution to pain relief after cleft palate surgery remains unknown.
CONCLUSION
The present review identified an evidence-based analgesic regimen for cleft palate surgery in pediatric patients.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022364788.
PubMed: 38124208
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2023-105024 -
BMC Anesthesiology Dec 2023Sympathetic stimulation associated with laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation (ETI) may lead to adverse cardio-/cerebro-vascular events in susceptible patients.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Nebulized dexmedetomidine for attenuating hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing surgeries under general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Sympathetic stimulation associated with laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation (ETI) may lead to adverse cardio-/cerebro-vascular events in susceptible patients. Nebulization is a novel route for dexmedetomidine administration providing a large surface area for absorption while avoiding bradycardia and hypotension associated with intravenous route. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine nebulization for attenuating hemodynamic response to ETI in adult patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered prospectively in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023403624). PubMed, Embase (OvidSP), Cochrane library, Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate) and Google Scholar were systematically searched from database inception until March 31, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and then full text against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effect of dexmedetomidine nebulization on hemodynamic response to ETI in adult patients undergoing surgeries under general anaesthesia were included. All studies reporting heart rate and systolic blood pressure at baseline and various time points after ETI were included. A pre-piloted data extraction form, Cochrane revised risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) tool, GRADE approach and RevMan 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) were used for data extraction, risk of bias assessment, rating certainty of evidence and data synthesis respectively. Mean difference and relative risk with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were used for continuous and dichotomous variables respectively.
RESULTS
Six RCTs randomized 480 patients with ASA I/II patients aged < 60 years of age and undergoing elective surgeries to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 240) or saline nebulization (n = 240). Except for one RCT which used 2 μg/kg, all other RCTs used dexmedetomidine dose of 1 μg /kg. Heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group at all the measured time points after laryngoscopy and ETI with the only exception being systolic blood pressure at 3 min [mean difference -13.86 (95% CI -30.01 to 2.99), p = 0.09]. Bradycardia and hypotension as adverse effects were absent across the included studies. However, only one-third of the included studies had a low risk of bias and strength of evidence was very low according to the GRADE assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo, premedication with dexmedetomidine nebulization was associated with lower HR and BP following ETI without any risk of bradycardia and hypotension. However, the strength of evidence was very poor and came from just one country. Future well designed and conducted studies in different populations are warranted.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023403624.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Dexmedetomidine; Laryngoscopy; Bradycardia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthesia, General; Hemodynamics; Hypotension; Intubation, Intratracheal
PubMed: 38082217
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02366-9 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Oct 2023Post-anaesthesia shivering is distressing and is observed after spinal and general anaesthesia. Nalbuphine, a partial mu-opioid receptor antagonist with kappa-opioid...
Efficacy of intravenous nalbuphine for managing post-anaesthesia shivering: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Post-anaesthesia shivering is distressing and is observed after spinal and general anaesthesia. Nalbuphine, a partial mu-opioid receptor antagonist with kappa-opioid receptor agonist properties, has been successfully used to manage post-anaesthesia shivering.
METHODS
After registering the review with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), we searched PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Ovid, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov with keywords for randomised controlled trials. The risk of bias-2 (RoB-2) scale was used to assess the quality of evidence. We also used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines to evaluate the strength of evidence and trial sequential analysis to validate the conclusions.
RESULTS
Of the 240 articles, 10 were considered eligible for review (700 patients, 350- nalbuphine, 350- control or placebo). When compared to placebo, the success rate of nalbuphine controlling shivering was significantly better (risk ratio [RR]: 2.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.91, 2.94; = 0.04, ² = 94%), but comparable to the control group drugs (opioids, dexmedetomidine, ondansetron, pethidine). Compared to placebo, shivering recurrence was significantly less with nalbuphine than with placebo (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.83; = 0.01, ² = 61%), but comparable with the control group. The incidence of postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) was significantly less with nalbuphine when compared to the control group (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.95; = 0.02, ² = 37%), but PONV in the nalbuphine group was comparable to placebo (RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.68, 2.12; = 0.54, ² = 0%). Other outcomes, like the grade of shivering and hypotension, were comparable between the nalbuphine and control groups.
CONCLUSION
Nalbuphine successfully controls post-anaesthesia shivering and reduces the recurrence of shivering.
PubMed: 38044924
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_482_23 -
BMC Anesthesiology Nov 2023Emergence agitation (EA) is a prevalent complication in children following general anesthesia. Several studies have assessed the relationship between melatonin or its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Emergence agitation (EA) is a prevalent complication in children following general anesthesia. Several studies have assessed the relationship between melatonin or its analogs and the incidence of pediatric EA, yielding conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of premedication with melatonin or its analogs on preventing EA in children after general anesthesia.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched until 25 November 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed EA in patients less than 18 years old who underwent general anesthesia. We excluded studies that did not use a specific evaluation to assess EA.
RESULTS
Nine studies (951 participants) were included in this systematic review. Melatonin significantly reduced the incidence of EA compared with placebos (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.61, P < 0.01) and midazolam (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, P < 0.01). Dexmedetomidine remarkably decreased the incidence of EA compared with melatonin (risk ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.73, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Melatonin premedication significantly decreases the incidence of EA compared with placebos and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine premedication has a stronger effect than melatonin in preventing EA. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted to reinforce and validate the conclusion on the efficacy of melatonin premedication in mitigating EA in pediatric patients.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Melatonin; Sevoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Premedication
PubMed: 38037000
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02356-x -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the...
Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; = 0.04; I = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; = 0.03; I = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; < 0.0001; I = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; = 0.0004; I = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; < 0.00001; I = 6%). This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.
PubMed: 38034988
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1241714 -
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