Efficacy of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine for Conscious Sedation in Patients Undergoing Surgical Removal of Impacted Third Molar: A Double-Blind Split Mouth Study

Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine alone and dexmedetomidine-chloral hydrate combination sedation for electroencephalography in children: A large retrospective cohort study and propensity score-matched analysis

Aim

To compare the safety and efficacy of intranasal high-dose dexmedetomidine (DEX) versus a combination of intranasal low-dose dexmedetomidine and oral chloral hydrate (DEX-CH) sedation during electroencephalography (EEG) in children.

Methods

Unadjusted analysis, 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to compare the sedation success rate, adverse effects, onset time, and recovery time of these two sedation methods for 6967 children who underwent EEG.

Results

A total of 6967 children were enrolled in this study, of whom 846 (12.1 %) underwent DEX intranasal sedation while 6121 (87.9 %) received DEX-CH sedation. No significant differences were observed in the sedation success rate with the first dose between the two groups [824 (97.4 %) for DEX vs. 5971 (97.6 %) for DEX-CH; RR 0.99; 95 % CI, 0.98-1.01; P = 0.79]. Similarly, there were no notable disparities in the incidence of adverse events [16 (1.9 %) for DEX vs. 101 (1.7 %) for DEX-CH; RR 1.15; 95 % CI, 0.68-1.93; P = 0.32]. However, intranasal DEX sedation compared with DEX-CH sedation was associated with lower vomiting [0 vs. 95(1.6 %); RR 0.04; 95 % CI, 0.02-0.6; P = 0.02] or more bradycardia [13(1.5 %) vs. 2(0.03 %); RR 47.03; 95 % CI, 10.63-208.04; P < 0.001]. Multivariate analysis using PSM and IPTW analysis yielded similar results.

Conclusion

Both methods for EEG had high sedation success rate and low incidence of adverse events. High-dose intranasal DEX was more likely to induce bradycardia and had a shorter recovery time than the DEX-CH sedation, which was more likely to induce vomiting.

Comparison of the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine versus intranasal atomised ketamine as a premedication for sedation and anxiolysis in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anxiety leads to adverse clinical outcomes and long-term maladaptive behavioural changes. The role of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine and atomised ketamine as premedication to produce sedation and anxiolysis in paediatric neurosurgical patients has not been extensively studied.

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine and intranasal atomised ketamine as premedication in producing sedation and facilitating smooth induction in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective randomised double-blind trial.

SETTING

A tertiary teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty-four children aged 1 to 10 years undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery.

METHODS

Children were randomised to receive intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine 2.5 μg kg -1 (Group D, n  = 32) and intranasal atomised ketamine 5 mg kg -1 (Group K, n  = 32) 30 min before surgery.

OUTCOMES MEASURED

The primary outcome was to compare the level of sedation in both groups using the University of Michigan Sedation Score (UMSS). The secondary outcomes included an assessment of the ease of parental separation, intravenous cannulation and satisfactory mask acceptance along with perioperative vitals (heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation). The incidence of emergence agitation and time to discharge were also noted.

RESULTS

The degree of sedation was significantly better in Group D as compared to Group K at 20 min (UMSS, 1.55 ± 0.51 versus 1.13 ± 0.34, difference, -0.406; 95% CI, -0.621 to -0.191; P  = 0.0001) and 30 min (2.32 ± 0.6 versus 1.94 ± 0.50, difference, -0.374; 95% CI, -0.650 to -0.100; P  = 0.007). The ease of parental separation, venous cannulation and mask acceptance ( P  = 0.83, 0.418 and 0.100 respectively) were comparable in both groups. The heart rate was lower in group D at 10, 20 and 30 min post-drug administration but was clinically insignificant. The incidence of emergence agitation and time to discharge was also similar with no adverse events reported.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine produces greater sedation as compared to intranasal atomised ketamine with comparable ease of parental separation, venous cannulation and mask acceptance with no adverse effects.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Comparative Evaluation of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Spray Versus Intranasal Normal Saline Spray in Patients Undergoing Transalveolar Extractions for Anxiety Reduction: A Randomized Control Study

Background

Dexmedetomidine has dose-dependent selectivity for alpha 2 adrenoceptors. It is a good sedative with analgesic characteristics and good haemodynamic stability. Intranasal sedation is a non-invasive medication delivery method that is both safe and well accepted by both children and adults. One of the most common procedures in maxillofacial surgery is transalveolar extraction. In minor oral surgery, a painless transalveolar extraction with little post-operative pain would be ideal.

Aim

To examine the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine spray against intranasal normal saline spray in patients undergoing transalveolar extractions for anxiety relief.

Method

We compared sedation effect by Ramsay sedation scale, analgesia by visual analogue scale, monitored BP and pulse rate for anxiety, and spo2 levels for any complication in this prospective double-blinded randomized control study for two groups, A group with intranasal dexmedetomidine spray and the B group of intranasal NS spray for placebo effect at 0 min, 15 min, 30 min, and 45 min until transalveolar extraction.

Result

As a result of the intranasal spray of dexmedetomidine, there were no related problems such as respiratory depression. There was a substantial difference in sedation and analgesia between group A and the placebo group, as well as a significant decrease in pulse rate and hypotension in the dexmedetomidine group to reduce anxiety.

Conclusion

Intranasal injection of atomized dexmedetomidine (1.5 mcg/kg) for patient sedation having transalveolar extractions or other minor surgical operations in oral and maxillofacial surgery is clinically effective, convenient, lowers anxiety, and safe.Clinical Trial Registration: No. CTRI/2021/07/035181.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Reduces Postoperative Opioid Requirement in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty Under General Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) causes severe pain, and strong opioids are commonly used in postoperative analgesia. Dexmedetomidine is a novel alpha-2-adrenoceptor-activating drug indicated for procedural sedation, but previous studies have shown clinically relevant analgesic and antiemetic effects. We evaluated retrospectively the effect of intranasal dexmedetomidine on the postoperative opioid requirement in patients undergoing TKA.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty patients with ASA status 1-2, age between 35 and 80 years, and scheduled for unilateral primary TKA under total intravenous anesthesia were included in the study. Half of the patients received 100 μg of intranasal dexmedetomidine after anesthesia induction, while the rest were treated conventionally. The postoperative opioid requirement was calculated as morphine equivalent doses for both groups. The effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative hemodynamics, length of stay (LOS), and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), was evaluated.

RESULTS

The cumulative postoperative opioid consumption was significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the control group (-28.5 mg, 95% CI 12-47 mg P < .001). The reduction in cumulative opioid dose was significantly different between the groups already at 2, 12, 24, and 36 h postoperatively (P < .001). LOS was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .001), and the dexmedetomidine group had lower postoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rates were lower compared to the control group (P < .001). The incidence of PONV did not differ between the groups (P = .64).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperatively administered intranasal dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative opioid consumption and may be associated with a shorter hospital stay in patients undergoing TKA under general anesthesia.

Injection of Lidocaine Alone versus Lidocaine plus Dexmedetomidine in Impacted Third Molar Extraction Surgery, a Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial for Postoperative Pain Evaluation

Objectives

Administration of medications such as dexmedetomidine as a topical anesthetic has been suggested in the pain control in dentistry. This double-blind randomized control trial study evaluated postoperative pain and associated factors following impacted third molar extraction surgery. Lidocaine alone was taken as the control and lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine as the intervention.

Materials and Methods

Forty patients undergoing mandibular third molar extraction entered the study and were randomly allocated to the control and interventional groups. 0.15 ml of dexmedetomidine was added to each lidocaine cartridge and the drug concentration was adjusted to 15 μg for the intervention group while only lidocaine was used in the control group. A visual analog scale was used to measure and record pain levels at the end of the surgery and 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery and number of painkillers taken by the patients after the surgery was also recorded.

Results

Pain scores of the intervention group decreased significantly during the surgery and also 6, 12, and 24 hours after the surgery compared to the control group. The pain score was correlated significantly with our intervention during the surgery and also 6 and 12 hours after that (all P value < 0.05). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the number of painkillers taken by the patients at 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery (all P value > 0.05).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing molar surgery, administration of a combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine is beneficial for the pain control. Clinical Relevance. Compared to the injection of lidocaine alone, combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine can be used for a better pain control in molar surgeries.

Comparison between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Sedation in Patients with Intubation after Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

The aim of the investigation is to clarify the beneficial sedative effects for patients with postoperative intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) after oral and maxillofacial surgery. Forty patients with postoperative intubation were divided into two groups in method of random number table: midazolam group and dexmedetomidine group. The Ramsay score, the behavioral pain scale (BPS) score, SpO₂, HR, MAP, and RR were recorded before sedation (T0), 30 minutes (T1), 1 hour (T2), 2 hours (T3), 6 hours (T4), and 12 hours (T5) after dexmedetomidine or midazolam initiation in intensive care unit, and 10 minutes after extubation (T6). The rate of incidences of side effects was calculated. Sedation with midazolam was as good as standard sedation with dexmedetomidine in maintaining target sedation level. The BPS score in the midazolam group was higher than that in the dexmedetomidine group. The time of tracheal catheter extraction in the dexmedetomidine group was shorter than that in the midazolam group (p ≤ 0.001). The incidence of bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group was higher than that in the midazolam group (p = 0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (p = 0.732). The incidence of respiratory depression of group midazolam was higher than that of group dexmedetomidine (p = 0.018). The incidence of delirium in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the midazolam group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.003). Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can meet the needs for sedation in ICU patients. And dexmedetomidine can improve patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative agent for electroencephalography in children

BACKGROUND

Intranasal dexmedetomidine (DEX), as a novel sedation method, has been used in many clinical examinations of infants and children. However, the safety and efficacy of this method for electroencephalography (EEG) in children is limited. In this study, we performed a large-scale clinical case analysis of patients who received this sedation method. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intranasal DEX for sedation in children during EEG.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. The inclusion criteria were children who underwent EEG from October 2016 to October 2018 at the Children's Hospital affiliated with Chongqing Medical University. All the children received 2.5 μg·kg^- 1 of intranasal DEX for sedation during the procedure. We used the Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) and the Modified Aldrete score (MAS) to evaluate the effects of the treatment on sedation and resuscitation. The sex, age, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASAPS), vital signs, sedation onset and recovery times, sedation success rate, and adverse patient events were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 3475 cases were collected and analysed in this study. The success rate of the initial dose was 87.0% (3024/3475 cases), and the success rate of intranasal sedation rescue was 60.8% (274/451 cases). The median sedation onset time was 19 mins (IQR: 17-22 min), and the sedation recovery time was 41 mins (IQR: 36-47 min). The total incidence of adverse events was 0.95% (33/3475 cases), and no serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal DEX (2.5 μg·kg^- 1) can be safely and effectively used for EEG sedation in children.

Safety and sedative effect of intranasal dexmedetomidine in mandibular third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The focus of this meta-analysis was to assess the sedative effect and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) in mandibular third molar surgery.

Methods

The PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for studies published until May 1, 2018. Eligible studies were restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials. The evaluation indicators mainly included the bispectral index, observer assessment of alertness/sedation scale, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate. Data for each period in the Dex and control groups were pooled to evaluate its sedative effect and safety.

Results

Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria. This study included 363 patients: 158 patients received intranasal inhalation of Dex before surgery, and 158 patients were negative controls. The pooled results showed a good sedative effect during tooth extraction when intranasal inhalation of Dex was performed 30 minutes before third molar extraction (assessment of alertness/sedation, Dex vs control SMD −1.20, 95% CI −1.73 to −0.67, I²=0, P=0.95; bispectral index, Dex vs control SMD −11.68, 95% CI −19.49 to −3.87, I²=89%; P=0.0001), and parameters returned to normal within 90 minutes after inhalation. During the operation, blood pressure and heart rate decreased to some extent, but the decreases did not exceed 20% of the baseline, and all patients returned to normal conditions within 90 minutes after inhalation.

Conclusion

Intranasal inhalation of Dex 30 minutes before third molar extraction can provide a good sedative effect, and large-sample multicenter RCTs are needed to evaluate the analgesic effect of Dex.

The comparison of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for pediatric dental surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine are used for the sedation of pediatric dental surgery. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for pediatric dental surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of dexmedetomidine versus ketamine on pediatric dental surgery are included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Four RCTs involving 163 children are included in the meta-analysis. Compared with ketamine for pediatric dental surgery, dexmedetomidine results in comparable sedation level (very low quality, 2 RCTs, n = 40; Std. MD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.74 to 0.23; P = .31), intraoperative analgesia scores (very low quality, 2 RCTs, n = 98; Std. MD = 0.17; 95% CI = -0.23 to 0.57; P = .40), postoperative analgesia scores (very low quality, 2 RCTs, n = 98; Std. MD = 0.23; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.62; P = .27), DBP (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 123; Std. MD = -0.38; 95% CI = -1.04 to 0.27; P = .25) and SpO2 (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 123; Std. MD = 0.24; 95% CI = -0.20 to 0.69; P = .28), but significantly decreases heart rate (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 123; Std. MD = -1.51; 95% CI = -2.75 to -0.27; P = .02) and SBP (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 123; Std. MD = -0.62; 95% CI = -1.16 to -0.08; P = .02), longer recovery time (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 138; Std. MD = 1.74; 95% CI = 0.23 to 3.25; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine have similar sedation, analgesia scores, and hemodynamic balance, but very low quality of the evidence (GRADE) is revealed in this meta-analysis.

Effect of intratracheal dexmedetomidine administration on recovery from general anaesthesia after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery: a randomised double-blinded study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of intratracheal dexmedetomidine (Dex) injection for the prevention of the laryngeal response on emergence from general anaesthesia following gynaecological laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomised, double-blinded, controlled trial.

SETTING

A general hospital, Guangdong Province, China.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients who underwent elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgery, aged 18-60 years old, 40-80 kg in weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists class I-II were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had respiratory disease, heart disorders which might represent risk factors of potential complications of Dex such as bradycardia, heart block, coronary heart disease, uncontrolled hypertension or the long-term use of sedative drugs.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated to either receive intratracheal Dex (DT), intravenous Dex (DV) or intravenous saline (CON, n=30, respectively). In the DT and DV groups, Dex (0.5 µg/kg) was diluted and mixed in 1 or 20 mL of saline, respectively, and injected via the intratracheal or intravenous route 30 min before the completion of the surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the coughing extent among the three groups. Secondary outcomes included awareness time, extubation time, postoperative visual analogue scale and Steward recovery score.

RESULTS

Compared with the CON group, the extent of coughing was significantly reduced in both the DV group and the DT group. Furthermore, the mean time to awareness (13.4 (4.3) vs 8.8 (2.9), p<0.001) and the extubation time (14.3 (4.3) vs 8.4 (3.6), p<0.001) were reduced in the DT group. Patients in the DT group also experienced better early recovery quality and less pain than those in the CON group. Furthermore, intratracheal Dex administration contributed to improved stability in haemodynamics with no significant side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Intratracheal Dex administration may avoid untoward laryngeal responses for patients emerging from general anaesthesia after gynaecological laparoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR-IOR-15007611.