Off-label use of dexmedetomidine in paediatric anaesthesiology: an international survey of 791 (paediatric) anaesthesiologists

Association of dexmedetomidine use with haemodynamics, postoperative recovery, and cost in paediatric anaesthesia: a hospital registry study

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine utilisation in paediatric patients is increasing. We hypothesised that intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine in children is associated with longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay, higher healthcare costs, and side-effects.

METHODS

We analysed data from paediatric patients (aged 0-12 yr) between 2016 and 2021 in the Bronx, NY, USA. We matched our cohort with the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Kids' Inpatient Database (HCUP-KID).

RESULTS

Among 18 104 paediatric patients, intraoperative dexmedetomidine utilisation increased from 51.7% to 85.7% between 2016 and 2021 (P<0.001). Dexmedetomidine was dose-dependently associated with a longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay (adjusted absolute difference [ADadj] 19.7 min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.0-21.4 min; P<0.001, median length of stay of 122 vs 98 min). The association was magnified in children aged ≤2 yr undergoing short (≤60 min) ambulatory procedures (ADadj 33.3 min; 95% CI: 26.3-40.7 min; P<0.001; P-for-interaction <0.001). Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher total hospital costs of USD 1311 (95% CI: USD 835-1800), higher odds of intraoperative mean arterial blood pressure below 55 mm Hg (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 1.27; 95% CI: 1.16-1.39; P<0.001), and higher odds of heart rate below 100 beats min-1 (ORadj 1.32; 95% CI: 1.21-1.45; P<0.001), with no preventive effects on emergence delirium requiring postanaesthesia i.v. sedatives (ORadj 1.67; 95% CI: 1.04-2.68; P=0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine is associated with unwarranted haemodynamic effects, longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay, and higher costs, without preventive effects on emergence delirium.

An evaluation of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam in pediatric sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.

METHODS

The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I2 = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I2 = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I2 = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I2 = 30%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.

Combination of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Sedation in Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Intranasal dexmedetomidine associated with midazolam has been used for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging studies because immobility is a fundamental requirement for correct execution. Many studies have shown dexmedetomidine to be a good option for non-operating room sedation. However, identifying the optimal dose remains a key challenge, especially for pediatric patients.

METHODS

All medical records of 139 pediatric patients who underwent sedation for magnetic resonance imaging studies between September 2021 and November 2022 at the University Hospital of Salerno, Italy, were retrospectively reviewed about success rate and adverse events. Our protocol required dosing 30 minutes before the procedure. Patients weighing up to 40 kg received intranasal dexmedetomidine (3 μg/kg) with intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg). Those weighing more than 40 kg received intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) with midazolam orally (0.3 mg/kg; maximum dose, 15 mg).

RESULTS

A total of 139 pediatric patients, with age range between 2 months and 16 years, median (95% confidence interval) of 3 (3-5) years, and weight range between 4 and 70 kg, median (95% confidence interval) of 19 (15-24) kg, were reviewed.The procedure was satisfactorily completed in 93.5% (130 patients) ( P < 0.01). Only 9 (6.5%) patients completed the procedure with general anesthesia; there are hot adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience with association of intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam has a high success rate, with high effectiveness and safety.

Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric patients: an updated meta-analysis with trial-sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is routinely used as preanesthetic medication in pediatric patients. Recently, dexmedetomidine has emerged as an alternative as a premedicant. We aimed to add more evidence about the efficacy and safety of two common routes of administration for pediatric premedication: oral midazolam versus intranasal dexmedetomidine.

METHODS

We systematically searched Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) involving patients ≤ 18 years old undergoing preanesthetic medication and comparing intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral midazolam. Risk Ratio (RR) and Mean Difference (MD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) were computed using a random effects model. Trial-sequential analyses were performed to assess inconsistency.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs (1,239 patients) were included. Mean age was 5.5 years old, and most procedures were elective. There was no difference in satisfactory induction or mask acceptance (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.37; p = 0.11). There was a higher incidence of satisfactory separation from parents in the dexmedetomidine group (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.13-1.74; p = 0.002). Dexmedetomidine was also associated with a reduction in the incidence of emergence agitation (RR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.14-0.88; p = 0.02). Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were marginally lower in the dexmedetomidine group but without clinical repercussions.

CONCLUSION

Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal dexmedetomidine demonstrated better separation from parents and lower incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric premedication, without a difference in satisfactory induction. Intranasal dexmedetomidine may be a safe and effective alternative to oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine Compared to Other Needle-Free Pharmacological Sedation Methods in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Imaging Procedures

BACKGROUND

Pediatric patients often require sedation during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) to ensure stillness and minimize stress. This meta-analysis compared the effectiveness and safety of 3 sedative agents-dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and chloral hydrate-for pediatric MRI/CT sedation.

METHODS

Six studies with a total of 633 patients were included in the analysis. Quality assessment revealed varying levels of bias risk. Dexmedetomidine exhibited a significantly higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (risk ratio [RR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.29-0.64]), but no statistically significant difference compared to chloral hydrate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.60-1.45]). Chloral hydrate also showed a higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.25-0.83]). The onset of sedation time did not significantly differ between the 3 agents.

RESULTS

The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly higher incidence of bradycardia compared to the chloral hydrate group (RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.05-0.59]), but no significant difference compared to the midazolam group (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.06-1.26]). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of nausea and vomiting between the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine demonstrates effectiveness in pediatric MRI/CT sedation, offering advantages over midazolam and similar efficacy to chloral hydrate. Careful cardiovascular monitoring is essential during administration, particularly in patients with congenital heart disease. Sublingual and intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine is a viable option with high bioavailability. This meta-analysis contributes valuable insights into refining sedation protocols for pediatric imaging procedures, emphasizing efficacy and safety considerations.

Delayed Sequence Intubation in Children, Why Not?

Tracheal intubation in pediatric patients is a clinical scenario that can quickly become an emergency. Complication rates can potentially reach up to 60% in rapid sequence intubation. An alternate to this is delayed sequence intubation, which may reduce potential complications-mostly hypoxemia-and can be especially useful in non-cooperative children. This technique consists of the prior airway and oxygenation optimization. This is done through sedation using agents that preserve ventilatory function and protective reflexes and continuous oxygen therapy-prior and after the anesthetic induction-using nasal prongs. The objective of this narrative review is to provide a broader perspective on delayed sequence intubation by defining the concept and indications; reviewing its safety, effectiveness, and complications; and describing the anesthetic agents and oxygen therapy techniques used in this procedure.

Study of caudal ropivacaine with or without dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia in paediatric genitourinary infraumbilical surgery: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

Various studies have described the use of Dexmedetomidine with local anaesthetic drugs in caudal blocks for the management of postoperative pain in children. This study was designed to determine the analgesic effect of caudal Dexmedetomidine with Ropivacaine in paediatric genitourinary infraumbilical surgeries. Postoperative analgesic effects of caudal Ropivacaine with or without Dexmedetomidine in paediatric genitourinary infraumbilical were evaluated. This study was a prospective, interventional, comparative study conducted after ethical approval from the institute. Informed expressed consent was taken from each patient's guardians. The sample size was calculated to be 31 in each group. The two groups were randomly assigned and the intervention involved caudal epidural injection with either Ropivacaine combined with Dexmedetomidine or Ropivacaine with Normal Saline. Children receiving Ropivacaine with Dexmedetomidine had a significantly prolonged duration of analgesia compared to those receiving Ropivacaine alone (840.35 ± 149.97 vs. 412.90 ± 93.46 min, P < 0.001). Postoperative rFLACC scores were consistently lower in the Dexmedetomidine group, indicating better pain control (P < 0.05 at 6, 12, and 24 h). Total analgesic consumption was lower in the Dexmedetomidine group (500.67 ± 212.92 vs. 741.75 ± 268.06 mg, P < 0.01). No significant differences in adverse effects were observed between the groups. The addition of Dexmedetomidine to Ropivacaine in caudal epidural significantly prolongs analgesia, improves pain control, and reduces analgesic consumption in paediatric genitourinary infraumbilical surgeries.

Predictors of pediatric sedation failure with initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam

BACKGROUND

To assess the sedative failure rate over different dose combinations of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for procedural sedation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. Four groups were established according to the initial dose of sedatives. The primary outcome was the sedative failure rate for different doses of the two-drug combination. The risk factors associated with sedation failure were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2165 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, 394 children were classified as sedation failure after the initial dose of a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. Although the initial doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam administered to patients varied widely, no significant differences were detected in the sedation outcomes among the groups. Multivariate analysis showed that sedation history, a history of sedation failure, and echocardiography were independent risk factors for sedation failure after an initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. In contrast, patients undergoing lung function and MRI were more likely to be successfully sedated.

CONCLUSION

A combination of low-dose intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam provides adequate sedation efficacy without any increase in side effects, especially for patients undergoing MRI or lung function examination.

IMPACT

This is an original article about the risk factors of sedation failure with an initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for procedure sedation. For patients undergoing echocardiogram, it is better to choose other sedatives, while a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam is a good option for patients undergoing MRI or lung function. The selection of sedative drugs should be personalized according to different procedures.

Clinical observation of dexmedetomidine nasal spray in the treatment of sleep disorders on the first night after undergoing maxillofacial surgery: a single-center double-blind randomized controlled study

Purpose: Dexmedetomidine exerts a sedative effect by promoting the sleep pathway endogenously and producing a state similar to N2 sleep. This study aimed to study the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine nasal spray in the treatment of postoperative sleep disturbance. Methods: This study enrolled 120 participants [men and women; age, 18-40 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, I or II] who underwent maxillofacial surgery under general anesthesia through nasotracheal intubation. The participants were randomly divided into three groups: blank control group (BC group), 1.0 μg/kg dexmedetomidine group (1.0 Dex group), and 1.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine group (1.5 Dex group), with 40 patients allocated to each group. At 21:30 on the night after the operation, the intervention groups were administered their corresponding doses of dexmedetomidine nasal spray. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scale was used to evaluate the baseline sleep status of participants 1 month preoperatively and on the night after the operation. Polysomnography (PSG) was used to record the sleep status on the night after the operation. We recorded the rescue times of sedative and analgesic drugs on the first night after surgery, adverse reactions, total hospital stay duration, and total costs. Results: Compared with patients in the BC group, those in 1.0 Dex and 1.5 Dex groups had longer N2 sleep duration, were awake for a shorter time after dose administration, woke up less often, and had significantly improved sleep efficiency (p < 0.05). Compared with the BC group, the PSQI scores of 1.0 Dex and 1.5 Dex groups were significantly lower on the night after operation, and the proportion of PSQI > 5 was significantly lower (p < 0.05). Compared with patients in the BC group and the 1.0 Dex group, those in the 1.5 Dex group had significantly prolonged N3 sleep, reduced frequency of requiring sufentanil rescue, lower incidence of sore throat after surgery, and shorter average length of hospital stay (all, p < 0.05). Conclusion: The sleep quality of participants on the night after having undergone maxillofacial surgery was safely and effectively improved by 1.0-1.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine atomized nasal sprays. Notably, only the latter could prolong N3 sleep. Level of Evidence II: Evidence was obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial

BACKGROUND

Children under 6 years who need magnetic resonance imaging usually require sedation to obtain best quality images, but the optimal sedation protocol remains to be determined. In 2018, we showed a 22% interruption in image acquisition during magnetic resonance imaging when performing a propofol-based sedation using a bolus approach. As non-pharmacological premedication is often insufficient to reduce the anxiety of children related to parental separation, pharmacological premedication may be useful to facilitate the induction of anesthesia. In our institution, effective premedication is obtained oral intake of midazolam, though its administration relies on patients' compliance and could also lead to paradoxical reaction. Dexmedetomidine has a safe profile in the pediatric population and can therefore represent an interesting alternative. The primary objective of this trial is to demonstrate the superiority of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam as premedication in reducing the occurrence of any event requiring temporary or definitive interruption of the examination to allow anesthesiologist intervention in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging under propofol sedation.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, superiority trial, we planned to include 250 patients, aged 6 months to 6 years, undergoing a scheduled magnetic resonance imaging requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist. After informed consent, the patients will be randomized to receive either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication. The data will be analyzed in intention to treat, using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z, chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney U tests. A P-value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

The MIDEX MRI study will assess the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam to improve the quality of a propofol-based sedation prior to magnetic resonance imaging, without negative repercussion on the postoperative period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05192629 . Registered on 14 January 2022. Protocol version 2.1.

Median effective dose of esketamine for intranasal premedication in children with congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Esketamine is commonly used as a premedication for its sedation effect. However, the proper dosage for intranasal use in children with congenital heart disease (CHD) has not been determined. This study aimed to estimate the median effective dose (ED₅₀) of esketamine for intranasal premedication in children with CHD.

METHODS

Thirty-four children with CHD who needed premedication in March 2021 were enrolled. Intranasal esketamine was initiated at a dose of 1 mg/kg. Based on the outcome of sedation in the previous patient, the dose for the subsequent patient was either increased or reduced by 0.1 mg/kg, which was adjusted between each child. Successful sedation was defined as a Ramsay Sedation Scale score ≥ 3 and Parental Separation Anxiety Scale score ≤ 2. The required ED₅₀ of esketamine was calculated using the modified sequential method. Non-invasive blood pressure, heart rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen, sedation onset time, and adverse reactions were recorded at 5 min intervals after drug administration.

RESULTS

The 34 children enrolled had a mean age of 22.5 ± 16.4 (4-54) months and a mean weight of 11.2 ± 3.6 (5.5-20.5) kg; American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-III. The ED₅₀ of intranasal S(+)-ketamine (esketamine) required for preoperative sedation in pediatric patients with CHD was 0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.86) mg/kg, and the mean sedation onset time was 16.39 ± 7.24 min. No serious adverse events, such as respiratory distress, nausea, and vomiting were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The ED₅₀ of intranasal esketamine was 0.7 mg/kg, which was safe and effective for preoperative sedation in pediatric patients with CHD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Network (ChiCTR2100044551) on 24/03/2021.

Comparison of single-shot nebuliser protocol between dexmedetomidine and ketamine in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

Sedation for magnetic resonance imaging mandates deep sedation to ensure patient immobility. The nebulised route of drug delivery carries the advantage of good bioavailability and safety profile. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nebulised dexmedetomidine and ketamine for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging.

METHODS

A total of 71 children, aged two to eight years scheduled for outpatient magnetic resonance imaging were randomly allocated to receive nebulised dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg (group D) or nebulised ketamine 2 mg/kg (group K) 30min before magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Nebulised dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) resulted in faster onset and significantly better sedation scores with rapid clear-headed recovery. Ketamine resulted in better venepuncture scores but was associated with more neuropsychological events at recovery.

CONCLUSION

Nebulised dexmedetomidine at 2 μg/kg provides rapid onset of satisfactory sedation, with good parental separation and a quicker and more clear-headed recovery, allowing for a smooth magnetic resonance imaging experience.

Combined use of intranasal Dexmedetomidine and an oral novel formulation of Midazolam for sedation of young children during brain MRI examination: a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different dosages of intranasal Dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with oral midazolam for sedation of young children during brain MRI examination.

METHODS

Included in this prospective single-blind randomized controlled trial were 156 children aged from 3 months to 6 years and weighing from 4 to 20 Kg with ASA I-II who underwent brain MRI examination between March 2021 and February 2022. Using the random number table method, they were divided into group A (using 3 ug/kg intranasal DEX plus 0.2 mg/Kg oral midazolam) and group B (using 2 ug/kg intranasal DEX plus 0.2 mg/Kg oral Midazolam). The one-time success rate of sedation, sedation onset time, recovery time, overall sedation time, and occurrence of adverse reactions during MRI examination were compared between the two groups. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and percutaneous SpO₂before and after drug administration were observed in both groups. Differences in sedation scores between the two groups were compared before intranasal drug administration (T0), 10 min after drug administration (T1), at the time of falling asleep (T2), at the end of examination (T3), and at the time of recovery (T4).

RESULTS

The one-time success rate of sedation in group A and B was 88.31% and 79.75% respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The sedation onset time in group A was 24.97±16.94 min versus 27.92±15.83 min in group B, and the recovery time was 61.88±22.18 min versus 61.16±28.16 min, both showing no significance difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Children in both groups exhibited good drug tolerance without presenting nausea and vomiting, hypoxia, or bradycardia and hypotension that needed clinical interventions. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of abnormal HR, MAP or other adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

3 ug/kg or 2 ug/kg intranasal DEX in combination with 0.2 mg/kg oral Midazolam both are safe and effective for sedation of children undergoing MRI examination with the advantages of fast-acting and easy application.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

It was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1800015038 ) on 02/03/2018.

Improved postoperative recovery profile in pediatric oral rehabilitation with low-dose dexmedetomidine as an opioid substitute for general anesthesia: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

Background

Low-dose dexmedetomidine may be a suitable alternative to opioids for pediatric ambulatory procedures under general anesthesia (GA). However, the recovery profile remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the effects of low-dose dexmedetomidine on the recovery profile of children.

Methods

Seventy-two children undergoing ambulatory oral rehabilitation under GA were randomly and equally distributed into two groups (D and F). Group D received an infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.25 µg/kg for 4 min for induction, followed by maintenance of 0.4 µg/kg/h. Group F received an infusion of fentanyl 1 µg/kg over 4 min for induction, followed by maintenance at 1 µg/kg/h. The primary outcome was the extubation time. The secondary outcomes were awakening time, end-tidal sevoflurane (ET-Sevo) requirement, change in hemodynamic parameters, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario pain scale (CHEOPS) score, length of PACU stay, and incidence of adverse events.

Results

Statistically significant differences were observed in the recovery profile between the groups: the median time for extubation was 3.65 (3.44-6.2) vs. 6.25 (4.21-7) minutes in groups D vs. F (P = 0.001), respectively, while the corresponding awakening times were 19 (18.75-21) and 22.5 (22-24) minutes, respectively (P < 0.001). The mean ET-Sevo was low in group D (1.1 vs. 1.2; P < 0.001). The heart rate was significantly low across all time points in group D, without resulting in bradycardia. The median RASS and CHEOPS scores were also significantly lower in group D. No significant differences were observed in the mean arterial pressure, incidence of adverse events, or length of PACU stay.

Conclusion

Low-dose dexmedetomidine was more effective than fentanyl as an opioid substitute at providing a better recovery profile in pediatric ambulatory oral rehabilitation under GA. Dexmedetomidine also significantly reduced sevoflurane consumption without causing adverse events or prolonging hospital stay.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine in Infants and Young Children

BACKGROUND

Intranasal dexmedetomidine provides noninvasive, effective procedural sedation for pediatric patients, and has been widely used in clinical practice. However, the dosage applied has varied fourfold in pediatric clinical studies. To validate an appropriate dosing regimen, this study investigated the pharmacokinetics of intranasal dexmedetomidine in Chinese children under 3 yr old.

METHODS

Intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 µg · kg-1 was administered to children with simple vascular malformations undergoing interventional radiological procedures. A population pharmacokinetic analysis with data from an optimized sparse-sampling design was performed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Clearance was modeled using allometric scaling and a sigmoid postmenstrual age maturation model. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess the different dosing regimens.

RESULTS

A total of 586 samples from 137 children aged 3 to 36 months were included in the trial. The data were adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order elimination. Body weight with allometric scaling and maturation function were significant covariates of dexmedetomidine clearance. The pharmacokinetic parameters for the median subjects (weight 10 kg and postmenstrual age 101 weeks) in the authors' study were apparent central volume of distribution 7.55 l, apparent clearance of central compartment 9.92 l · h-1, apparent peripheral volume of distribution 7.80 l, and apparent intercompartmental clearance 61.7 l · h-1. The simulation indicated that at the dose of 2 µg · kg-1, 95% of simulated individuals could achieve a target therapeutic concentration of 0.3 ng · ml-1 within 20 min, and the average peak concentration of 0.563 ng · ml-1 could be attained at 61 min.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic characteristics of intranasal dexmedetomidine were evaluated in Chinese pediatric patients aged between 3 and 36 months. An evidence-based dosing regimen at 2 µg · kg-1 could achieve a preset therapeutic threshold of mild to moderate sedation that lasted for up to 2 h.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Best Evidence-Based Dosing Recommendations for Dexmedetomidine for Premedication and Procedural Sedation in Pediatrics: Outcome of a Risk-Benefit Analysis By the Dutch Pediatric Formulary

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is currently off-label for use in pediatric clinical care worldwide. Nevertheless, it is frequently prescribed to pediatric patients as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia or for procedural sedation. There is ample literature on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in this vulnerable patient population, but there is a general lack of consensus on dosing. In this project, we aimed to use the standardized workflow of the Dutch Pediatric Formulary to establish best evidence-based pediatric dosing guidelines for dexmedetomidine as premedication and for procedural sedation.

METHOD

The available literature on dexmedetomidine in pediatrics was reviewed in order to address the following three questions: (1) What is the right dose? (2) What is known about efficacy? (3) What is known about safety? Relevant literature was compiled into a risk-benefit analysis document. A team of clinical experts critically appraised the analysis and the proposed dosing recommendations.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered via the intravenous or intranasal route. Clearance is age dependent, warranting higher doses in infants to reach similar exposure as in adults. Dexmedetomidine use results in satisfactory sedation at parent separation, adequate sedation and a favorable recovery profile. The safety profile is good and comparable to adults, with dose-related hemodynamic effects.

CONCLUSION

Following the structured approach of the Dutch Pediatric Formulary, best evidence-based dosing recommendations were proposed for dexmedetomidine, used as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia (intranasal dose) and for procedural sedation (intranasal and intravenous dose) in pediatric patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the sedative efficacy and safety of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with oral chloral hydrate for Computed tomography (CT) or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examination in Children.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China WanFang Databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating intranasal DEX (test group) vs. oral chloral hydrate (control group) in pediatric CT/MRI examinations up to December 30, 2021. The data were analyzed using Stata 15.0 software.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 1,846 children were identified. The meta-analysis results showed that the success rate of sedation (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.03-1.26, P = 0.011), sedation onset time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.87, 95% CI: -1.42 to -0.31, P = 0.002], sedation duration (WMD = -9.05, 95% CI:-14.69 to -3.42, P = 0.002), time to awakening (WMD = -9.75, 95% CI:-17.57 to -1.94, P = 0.014), and incidence of nausea and vomiting [relative risk (RR) = 0.09, 95% CI:0.04-0.23, P < 0.001) of the test group were significantly better than those of the control group. However, no significant differences were identified in incidence of hypotension (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.51-2.74) and bradycardia (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.13-22.11) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal administration of DEX is superior to oral chloral hydrate for sedation during pediatric CT/MRI examinations and has a better safety profile.