-
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 -
BMC Anesthesiology Nov 2023Nebulized drug delivery is commonly used in pediatric clinical practice. The growing number of literatures have reported the application of nebulized ketamine in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of the effects of ketamine via nebulization versus different pharmacological approaches in pediatric sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Nebulized drug delivery is commonly used in pediatric clinical practice. The growing number of literatures have reported the application of nebulized ketamine in pediatric sedation in recent years. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of nebulized ketamine versus different pharmacological approaches was conducted to estimate the effects of this technique in pediatric sedation.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to Feb 2023. All randomized controlled trials used nebulized ketamine as presurgical and pre-procedural sedatives in children were included. Sedative effects and various adverse events were considered as the outcomes.
RESULTS
Ten studies with 727 pediatric patients were enrolled. Compared to nebulized dexmedetomidine, using of ketamine via nebulization showed similar sedation satisfaction (54.79% vs. 60.69%, RR = 0.88, with 95%CI [0.61, 1.27]), success rate of parental separation (57.27% vs. 73.64%, RR = 0.81, with 95%CI [0.61, 1.08]), and mask acceptability (37.27% vs. 52.73%, RR = 0.71, with 95%CI [0.45, 1.10]). However, the using of combination of two medications (nebulized ketamine plus nebulized dexmedetomidine) was associated with better sedative satisfaction (33.82% vs. 68.11%, RR = 0.50, with 95%CI [0.27, 0.92]) and more satisfactory mask acceptance (45.59% vs. 71.01%, RR = 0.69, with 95%CI [0.56, 0.86]). Compared with nebulized ketamine, using of nebulized dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of emergence agitation (18.18% vs. 3.33%, RR = 4.98, with 95%CI [1.88, 13.16]).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on current evidences, compared to nebulized dexmedetomidine, nebulized ketamine provides inconspicuous advantages in pediatric sedation, and it has a relatively high incidence of emergence agitation. Combination of nebulized ketamine and dexmedetomidine might be considered as one preferred option in pediatric sedation as it can provide more satisfactory sedative effects. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding nebulized ketamine versus ketamine administered through other routes and nebulized ketamine versus other sedatives. The overall low or moderate quality of evidence evaluated by the GRADE system also calls for more high-quality studies with larger sample sizes in future.
RESEARCH REGISTRATION
The protocol of present study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023403226).
Topics: Child; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Ketamine; Emergence Delirium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 37974083
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02298-4 -
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 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain Jan 2024To summarize and appraise the use of dexmedetomidine in epidural labor analgesia, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To summarize and appraise the use of dexmedetomidine in epidural labor analgesia, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
We conducted the literature search about the RCTs of epidural labor analgesia with or without dexmedetomidine from inception until November 1, 2022, in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) within 2 hours after epidural intubation. The secondary outcomes included the duration of the first and second labor stages, Apgar score, umbilical blood pH, dosage of analgesics, and side effects.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs including 846 parturients were included. The VAS score of the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that of the control group at the time of 15 minutes (mean difference [MD] -1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.23, -0.59), 30 minutes (MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.70, -0.33), 60 minutes (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.36, -0.44), and 90 minutes (MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.16, -0.23). The incidence of pruritus in the dexmedetomidine group was lower than that of the control group (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.11, 0.74), but the incidence of maternal bradycardia was higher (MD 6.41, 95% CI 1.64, 25.04). There were no significant difference in other outcomes.
DISCUSSION
Dexmedetomidine combined with local anesthetic for epidural labor analgesia can improve the VAS score of parturients. Except for the increased incidence of maternal bradycardia, it seems to be safe for the parturients and fetuses.
Topics: Female; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Bradycardia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical
PubMed: 37855310
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001166 -
Pain Physician Oct 2023Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several concerns. Various studies have investigated the application prospect of using opioid-free general anesthesia, such as dexmedetomidine, as an opioid substitute.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore and highlight the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as an opioid substitute for opioid-free anesthesia.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
We screened for suitable clinical trials from electronic databases, including "PubMed," "Cochrane Library," "EMBASE," and "Web of Science." Eligible trials were included in this meta-analysis.
METHODS
The quality of the screened randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was determined using the risk of bias assessment criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We used the "Review Manager 5.3" and "Stata 10.0" software to perform the meta-analysis. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" approach.
RESULTS
For the analysis, we included 32 RCTs encompassing 2,509 patients. In the opioid-free group, the 2-hour postoperative pain score of patients (mean difference = -0.53, 95% CI: -1.00, -0.07; P = 0.02, I2=78%) was significantly lower compared to those in the opioid-based group. In addition, several patients required rescue analgesia (risk ratio = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.84, P < 0.05, I2 = 71%) and opioids postsurgery. However, the duration of extubation and postanesthesia care unit, as well as the incidences of bradycardia, were high in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as opioid-free general anesthesia.
LIMITATIONS
Subgroup analysis for different anesthesia-maintaining drugs had not been conducted. The heterogeneity did not reduce after subgroup analysis. Different doses of dexmedetomidine had not been evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate that opioid-free general anesthesia based on dexmedetomidine could be effective; however, prolonged extubation time and cardiovascular complications are a few risks associated with dexmedetomidine.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, General; Analgesia
PubMed: 37847917
DOI: No ID Found -
PloS One 2023Ropivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic that is used to treat postoperative pain. Adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine in regional anesthesia may prolong the duration... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine or ropivacaine alone on duration of postoperative analgesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Ropivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic that is used to treat postoperative pain. Adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine in regional anesthesia may prolong the duration of analgesia. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the duration and effect of ropivacaine alone vs. ropivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ropivacaine alone or ropivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine for regional anesthesia. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia, defined as the time from onset of the block to the time of the first analgesic request or initial pain report. Secondary outcomes were duration of sensory block, duration of motor block, consumption of sufentanil for analgesia, length of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with 1148 patients were included. Overall quality of the RCTs, as assessed by the Jadad scale, was high. The meta-analysis demonstrated that ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia from local anesthetics compared to ropivacaine alone (WMD: 4.14h; 95%CI: 3.29~5.0h; P<0.00001; I2 = 99%). There was evidence of high heterogeneity between studies. The duration of sensory and motor block was significantly increased, and consumption of sufentanil for analgesia and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced in patients who received ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine compared to ropivacaine alone. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to ropivacaine alone, ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia and sensory and motor block, and reduced consumption of sufentanil for analgesia and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, across an array of surgeries.
Topics: Humans; Ropivacaine; Dexmedetomidine; Sufentanil; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthetics, Local; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesia
PubMed: 37819905
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287296 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Oct 2023In recent years, dexmedetomidine has been studied as a cardioprotective agent. However, studies on its application in pediatric heart surgery using cardiopulmonary...
BACKGROUND
In recent years, dexmedetomidine has been studied as a cardioprotective agent. However, studies on its application in pediatric heart surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) remain limited. This systematic review aimed to provide information on the cardioprotective effect of dexmedetomidine in children undergoing heart surgery using CPB.
METHODS
The authors searched several databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, etc.) to identify all trials comparing the levels of myocardial injury via biomarkers, including pediatric patients undergoing heart surgery using CPB who received dexmedetomidine versus placebo or other anesthetic agents. Literatures from non-primary studies were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool was implemented to evaluate any potential biases. Information from eligible studies was summarized and correspondingly reviewed based on any quantitative outcomes.
RESULTS
We identified six trials composed of 419 participants, three of which (=241) showed significantly reduced interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels in the dexmedetomidine group, while one study (=40) showed no IL-6 difference between groups. Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and creatinine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB), as myocardial injury biomarkers, were found to be lower in two trials (=180). Despite several limitations hindering this review from pooling the data objectively, the majority of published studies indicated that dexmedetomidine is a seemingly efficacious agent protecting against cardiac injury during bypass.
CONCLUSIONS
These studies suggest that dexmedetomidine has cardioprotective effects through the lowering of cardiac injury biomarkers while improving its clinical outcomes after heart surgery using bypass.
PubMed: 37811026
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001170