-
Children (Basel, Switzerland) May 2023Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a valuable diagnostic tool but often requires sedation to complete, especially in children. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an a2 agonist,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a valuable diagnostic tool but often requires sedation to complete, especially in children. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an a2 agonist, for which there are experimental findings that support its potential neuroprotective effects. Given the potential risks of anesthetic drugs, we ran this study to examine DEX's effectiveness and cardiopulmonary safety as a sedative drug for children undergoing MRI.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic research was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 6th/2022 and involving children undergoing MRI who received DEX as sedative medication. The records which met the including criteria, after indexing via the PRISMA chart and assessing for bias, were processed, and a meta-analysis was carried out with the random effects method.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included. Out of 6204 measurements obtained, in 4626, it was planned for the participants to only receive DEX (measure group) as an anesthetic drug throughout the procedure. The participants' mean age was 57 months (Ι = 4%, τ = 0.5317, = 0.40). A total of 5.6% (95% CI: 0.6-14.1%, I = 98%, < 0.01) of the patients needed a second dose of DEX. In total, 6% (95% CI: 1-15%, I = 93%, τ = 0.0454, < 0.01) required the administration of another drug, besides DEX, to complete the imaging (sedation failure). The effectiveness of the only-DEX method was 99% (95% CI: 97.5-100%, I = 81%, τ = 0.0107, < 0.01). The whole rate of adverse events was 15% (95% CI: 9.3-21.5%, I = 92%, < 0.01). Hypotension was reported in 8.7% of the cases (95% CI: 3.1-16.4%, I = 84%, < 0.01), hypertension in 1.1% (95% CI: 0-5.4%, I = 89%, < 0.01), bradycardia in 10% (95% CI: 4-18%, I = 95%, < 0.01) and desaturation in 1.2% (95% CI: 0-4%, I = 68%, < 0.01). There was no statistically significant incidence in respiratory rate decrease (comparing the children who received DEX to their baseline). Five cases of vomiting and one of apnea were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS
Given that DEX seems to be an effective as well as respiratory and hemodynamically safe drug, it may be a future spotlight in (pediatric) sedation for imaging procedures such as MRI.
PubMed: 37371178
DOI: 10.3390/children10060948 -
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 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Dexmedetomidine (DEX), an adjuvant anesthetic, may improve the clinical outcomes of liver transplantation (LT). We summarized the relevant clinical trials of DEX in...
Dexmedetomidine (DEX), an adjuvant anesthetic, may improve the clinical outcomes of liver transplantation (LT). We summarized the relevant clinical trials of DEX in patients undergoing LT. As of 30 January 2023, we searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trial.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The main outcomes were postoperative liver and renal function. The random effect model or fixed effect model was used to summarize the outcomes across centers based on the differences in heterogeneity. The meta-analysis included nine studies in total. Compared with the control group, the DEX group had a reduced warm ischemia time (MD-4.39; 95% CI-6.74--2.05), improved postoperative liver (peak aspartate transferase: MD-75.77, 95% CI-112.81--38.73; peak alanine transferase: MD-133.51, 95% CI-235.57--31.45) and renal function (peak creatinine: MD-8.35, 95% CI-14.89--1.80), and a reduced risk of moderate-to-extreme liver ischemia-reperfusion injury (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.60). Finally, the hospital stay of these patients was decreased (MD-2.28, 95% CI-4.00--0.56). Subgroup analysis of prospective studies showed that DEX may have better efficacy in living donors and adult recipients. DEX can improve short-term clinical outcomes and shorten the hospital stay of patients. However, the long-term efficacy of DEX and its interfering factors deserves further study. identifier CRD42022351664.
PubMed: 37292152
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1188011 -
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine Jun 2023The most common critical incidents in pediatric anesthesia are perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs). The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the preventive...
The most common critical incidents in pediatric anesthesia are perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs). The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on PRAEs in children. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α-adrenoceptor agonist that provides sedation, anxiolysis and analgesic effects without causing respiratory depression. Dexmedetomidine can diminish airway and circulatory responses during extubation in children. Original randomized controlled trial data were analyzed to study the putative effect of dexmedetomidine on PRAEs. By searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PubMed, a total of ten randomized controlled trials (1,056 patients) was identified. PRAEs included cough, breath holding, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, desaturation (percutaneous oxygen saturation <95%), body movement and pulmonary rales. Compared with placebo, dexmedetomidine resulted in a significant reduction of incidence of cough, breath holding, laryngospasm and emergence agitation. The incidence of PRAEs was significantly reduced in dexmedetomidine compared with active comparators group. Moreover, dexmedetomidine decreased heart rate and increased post-anesthesia care unit stay duration by 11.18 min. The present analysis suggested that dexmedetomidine improved the airway function and decreased risks associated with general anesthesia in children. The present data demonstrated that dexmedetomidine may be a good choice to prevent PRAEs in children.
PubMed: 37206556
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2023.11985 -
European Review For Medical and... May 2023We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to compare the efficacy of perineural vs. intravenous dexmedetomidine as local anesthetic adjuvant. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to compare the efficacy of perineural vs. intravenous dexmedetomidine as local anesthetic adjuvant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two researchers searched MEDLINE, OVID, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science and Wanfang data for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of intravenous vs. perineural injection of dexmedetomidine as a local anesthetic adjuvant in prolongation of analgesia for peripheral nerve block, without any language restrictions.
RESULTS
We identified 14 randomized controlled trials. The results revealed that the duration of analgesia [Standard mean difference (SMD): -0.55, 95% CI, (-1.05, -0.05) p=0.032, I2=85.4%] and the duration of sensory block [SMD: -2.68, 95% CI, (-4.53, -0.83) p=0.004, I2=97.3%], were significantly longer, the onset time of motor block [SMD: 0.65, 95% CI, (0.02, 1.27) p=0.043, I2=85.0%] was shorter in the perineural dexmedetomidine group, when compared with the systematic dexmedetomidine group. There was no significant difference in the duration of motor block [SMD: -0.32, 95% CI, (-1.11, -0.46) p=0.416, I2=89.8%] and the onset time of sensory block [SMD: 0.09, 95% CI, (-0.33, 0.52) p=0.668, I2=59.9%] between the two groups. Meanwhile, perineural dexmedetomidine reduced analgesic consumption in 24 hours [SMD: 0.43, 95% CI, (0.06, 0.80) p=0.022, I2=58.7%] compared with the intravenous dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis currently generates the evidence that perineural dexmedetomidine administration offers advantages not only in prolonging the duration of analgesia and sensory block, but also in shortening the onset time of motor block, when compared with the intravenous administration.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Local; Analgesia; Administration, Intravenous; Peripheral Nerves
PubMed: 37203838
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202305_32321 -
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 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2023Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is identified as a major concern after surgery as it can lead to increased morbidity and prolonged hospital stay. A suitable...
Pharmacological interventions for reducing catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is identified as a major concern after surgery as it can lead to increased morbidity and prolonged hospital stay. A suitable agent to prevent and treat postoperative CRBD is not yet established, and the literature is scarce in this regard. So, we aimed to find the efficacy of various drugs in preventing CRBD after elective surgery.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for the study, and electronic databases like PubMed Central, Cochrane database and Embase were searched. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Review Manager 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis revealed that antimuscarinic agents were able to lower the incidence of CRBD significantly at 0 hour, 1 hour, 2 hours and 6 hours ( < 0.01) after the surgery. Tramadol was effective at 1 hour, 2 hours and 6 hours postoperatively ( < 0.01), whereas ketamine was effective at 2 and 6 hours ( < 0.01) postoperatively. Antiepileptic drugs (pregabalin and gabapentin) were able to lower the incidence of CRBD at 0 hour ( < 0.01), 1 hour ( < 0.05), 2 hours ( < 0.05) and 6 hours ( < 0.01) postoperatively while dexmedetomidine at 0 hour ( < 0.01) and 2 hours ( < 0.01) after the surgery. Injections paracetamol, amikacin and diphenhydramine were also shown to reduce the incidence of CRBD in separate randomised controlled trials.
CONCLUSION
The current meta-analysis showed that antimuscarinic agents, tramadol, pregabalin, gabapentin, paracetamol and dexmedetomidine are effective in significantly reducing the incidence of postoperative CRBD.
PubMed: 37122936
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_200_22 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine in prolonging postoperative analgesia and reducing pain scores in children... (Review)
Review
Analgesic effect of ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine in the postoperative period in children undergoing ultrasound-guided single-shot sacral epidural block: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine in prolonging postoperative analgesia and reducing pain scores in children undergoing surgery.
METHODS
Five online databases were searched for RCTs on postoperative analgesia of pediatric patients undergoing ultrasound-guided single-shot sacral epidural block with dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine up to January 2, 2023. Pain score and sedation score at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h after the operation, the time of first receiving additional analgesic drugs, and the number of postoperative adverse effects were selected to compare the efficacy and safety of combined treatment with ropivacaine alone for pediatrics. The standard mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated by using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 295 articles were retrieved, but only 20 records were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine for sacral epidural block in children undergoing ultrasound-guided single-shot sacral epidural block had a more prolonged analgesia effect (SMD = 3.47, 95%CI: 2.80, 4.14). There were lower analgesia scores at 2 h(T), 4 h(T), 8 h(T), 12 h(T), and 24 h(T) in postoperative period ( : SMD = -1.02, 95%CI: -1.31, -0.72; : SMD = -1.02, 95%CI: -1.32, -0.72; : SMD = -0.84, 95%CI: -1.12, -0.56; : SMD = -0.61, 95%CI: -1.03, -0.20; : SMD = -1.03, 95%CI: -1.28, -0.78). And the incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups (OR = 0.84, 95%CI: 0.59, 1.18).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review and meta-analysis support that dexmedetomidine, as an adjuvant to ropivacaine, can improve postoperative analgesia of surgery and significantly prolong the analgesic time in children, with a similar incidence rate of adverse symptoms when compared with ropivacaine alone.
PubMed: 37063658
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1099699 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2023Chronic postsurgical pain is common after surgery. Identification of non-opioid analgesics with potential for preventing chronic postsurgical pain is important, although... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic postsurgical pain is common after surgery. Identification of non-opioid analgesics with potential for preventing chronic postsurgical pain is important, although trials are often underpowered. Network meta-analysis offers an opportunity to improve power and to identify the most promising therapy for clinical use and future studies.
METHODS
We conducted a PRISMA-NMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-opioid analgesics for chronic postsurgical pain. Outcomes included incidence and severity of chronic postsurgical pain, serious adverse events, and chronic opioid use.
RESULTS
We included 132 randomised controlled trials with 23 902 participants. In order of efficacy, i.v. lidocaine (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.17-0.58), ketamine (OR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.44-0.92), gabapentinoids (OR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.47-0.92), and possibly dexmedetomidine (OR 0.36; 95% CrI 0.12-1.00) reduced the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain at ≤6 months. There was little available evidence for chronic postsurgical pain at >6 months, combinations agents, chronic opioid use, and serious adverse events. Variable baseline risk was identified as a potential violation to the network meta-analysis transitivity assumption, so results are reported from a fixed value of this, with analgesics more effective at higher baseline risk. The confidence in these findings was low because of problems with risk of bias and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS
Lidocaine (most effective), ketamine, and gabapentinoids could be effective in reducing chronic postsurgical pain ≤6 months although confidence is low. Moreover, variable baseline risk might violate transitivity in network meta-analysis of analgesics; this recommends use of our methods in future network meta-analyses.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42021269642.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Network Meta-Analysis; Ketamine; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Lidocaine; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 37059625
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.02.041 -
BMC Anesthesiology Apr 2023
PubMed: 37013505
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02070-8