-
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 -
PloS One 2023The use of dexmedetomidine rather than midazolam may improve ICU outcomes. We summarized the available recent evidence to further verify this conclusion. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of dexmedetomidine rather than midazolam may improve ICU outcomes. We summarized the available recent evidence to further verify this conclusion.
METHODS
An electronic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted. Risk ratios (RR) were used for binary categorical variables, and for continuous variables, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated, the effect sizes are expressed as 95% confidence intervals (CI), and trial sequential analysis was performed.
RESULTS
16 randomized controlled trials were enrolled 2035 patients in the study. Dexmedetomidine as opposed to midazolam achieved a shorter length of stay in ICU (MD = -2.25, 95%CI = -2.94, -1.57, p<0.0001), lower risk of delirium (RR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.50, 0.81, p = 0.0002), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (MD = -0.83, 95%CI = -1.24, -0.43, p<0.0001). The association between dexmedetomidine and bradycardia was also found to be significant (RR 2.21, 95%CI 1.31, 3.73, p = 0.003). We found no difference in hypotension (RR = 1.44, 95%CI = 0.87, 2.38, P = 0.16), mortality (RR = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.83, 1.25, P = 0.87), neither in terms of adverse effects requiring intervention, hospital length of stay, or sedation effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Combined with recent evidence, compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium, mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU, as well as reduced patient costs. But dexmedetomidine could not reduce mortality and increased the risk of bradycardia.
Topics: Humans; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Respiration, Artificial; Bradycardia; Intensive Care Units; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Delirium
PubMed: 37963140
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294292 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jul 2023The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Analysis of the efficacy of subclinical doses of esketamine in combination with propofol in non-intubated general anesthesia procedures - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room requires rapid onset of anesthesia, smoothness, quick recovery, and few postoperative complications. Traditional anesthetic regimens (propofol alone or propofol and opioids/dezocine/midazolam, etc.) have severe respiratory and circulatory depression and many systemic adverse effects. In this paper, we compare the effectiveness and safety of propofol and subclinical doses of esketamine with other traditional regimens applied to non-intubated general anesthesia through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed databases for the period from January 2000 to October 2022. We rigorously screened the literature according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, while risk assessment of the studies was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and statistical analysis of the data was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The main outcome indicators we evaluated were the various hemodynamic parameters and incidence of various adverse effects between the experimental and control groups after induction of anesthesia.
RESULTS
After a rigorous screening process, a total of 14 papers were included in the final meta-analysis. After risk bias assessment, three of the papers were judged as low risk and the others were judged as having moderate to high risk. Forest plots were drawn for a total of 16 indicators. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in HR' WMD 3.27 (0.66, 5.87), MAP' WMD 9.68 (6.13, 13.24), SBP' WMD 5.42 (2.11, 8.73), DBP' WMD 4.02 (1.15, 6.88), propofol dose' SMD -1.39 (-2.45, -0.33), hypotension' RR 0.30 (0.20, 0.45), bradycardia' RR 0.33 (0.14, 0.77), hypoxemia or apnea' RR 0.45 (0.23, 0.89), injection pain' RR 0.28 (0.13, 0.60), intraoperative choking' RR 0.62 (0.50, 0.77), intraoperative body movements' RR 0.48 (0.29, 0.81) and overall incidence of adverse reactions' RR 0.52 (0.39, 0.70).The indicators that were not statistically different were time to wake up' WMD - 0.55 (-1.29, 0.19), nausea and vomiting 0.84' RR (0.43, 1.67), headache and dizziness' RR 1.57 (0.98, 2.50) and neuropsychiatric reaction' RR 1.05 (0.28, 3.93). The funnel plot showed that the vast majority of studies fell within the funnel interval, but the symmetry was relatively poor.
CONCLUSION
In non-intubated general anesthesia, the combination of subclinical doses of esketamine and propofol did reduce circulatory and respiratory depression, injection pain, and other adverse effects, while the incidence of esketamine's own side effects such as neuropsychiatric reactions did not increase, and the combination of the two did not cause the occurrence of new and more serious adverse reactions, and the combination of the two was safe and effective.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPREO registration number: CRD 42022368966.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Ketamine; Anesthesia, General; Pain; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37479982
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02135-8 -
Brain and Behavior Aug 2023Elderly patients are prone to postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). The comparison of the effects of anesthetic adjuvant drugs on POCD in elderly patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Elderly patients are prone to postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). The comparison of the effects of anesthetic adjuvant drugs on POCD in elderly patients undergoing noncardiac surgery remains controversial.
METHODS
The final search took place on June 10, 2023. Randomized controlled trials including ketamine, ulinastatin, dexmedetomidine, parecoxib, and midazolam on the prevention and treatment of POCD in elderly undergoing noncardiac surgery were collected. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to quantitatively combine the evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 35 randomized trials were finally included in this systematic review, and the overall risk of bias is Allocation concealment. These anesthetic adjuvant drugs did not show significant differences in preventing POCD on postoperative days 1 and 7 compared with each other, but ulinastatin may be more effective in preventing POCD than dexmedetomidine [odds ratio (OR) = 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.10, 0.71)] and parecoxib [OR = 0.3, 95% CI = (0.10, 0.82 on postoperative day 3. The efficiency ranking results also find that ulinastatin and ketamine might provide better effects regarding POCD prevention.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketamine and ulinastatin might have better effects in preventing POCD in elderly patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our meta-analysis provided evidence for the use of ulinastatin and ketamine in the prevention of POCD in elderly patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Postoperative Complications; Ketamine; Dexmedetomidine; Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Anesthetics; Cognitive Dysfunction
PubMed: 37431799
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3149 -
Medicine Jun 2023The analgesic sedation of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for third molar surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The analgesic sedation of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for third molar surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for third molar surgery.
METHODS
We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through December 2022 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for third molar surgery. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam for third molar surgery, dexmedetomidine administration leads to comparable oxygen saturation (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.24 to 0.74; P = .31), heart rate (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.44; P = .37), SBP (SMD = -0.24; 95% CI = -0.57 to 0.09; P = .16), DBP (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.60 to 0.07; P = .12), as well as nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.05-6.61; P = .66).
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine may obtain the comparable sedation efficacy with midazolam for third molar surgery.
Topics: Humans; Midazolam; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Dexmedetomidine; Molar, Third; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37352026
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033155 -
PloS One 2023Nitrous oxide (N2O) with rapid analgesic effect is often used to relieve pain induced by diagnostic procedures. This review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nitrous oxide (N2O) with rapid analgesic effect is often used to relieve pain induced by diagnostic procedures. This review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of N2O in patients undergoing puncture biopsy.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and the ClinicalTrials.gov up to March, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they investigated the effect of N2O in adults undergoing puncture biopsy. The primary outcome was pain score. Secondary outcomes included anxiety score, patient satisfaction and side effects.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs with 1070 patients were included in the qualitative review, of which eleven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis suggested that compared with the controls (placebo, lidocaine and midazolam), N2O had better analgesic effect (MD -1.12, 95% CI -2.12 to -0.13, P = 0.03; I2 = 94%). In addition, N2O significantly alleviated patient anxiety (MD = -1.79, 95% CI -2.41 to -1.18, P<0.00001; I2 = 0%) and improved patient satisfaction (MD 1.81, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.50, P = 0.04; I2 = 92%). There was no significant difference regrading the risk of nausea (RR 2.56; 95% CI 0.70 to 9.31, P = 0.15; I2 = 0%), headache (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.33, P = 0.48; I2 = 46%), dizziness (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.13, P = 0.27; I2 = 0%) or euphoria (RR 2.67, 95% CI 0.81 to 8.79, P = 0.11; I2 = 8%) between the N2O group and the control group.
CONCLUSION
The present review suggested that N2O might be effective for pain management in patients undergoing puncture biopsy.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Nitrous Oxide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain; Analgesics; Biopsy, Needle
PubMed: 37279243
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286713 -
Cureus Apr 2023Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality with fatal outcomes if not treated well. The goal of this study was to... (Review)
Review
Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality with fatal outcomes if not treated well. The goal of this study was to compare the intramuscular and intravenous treatment of individuals with status epilepticus. A search was performed on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for articles published in the English language in peer-reviewed publications up to March 1, 2023. Studies were included if the treatment of status epileptics was compared either directly or indirectly between intramuscular and intravenous methods. In addition, relevant papers were manually screened for in the reference lists of the included studies. Non-duplicate articles were identified. Finally, five articles were included in the analysis, of which four were randomized controlled trials and one was a retrospective cohort study. The intramuscular midazolam group's time until the first seizure stopped was significantly shorter than the intravenous diazepam group's time (7.8 versus 11.2 minutes, respectively; p = 0.047). Moreover, the percentage of patients admitted was significantly lower in the intramuscular group than in the intravenous group (p = 0.01), but the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital did not differ significantly between the groups. Regarding seizure recurrence, the intramuscular group had fewer incidences of recurrent seizures. Finally, there were no appreciable differences in safety outcomes between the two treatment arms. During the analysis, different outcomes reported after the use of intramuscular and intravenous treatments in managing patients with status epilepticus were categorized. This categorization led to a clear view of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular versus intravenous treatments in managing status epilepticus patients. The information at hand indicates that intramuscular therapy is just as successful as intravenous therapy in treating people with status epilepticus. The availability, adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, cost, and whether it is included in hospital formularies are some of the factors to be taken into consideration when choosing the drug administration technique.
PubMed: 37252570
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38212 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2023Postictal agitation (PIA) after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a serious clinical problem estimated to occur in 7-36% of patients and recur in 19-54% of patients....
BACKGROUND
Postictal agitation (PIA) after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a serious clinical problem estimated to occur in 7-36% of patients and recur in 19-54% of patients. PIA has the potential to cause dangerous situations for the patient and staff members aside from the financial impact. To date, it is unclear which pharmacological interventions should be used in the management of PIA. This study aimed to systematically review the (preventative) pharmacological treatment options for PIA after ECT.
METHOD
A systematic search was done in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception until 10 November 2022. We included randomized trials with any pharmacological intervention or comparison and a predefined outcome measure on PIA. Studies that solely included patients with neurodegenerative disorders or stroke were excluded. Data quality was assessed with the RoB2 and GRADE. Meta-analysis was performed if possible. This study was registered on PROSPERO under CRD42021262323.
RESULTS
We screened 2,204 articles and included 14 studies. Dexmedetomidine was investigated in 10 studies. Alfentanil, lignocaine, esmolol, midazolam, propofol, ketamine, haloperidol, and diazepam were each studied in only one study. Meta-analysis revealed an OR of 0.45 (0.32-0.63), a moderate effect size, in favor of dexmedetomidine than placebo to prevent PIA with very low heterogeneity (I = 0%). The certainty of the evidence was moderate. The other interventions studied were all found to have low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION
For clinical practice, we believe that our results indicate that dexmedetomidine should be considered for the prevention of PIA in patients that have previously experienced PIA.
PubMed: 37151968
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1170931