Perioperative adverse events attributed to α2-adrenoceptor agonists in patients not at risk of cardiovascular events: systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical adverse events to dexmedetomidine: a real-world drug safety study based on the FAERS database

Objective

Adverse events associated with dexmedetomidine were analyzed using data from the FDA's FAERS database, spanning from 2004 to the third quarter of 2023. This analysis serves as a foundation for monitoring dexmedetomidine's safety in clinical applications.

Methods

Data on adverse events associated with dexmedetomidine were standardized and analyzed to identify clinical adverse events closely linked to its use. This analysis employed various signal quantification analysis algorithms, including Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Multi-Item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS).

Results

In the FAERS database, dexmedetomidine was identified as the primary suspect in 1,910 adverse events. Our analysis encompassed 26 organ system levels, from which we selected 346 relevant Preferred Terms (PTs) for further examination. Notably, adverse drug reactions such as diabetes insipidus, abnormal transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring, acute motor axonal neuropathy, and trigeminal cardiac reflex were identified. These reactions are not explicitly mentioned in the drug's specification, indicating the emergence of new signals for adverse drug reactions.

Conclusion

Data mining in the FAERS database has elucidated the characteristics of dexmedetomidine-related adverse drug reactions. This analysis enhances our understanding of dexmedetomidine's drug safety, aids in the clinical management of pharmacovigilance studies, and offers valuable insights for refining drug-use protocols.

The pathological mechanisms and potential therapeutic drugs for myocardial ischemia reperfusion injury

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the main cause of death and disability, with myocardial ischemia being the predominant type that poses a significant threat to humans. Reperfusion, an essential therapeutic approach, promptly reinstates blood circulation to the ischemic myocardium and stands as the most efficacious clinical method for myocardial preservation. Nevertheless, the restoration of blood flow associated with this process can potentially induce myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (MIRI), thereby diminishing the effectiveness of reperfusion and impacting patient prognosis. Therefore, it is of great significance to prevent and treat MIRI.

PURPOSE

MIRI is an important factor affecting the prognosis of patients, and there is no specific in-clinic treatment plan. In this review, we have endeavored to summarize its pathological mechanisms and therapeutic drugs to provide more powerful evidence for clinical application.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Medline and Google Scholar with a core focus on the pathological mechanisms and potential therapeutic drugs of MIRI.

RESULTS

Accumulated evidence revealed that oxidative stress, calcium overload, mitochondrial dysfunction, energy metabolism disorder, ferroptosis, inflammatory reaction, endoplasmic reticulum stress, pyroptosis and autophagy regulation have been shown to participate in the process, and that the occurrence and development of MIRI are related to plenty of signaling pathways. Currently, a range of chemical drugs, natural products, and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) preparations have demonstrated the ability to mitigate MIRI by targeting various mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, most of the research focuses on animal and cell experiments, and the regulatory mechanisms of each signaling pathway are still unclear. The translation of experimental findings into clinical practice remains incomplete, necessitating further exploration through large-scale, multi-center randomized controlled trials. Given the absence of a specific drug for MIRI, the identification of therapeutic agents to reduce myocardial ischemia is of utmost significance. For the future, it is imperative to enhance our understanding of the pathological mechanism underlying MIRI, continuously investigate and develop novel pharmaceutical agents, expedite the clinical translation of these drugs, and foster innovative approaches that integrate TCM with Western medicine. These efforts will facilitate the emergence of fresh perspectives for the clinical management of MIRI.

Adjuvant Analgesics in Acute Pain - Evaluation of Efficacy

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Acute postoperative pain impacts a significant number of patients and is associated with various complications, such as a higher occurrence of chronic postsurgical pain as well as increased morbidity and mortality.

RECENT FINDINGS

Opioids are often used to manage severe pain, but they come with serious adverse effects, such as sedation, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and impaired bowel function. Therefore, most enhanced recovery after surgery protocols promote multimodal analgesia, which includes adjuvant analgesics, to provide optimal pain control. In this article, we aim to offer a comprehensive review of the contemporary literature on adjuvant analgesics in the management of acute pain, especially in the perioperative setting. Adjuvant analgesics have proven efficacy in treating postoperative pain and reducing need for opioids. While ketamine is an established option for opioid-dependent patients, magnesium and α2-agonists have, in addition to their analgetic effect, the potential to attenuate hemodynamic responses, which make them especially useful in painful laparoscopic procedures. Furthermore, α2-agonists and dexamethasone can extend the analgesic effect of regional anesthesia techniques. However, findings for lidocaine remain inconclusive.

Comparison between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine for attenuation of cough response during tracheal extubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aims

Tracheal extubation often causes cardiovascular and airway responses, potentially resulting in hazardous consequences. It remains unknown whether dexmedetomidine or lidocaine is more effective for cough suppression. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine in reducing cough response after tracheal extubation in adult patients.

Methods

A thorough search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify relevant studies (from inception to 31 January 2023). Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine versus IV lidocaine administration during emergence from anaesthesia to prevent tracheal extubation response in adult patients under general anaesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of post-extubation cough. Secondary outcomes included emergence time, extubation time, residual sedation, and incidences of bradycardia. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the potential risk for bias.

Results

In total, seven studies with 450 participants were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cough between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine groups [Risk Ratio = 0.76; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.46, 1.24]. Emergence and extubation times were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analysis revealed a higher incidence of bradycardia and residual sedation in dexmedetomidine compared to the lidocaine group.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis found no difference in cough, emergence, and extubation time between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine after tracheal extubation. However, residual sedation and bradycardia were more significant in dexmedetomidine than in lidocaine.

Opioid-free Anesthesia Protocol on the Early Quality of Recovery after Major Surgery (SOFA Trial): A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid-free anesthesia is increasingly being adopted to reduce opioid consumption, but its impact on early postoperative recovery after major surgery has not been evaluated in comparative trials. The hypothesis was that an opioid-free anesthesia protocol would enhance the early quality of recovery for patients undergoing scheduled major surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODS

The SOFA study was a monocentric, randomized, controlled, assessor- and patient-blinded clinical trial conducted from July 10, 2021, to February 12, 2022. The eligible population included male and female patients undergoing scheduled major surgery, excluding bone procedures, that typically require opioids for postoperative pain management. Patients in the intervention group received a combination of at least two drugs among ketamine, lidocaine, clonidine, and magnesium sulfate, without opioids for anesthesia. The standard group received opioids. The primary outcome was early postoperative quality of recovery, assessed by Quality of Recovery-15 score at 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were Quality of Recovery-15 at 48 and 72 h after surgery, incidence of chronic pain, and quality of life at 3 months.

RESULTS

Of the 136 randomized patients, 135 were included in the primary analysis (mean age, 45.9 ± 15.7 yr; 116 females [87.2%]; 85 underwent major plastic surgery [63.9%]), with 67 patients in the opioid-free anesthesia group and 68 in the standard group. The mean Quality of Recovery-15 at 24 h was 114.9 ± 15.2 in the opioid-free anesthesia group versus 108.7 ± 18.1 in the standard group (difference, 6.2; 95% CI, 0.4 to 12.0; P = 0.026). Quality of Recovery-15 scores also differed significantly at 48 h (difference, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.9 to 14.5; P = 0.004) and at 72 h (difference, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.6 to 13.0; P = 0.013). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. No major adverse events were noticed.

CONCLUSIONS

The opioid-free anesthesia protocol improved quality of recovery after major elective surgery in a statistically but not clinically significant manner when compared to standard anesthesia.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Pain management after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy: A systematic review with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) recommendations

BACKGROUND

Pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy can be difficult to treat, and if inadequately managed can lead to respiratory complications, prolonged hospital stays and chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy.

DESIGN

A systematic review using PROcedure-SPECific Pain Management (PROSPECT) methodology.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language until November 2020 assessing postoperative pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Databases.

RESULTS

Of 319 eligible studies, 209 randomised controlled trials and three systematic reviews were included in the final analysis. Pre-operative, intra-operative and postoperative interventions that reduced postoperative pain included paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous magnesium, intravenous dexmedetomidine and parasternal block/infiltration.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic regimen for cardiac surgery via sternotomy should include paracetamol and NSAIDs, unless contraindicated, administered intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra-operative magnesium and dexmedetomidine infusions may be considered as adjuncts particularly when basic analgesics are not administered. It is not clear if combining dexmedetomidine and magnesium would provide superior pain relief compared with either drug alone. Parasternal block/surgical site infiltration is also recommended. However, no basic analgesics were used in the studies assessing these interventions. Opioids should be reserved for rescue analgesia. Other interventions, including cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitors, are not recommended because there was insufficient, inconsistent or no evidence to support their use and/or due to safety concerns.

Adjuvants for balanced anesthesia in ambulatory surgery

Balanced anesthesia relies on the simultaneous administration of different drugs to attain an anesthetic state. The classic triad of anesthesia is a combination of a hypnotic, an analgesic, and a neuromuscular blocker. It is predominantly the analgesic pillar of this triad that became more and more supported by adjuvant therapy. The aim of this approach is to evolve into an opioid-sparing technique to cope with undesirable side effects of the opioids and is fueled by the opioid epidemic. The optimal strategy for balanced general anesthesia in ambulatory surgery must aim for a transition to a multimodal analgesic regimen dealing with acute postoperative pain and ideally reduce the most common adverse effects patients are faced with at home; sore throat, delayed awakening, memory disturbances, headache, nausea and vomiting, and negative behavioral changes. Over the years, this continuum of "multimodal general anesthesia" adopted many drugs with different modes of action. This review focuses on the most recent evidence on the different adjuvants that entered clinical practice and gives an overview of the different mechanisms of action, the potential as opioid-sparing or hypnotic-sparing drugs, and the applicability specifically in ambulatory surgery.

The effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on the quality of recovery after endoscopic sinus surgery: A multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

It remains to be determined whether opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) is consistently effective for different types of surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The current study hypothesised that OFA could effectively inhibit intraoperative nociceptive responses, reduce side effects associated with opioid use, and improve the quality of recovery (QoR) in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).

DESIGN

A multicentre randomised controlled study.

SETTING

Seven hospitals participated in this multicentre trial from May 2021 to December 2021.

PATIENTS

Of the 978 screened patients who were scheduled for elective ESS, 800 patients underwent randomisation, and 773 patients were included in the analysis; 388 patients in the OFA group and 385 patients in the opioid anaesthesia group.

INTERVENTIONS

The OFA group received balanced anaesthesia with dexmedetomidine, lidocaine, propofol and sevoflurane; the opioid anaesthesia group received opioid-based balanced anaesthesia using sufentanil, remifentanil, propofol and sevoflurane.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 24-h postoperative QoR as evaluated by the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire. The key secondary outcomes were episodes of postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

RESULTS

A significant difference (P = 0.0014) in the total score of 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-40 was found between the OFA group, median [interquartile range], 191 [185 to 196] and the opioid anaesthesia group (194 [187 to 197]). There were significant differences between the opioid anaesthesia group and the OFA group in the numerical rating scale score for pain after surgery at 30 min (P  = 0.0017), 1 h (P  = 0.0052), 2 h (P  = 0.0079) and 24 h (P = 0.0303). The difference in the area under the curve of pain scale scores between the OFA group (24.2 [3.0 to 47.5]) and the opioid anaesthesia group (11.5 [1.0 to 39.0]) was significant (P = 0.0042). PONV occurred in 58 of 385 patients (15.1%) in the opioid anaesthesia group compared with 27 of 388 patients (7.0%) in the OFA group, suggesting the incidence of PONV in the OFA group was significantly lower than in the opioid anaesthesia group (P  = 0.0021).

CONCLUSION

OFA can provide good intraoperative analgesia and postoperative recovery quality as effectively as conventional opioid anaesthesia in patients undergoing ESS. OFA can be an alternative option in the pain management of ESS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100046158; registry URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/enIndex.aspx.).

Effect of the Lipoxin Receptor Agonist BML-111 on Cigarette Smoke Extract-Induced Macrophage Polarization and Inflammation in RAW264.7 Cells

Background

Macrophages are known to play a crucial role in the chronic inflammation associated with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). BML-111, acting as a lipoxin A4 (LXA4) receptor agonist, has shown to be effective in protecting against COPD. However, the precise mechanism by which BML-111 exerts its protective effect remains unclear.

Methods

In order to establish a cell model of inflammation, cigarette smoke extract (CSE) was used on the RAW264.7 cell line. Afterwards, an Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit was employed to measure concentrations of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1beta (IL-1β), interleukin-18 (IL-18), and interleukin-10 (IL-10) in the cell supernatants of the RAW264.7 cells.In this study, we examined the markers of macrophage polarization using two methods: quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and Western blot analysis. Additionally, we detected the expression of Notch-1 and Hes-1 through Western blotting.

Results

BML-111 effectively suppressed the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-18, as well as inflammasome factors NLRP3 and Caspase-1, while simultaneously up-regulating the expression of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 induced by CSE. Moreover, BML-111 reduced the expression of iNOS, which is associated with M1 macrophage polarization, and increased the expression of Arg-1, which is associated with M2 phenotype. Additionally, BML-111 downregulated the expression of Hes-1 and the ratio of activated Notch-1 to Notch-1 induced by CSE. The effect of BML-111 on inflammation and macrophage polarization was reversed upon administration of the Notch-1 signaling pathway agonist Jagged1.

Conclusion

BML-111 has the potential to suppress inflammation and modulate M1/M2 macrophage polarization in RAW264.7 cells. The underlying mechanism may involve the Notch-1 signaling pathway.

Perioperative opioids: a narrative review contextualising new avenues to improve prescribing

Opioids have dominated the management of perioperative pain in recent decades with higher doses than ever before used in some circumstances. Through the expanding use of opioids, growing research has highlighted their associated side-effects and the intertwined phenomena of acute withdrawal syndrome, opioid tolerance, and opioid-induced hyperalgesia. With multiple clinical guidelines now endorsing multimodal analgesia, a diverse array of opioid-sparing agents emerges and has been studied to variable degrees, including techniques of opioid-free anaesthesia. It remains unclear to what extent such methods should be adopted, yet current evidence does suggest dependence on opioids as the primary perioperative analgesic might not meet the principles of 'rational prescribing' as described by Maxwell. In this narrative review we describe how, using current evidence, a patient-centred rational-prescribing approach can be applied to opioids in the perioperative period. To contextualise this approach, we discuss the historical adoption of opioids in anaesthesia, our growing understanding of associated side-effects and emerging strategies of opioid-sparing and opioid-free anaesthesia. We discuss avenues and challenges for improving opioid prescribing to limit persistent postoperative opioid use and how these may be incorporated into a rational-prescribing approach.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to general anesthesia in gynecological surgeries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to general anesthesia in patients undergoing gynecological surgery. We systemically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and performed a meta-analysis on studies that met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), bradycardia, hypotension, and 24 h opioid consumption. The secondary outcomes include postoperative shivering, postoperative pain score, intraoperative anesthetic consumption, extubation time, postoperative sedation, and the time to first flatus. Twenty-five RCTs were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the risk of PONV (RR, 0.57 [0.47, 0.68]) and postoperative shivering (RR: 0.31 [0.22, 0.42]), 24 h opioid consumption (Mean Difference: - 4.85 mg [-8.60, -1.11]) and postoperative pain score within 24 h. However, these benefits were at the cost of increased bradycardia (RR, 3.21 [2.41, 4.28]) and hypotension (RR, 2.17 [1.50, 3.14]). Notably, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the included studies. Thus, our study showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine provided significant antiemetic and anti-shivering effects and moderate analgesic effects in patients that underwent gynecological surgery. However, its benefits should be weighed against the significantly increased risk of bradycardia and hypotension.

Opioid Reduced Anesthesia in Major Oncologic Cervicofacial Surgery: A Retrospective Study

Opioid sparing is one of the new challenges in anesthesia and perioperative medicine. Opioid reduced anesthesia (ORA) is part of this approach, and it consists of a multimodal analgesia-associating non-opioid analgesic regional anesthesia to reduce intraoperative opioid requirements. Major cervicofacial oncologic surgery could specifically benefit from ORA, since it is known to generate intense and prolonged postoperative pain, with a high risk of pulmonary complications.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case-controlled study of 172 patients with major cervicofacial oncologic surgery. Group ORA (dexmedetomidine and lidocaine), n = 86, was compared to patients treated with standard opioid based anesthesia, Group control, n = 86. The main endpoint was to study perioperative opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores, and the secondary endpoint was to observe opioid related side effects.

RESULTS

The ORA group received 6.2 ± 3.1 mg morphine titration at the end of surgery, while the control group received 10.1 ± 3.7 mg p < 0.0001; there was no significant difference in post-operative analgesia requirements and pain scores between the groups. Intraoperatively, the ORA protocol yielded bradycardia in 4 persons, while in the control group, only 2 persons had bradycardia necessitating intervention, p < 0.05. Postoperatively, episodes of hypoxemia (50%) and the need for additional pressure-assisted ventilation (6%), was significantly different in the ORA group than in the control group (70% and 19%), p < 0.05. There was no difference between the two groups for the incidence of nausea and vomiting, ileus, or postoperative delirium.

DISCUSSION

ORA was not associated with a decrease in postoperative pain and opioid requirement, but possibly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia and the use of additional pressure-assisted ventilation, although we cannot rule out confounding factors. The possible benefits of ORA remain to be demonstrated by prospective studies.

Association of intraoperative dexmedetomidine use with postoperative hypotension in unilateral hip and knee arthroplasties: a historical cohort study

PURPOSE

Dexmedetomidine is frequently used as a sedative agent for orthopedic surgery patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. Although the benefits of dexmedetomidine are well described in the literature, there is also potential for harm, especially regarding the hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine in the postoperative setting.

METHODS

This historical cohort study included all primary unilateral total hip or knee arthroplasties conducted from April 2017 to February 2020 in a single, university-affiliated, tertiary care centre (Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada). We used multivariable logistic regression to analyze the predictors for postoperative hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or any systolic blood pressure while on a vasopressor infusion in the postanesthesia care unit. Models were validated using calibration and discrimination with bootstrapping technique.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred and eighty-eight patients were included in this study. Postoperative hypotension occurred in 413 (26%) patients. Statistically significant predictors for postoperative hypotension included female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29 to 4.58), a history of transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident (aOR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.72), and intraoperative dexmedetomidine use (aOR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.99 to 3.42). Moreover, the risk of postoperative hypotension was approximately two times higher than baseline, with a total intraoperative dexmedetomidine dose above 50 μg (relative risk, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.63 to 2.44; P < 0.001). A higher preoperative systolic blood pressure (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99) was a protective factor for postoperative hypotension.

CONCLUSION

In this historical cohort study, dexmedetomidine was a strong risk factor for postoperative hypotension in total hip or knee arthroplasty patients. Dexmedetomidine, and particularly at high cumulative doses above 50 μg, should be administered judiciously in high-risk surgical patients to minimize the risk of postoperative hypotension.

Opioid-Sparing Techniques in Orthopedic Anesthesia-One Step to Opioid-Free Anesthesia?

Opioid-free anesthesia is a multimodal anesthesia aimed at avoiding the negative impact of intraoperative opioid on patient's postoperative outcomes. It is based on the physiology of pathways involved in intraoperative nociception. It has been shown to be feasible but the literature is still scarce on the clinically meaningful benefits as well as on the side effects and/or complications that might be associated with it. Moreover, most studies involved abdominal and/or bariatric surgery. Procedure-specific studies are lacking, especially in orthopedics.

Sedation-analgesia techniques for nonoperating room anesthesia: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a substantial increase in nonoperating room anesthesia procedures over the years along with an increase in the complexity and severity of cases. These procedures pose unique challenges for anesthesia providers requiring meticulous planning and attention to detail. Advancements in the delivery of sedation and analgesia in this setting will help anesthesia providers navigate these challenges and improve patient safety and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a renewed interest in the development of newer sedative and analgesic drugs and delivery systems that can safely provide anesthesia care in challenging situations and circumstances.

SUMMARY

Delivery of anesthesia care in nonoperating room locations is associated with significant challenges. The advent of sedative and analgesic drugs that can be safely used in situations where monitoring capabilities are limited in conjunction with delivery systems, that can incorporate unique patient characteristics and ensure the safe delivery of these drugs, has the potential to improve patient safety and outcomes. Further research is needed in these areas to develop newer drugs and delivery systems.

Protective effects of dexmedetomidine in vital organ injury: crucial roles of autophagy

Vital organ injury is one of the leading causes of global deaths. Accumulating studies have demonstrated that dexmedetomidine (DEX) has an outstanding protective effect on multiple organs for its antiinflammatory and antiapoptotic properties, while the underlying molecular mechanism is not clearly understood. Autophagy, an adaptive catabolic process, has been found to play a crucial role in the organ-protective effects of DEX. Herein, we present a first attempt to summarize all the evidence on the proposed roles of autophagy in the action of DEX protecting against vital organ injuries via a comprehensive review. We found that most of the relevant studies (17/24, 71%) demonstrated that the modulation of autophagy was inhibited under the treatment of DEX on vital organ injuries (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, and lung), but several studies suggested that the level of autophagy was dramatically increased after administration of DEX. Albeit not fully elucidated, the underlying mechanisms governing the roles of autophagy involve the antiapoptotic properties, inhibiting inflammatory response, removing damaged mitochondria, and reducing oxidative stress, which might be facilitated by the interaction with multiple associated genes (i.e., hypoxia inducible factor-1α, p62, caspase-3, heat shock 70 kDa protein, and microRNAs) and signaling cascades (i.e., mammalian target of rapamycin, nuclear factor-kappa B, and c-Jun N-terminal kinases pathway). The authors conclude that DEX hints at a promising strategy in the management of vital organ injuries, while autophagy is crucially involved in the protective effect of DEX.

Current Issues in the Use of Opioids for the Management of Postoperative Pain: A Review

Importance

Uncontrolled and indiscriminate prescribing of opioids has led to an opioid crisis that started in North America and spread throughout high-income countries. The aim of this narrative review was to explore some of the current issues surrounding the use of opioids in the perioperative period, focusing on drivers that led to escalation of use, patient harms, the move away from using self-reported pain scores alone to assess adequacy of analgesia, concerns about the routine use of controlled-release opioids for the management of acute pain, opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia, and prescription of opioids on discharge from hospital.

Observations

The origins of the opioid crisis are multifactorial and may include good intentions to keep patients pain free in the postoperative period. Assessment of patient function may be better than unidimensional numerical pain scores to help guide postoperative analgesia. Immediate-release opioids can be titrated more easily to match analgesic requirements. There is currently no good evidence to show that opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia affects opioid prescribing practices or the risk of persistent postoperative opioid use. Attention should be paid to discharge opioid prescribing as repeat and refill prescriptions are risk-factors for persistent postoperative opioid use. Opioid stewardship is paramount, and many governments are passing legislation, while statutory bodies and professional societies are providing advice and guidance to help mitigate the harm caused by opioids.

Conclusions and Relevance

Opioids remain a crucial part of many patients' journey from surgery to full recovery. The last few decades have shown that unfettered opioid use puts patients and societies at risk, so caution is needed to mitigate those dangers. Opioid stewardship provides a multilayered structure to allow continued safe use of opioids as part of broad pain management strategies for those patients who benefit from them most.

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Postanesthesia Care Unit Discharge and Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on the effect of dexmedetomidine in early postoperative recovery is limited. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine on the length of stay (LOS) and recovery profile in postanesthesia care unit (PACU) patients.

METHODS

The study protocol is registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021240559). No specific funding or support was received. We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library to March 31, 2021 for peer-reviewed randomized controlled studies comparing adult patients who received intravenous dexmedetomidine and placebo undergoing noncardiac, nonneurosurgical procedures under general anesthesia. All studies reporting statistics relating to the duration of stay in the recovery ward or PACU, the primary outcome, were included. We performed individual random-effect meta-analysis on the primary and secondary outcomes (time to extubation, emergence agitation, cough, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, shivering, residual sedation, bradycardia, and hypotension) using Stata version 17.0. Evidence was synthesized as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. The quality of evidence was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies including 2676 patients were eligible for analysis. All studies had low risk or some concerns of overall bias and provided low-to-high certainty evidence for all studied outcomes. Dexmedetomidine was not associated with a significantly increased PACU LOS (MD, 0.69 minute; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.42 to 2.81 minutes). It was associated with a statistically but not clinically significant prolonged time to extubation (MD, 1 minute; 95% CI, 0.32-1.68 minutes). Dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly reduced incidence of emergence agitation (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.29-0.52), cough (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79), pain (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.86), and shivering (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49) in PACU. There was an increased incidence of hypotension (RR, 5.39; 95% CI, 1.12-5.89) but not residual sedation (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.20-7.56) or bradycardia (RR, 5.13; 95% CI, 0.96-27.47) in the dexmedetomidine group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dexmedetomidine did not increase the duration of PACU LOS but was associated with reduced emergence agitation, cough, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and shivering in PACU. There was an increased incidence of hypotension but not residual sedation or bradycardia in PACU.

Preoperative Dexmedetomidine and intraoperative bradycardia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background

While laparoscopic surgical procedures have various advantages over traditional open techniques, artificial pneumoperitoneum is associated with severe bradycardia and cardiac arrest. Dexmedetomidine, an imidazole derivative that selectively binds to α²-receptors and has sedative and analgesic properties, can cause hypotension and bradycardia. Our primary aim was to assess the association between dexmedetomidine use and intraoperative bradycardia during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis using the following PICOS: adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (P); intravenous dexmedetomidine before tracheal intubation (I); no intervention or placebo administration (C); intraoperative bradycardia (primary outcome), intraoperative hypotension, hemodynamics at intubation (systolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate), dose needed for induction of anesthesia, total anesthesia requirements (both hypnotics and opioids) throughout the procedure, and percentage of patients requiring postoperative analgesics and experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting and/or shivering (O); randomized controlled trials (S).

Results

Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis (980 patients). Compared to patients that did not receive dexmedetomidine, those who did had a higher risk of developing intraoperative bradycardia (RR: 2.81, 95% CI [1.34, 5.91]) and hypotension (1.66 [0.92, 2.98]); however, they required a lower dose of intraoperative anesthetics and had a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. In the trial sequential analysis for bradycardia, the cumulative z-score crossed the monitoring boundary for harm at the tenth trial.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy who receive dexmedetomidine during tracheal intubation are more likely to develop intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension.

The effect of opioid-free anesthesia protocol on the early quality of recovery after major surgery (SOFA trial): study protocol for a prospective, monocentric, randomized, single-blinded trial

Background

Since the 2000s, opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) protocols have been spreading worldwide in anesthesia daily practice. These protocols avoid using opioid drugs during anesthesia to prevent short- and long-term opioid side effects while ensuring adequate analgesic control and optimizing postoperative recovery. Proofs of the effect of OFA protocol on optimizing postoperative recovery are still scarce. The study aims to compare the effects of an OFA protocol versus standard anesthesia protocol on the early quality of postoperative recovery (QoR) from major surgeries.

Methods

The SOFA trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind, monocentric study. Patients (n = 140) scheduled for major plastic, visceral, urologic, gynecologic, or ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgeries will be allocated to one of the two groups. The study group (OFA group) will receive a combination of clonidine, magnesium sulfate, ketamine, and lidocaine. The control group will receive a standard anesthesia protocol based on opioid use. Both groups will receive others standard practices for general anesthesia and perioperative care. The primary outcome measure is the QoR-15 value assessed at 24 h after surgery. Postoperative data such as pain intensity, the incidence of postoperative complication, and opioid consumption will be recorded. We will also collect adverse events that may be related to the anesthetic protocol. Three months after surgery, the incidence of chronic pain and the quality of life will be evaluated by phone interview.

Discussion

This will be the first study powered to evaluate the effect of OFA versus a standard anesthesia protocol using opioids on global postoperative recovery after a wide range of major surgeries. The SOFA trial will also provide findings concerning the OFA impact on chronic pain incidence and long-term patient quality of life.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04797312. Registered on 15 March 2021

General anesthetic techniques for enhanced recovery after surgery: Current controversies

General anesthesia technique can influence not only immediate postoperative outcomes, but also long-term outcomes beyond hospital stay (e.g., readmission after discharge from hospital). There is lack of evidence regarding superiority of total intravenous anesthesia over inhalation anesthesia with regards to postoperative outcomes even in high-risk population including cancer patients. Optimal balanced general anesthetic technique for enhance recovery after elective surgery in adults includes avoidance of routine use preoperative midazolam, avoidance of deep anesthesia, use of opioid-sparing approach, and minimization of neuromuscular blocking agents and appropriate reversal of residual paralysis. Given that the residual effects of drugs used during anesthesia can increase postoperative morbidity and delay recovery, it is prudent to use a minimal number of drug combinations, and the drugs used are shorter-acting and administered at the lowest possible dose. It is imperative that the discerning anesthesiologist consider whether each drug used is really necessary for accomplishing perioperative goals.

Analgesia and patient comfort after enhanced recovery after surgery in uvulopalatopharyngoplasty: a randomised controlled pilot study

Background

Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty(UPPP) is the most prevalent surgical treatment of obstructive sleep apnea, but postoperative pharyngeal pain may affect patient comfort. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathway has been proved beneficial to many types of surgery but not to UPPP yet. The aim of this pilot study was to preliminarily standrize an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for UPPP, to assess whether it has positive effects on reducing postoperative pharyngeal pain and improving patient comfort, and to test its feasibility for an international multicentre study.

Methods

This randomised controlled study analysed 116 patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) who were undergoing UPPP in a single tertiary care hospital. They were randomly divided according to treatment: the ERAS group (those who received ERAS treatment) and the control group (those who received traditional treatment). Ninety-five patients completed the assessment (ERAS group, 59 patients; control group, 36 patients). Pharyngeal pain and patient comfort were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 30 min and at 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after UPPP. Complications, hospitalisation duration, and hospital cost were recorded.

Results

The VAS scores for resting pain and swallowing pain were significantly lower in the ERAS group than those in the control group at 30 min and at 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. Patient comfort was improved in the ERAS group. The hospitalisation duration and cost were comparable between the groups. The incidence of complications showed an increasing trend in the ERAS group.

Conclusion

The ERAS protocol significantly relieved pharyngeal pain after UPPP and improved comfort in patients with OSA, which showed the prospect for an larger study. Meanwhile a potential increase of post-operative complications in the ERAS group should be noticed.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (23/09/2018, ChiCTR1800018537)

Intraoperative Dexmedetomidine and Ketamine Infusions in an Enhanced Recovery After Thoracic Surgery Program: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of intraoperative dexmedetomidine and ketamine on postoperative pain and opioid consumption within an ERAS program in thoracic pulmonary oncologic surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective, propensity-score matched analysis SETTING: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing thoracic pulmonary oncologic surgery between March 2016 and April 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine and ketamine.

MEASUREMENTS & MAIN RESULTS

The authors initially analyzed data of 1,630 patients undergoing thoracic pulmonary oncologic surgery within their ERAS program. In total, 117 matched pairs were included in this analysis. Patients in the intraoperative dexmedetomidine + ketamine group were more likely to be opioid-free (76.6% vs 60.9%, P<0.01). Raw analysis showed lower pain scores at PACU admission (2.8±2.0 vs 3.4±2.0, P=0.03) and less opioid consumption at PACU admission (5 MED [0-10] vs 7.5 MED [0-15], P=0.03) in the dexmedetomidine + ketamine group; however, these differences were not present after adjusting for multiplicity. There were no significant differences in the length of PACU stay (1.9 hours [1.5-2.8] vs 2.0 hours [1.4-2.9], P=0.48) or hospital stay (three days [two-five] vs three days [two-five], P=0.08). Both groups had similar rates of pulmonary complications (5.9% vs 9.4%, P=0.326), ileus (0.9% vs 0.9%, P=1.00), and 30-day readmission (2.6% vs 4.3%, P=0.722).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption throughout their hospital stay between patients receiving concomitant dexmedetomidine and ketamine infusions versus patients who did not receive these infusions during thoracic surgery.

Dexmedetomidine Mitigated NLRP3-Mediated Neuroinflammation via the Ubiquitin-Autophagy Pathway to Improve Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorder in Mice

Background: Surgery and anesthesia-induced perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) are closely related to NOD-like receptors (NLR) family, pyrin domain containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome microglia inflammatory response. Inhibiting the occurrence of neuroinflammation is an important treatment method to improve postoperative delirium. Fewer NLRP3-targeting molecules are currently available in the clinic to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium. Dexmedetomidine (DEX), an α2 adrenergic receptor agonist has been shown to have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities. The present study showed that DEX reduced the production of cleaved caspase1 (CASP1) and destroyed the NLRP3–PYD And CARD Domain Containing (PYCARD)–CASP1 complex assembly, thereby reducing the secretion of IL-1β interleukin beta (IL-1β). DEX promoted the autophagy process of microglia and reduced NLRP3 expression. More interestingly, it promoted the ubiquitination and degradation of NLRP3. Thus, this study demonstrated that DEX reduced NLRP3-mediated inflammation through the activation of the ubiquitin-autophagy pathway. This study provided a new mechanism for treating PND using DEX.

Methods: C57BL/6 mice were pre-administered DEX 3 days in advance, and an abdominal exploration model was used to establish a perioperative neurocognitive disorder model. The anti-inflammatory effect of DEX was explored in vivo by detecting NLRP3-CASP1/IL-1β protein expression and behavioral testing. Primary microglia were stimulated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in vitro, the expression of CASP1 and IL-1β was detected in the supernatant of cells, and the expression of autophagy-related proteins microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3 beta (MAP1LC3B) and sequestosome 1 (SQSTM1) was examined in the cytoplasm. Meanwhile, Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) was used to detect NLRP3 protein ubiquitination so as to clarify the new mechanism underlying the anti-inflammatory effect of DEX.

Results: Pre-administration of DEX reduced the protein expression of NLRP3, CASP1, and IL-1β in the hippocampus of mice induced by surgery and also improved the impairment of learning and memory ability. At the same time, DEX also effectively relieved the decrease in spine density of the hippocampal brain induced by surgery. DEX decreased the cleaved CASP1 expression, blocked the assembly of NLRP3–PYCARD–CASP1 complex, and also reduced the secretion of mature IL-1β in vitro. Mechanically, it accelerated the degradation of NLRP3 inflammasome via the autophagy–ubiquitin pathway and reduced the green fluorescent protein/red fluorescent protein MAP1LC3B ratio, which was comparable to the effect when using the autophagy activator rapamycin (Rapa). Furthermore, it increased the ubiquitination of NLRP3 after LPS plus ATP stimulated microglia.

Conclusion: DEX attenuated the hippocampal brain inflammation by promoting NLRP3 inflammasome degradation via the autophagy–ubiquitin pathway, thus improving cognitive impairment in mice.

Opioid-Free Anesthesia Benefit-Risk Balance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is used in surgery to avoid opioid-related side effects. However, uncertainty exists in the balance between OFA benefits and risks. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OFA to opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in five international databases. The co-primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain and morphine consumption at 2, 24, and 48 h. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative chronic pain, hemodynamic tolerance, severe adverse effects, opioid-related adverse effects, and specific adverse effects related to substitution drugs. Overall, 33 RCTs including 2209 participants were assessed. At 2 h, the OFA groups had lower pain scores at rest MD (0.75 (−1.18; −0.32)), which did not definitively reach MCID. Less morphine was required in the OFA groups at 2 and 24 h, but with very small reductions: 1.61 mg (−2.69; −0.53) and −1.73 mg (p < 0.05), respectively, both not reaching MCID. The reduction in PONV in the OFA group in the PACU presented an RR of 0.46 (0.38, 0.56) and an RR of 0.34 (0.21; 0.56), respectively. Less sedation and shivering were observed in the OFA groups with an SMD of −0.81 (−1.05; −0.58) and an RR of 0.48 (0.33; 0.70), respectively. Quantitative analysis did not reveal differences between the hemodynamic outcomes, although severe side effects have been identified in the literature. No clinically significant benefits were observed with OFA in terms of pain and opioid use after surgery. A clear benefit of OFA use was observed with respect to a reduction in PONV. However, more data on the safe use of OFAs should be collected and caution should be taken in the development of OFA.

Perioperative Implications of the 2020 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on Drug-Induced Arrhythmias-A Focused Review

The recently released American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement on drug-induced arrhythmias discussed medications commonly associated with bradycardia, supraventricular tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias. The foundational data for this statement were collected from general outpatient and inpatient populations. Patients undergoing surgical and minimally invasive treatments are a unique subgroup, because they may experience hemodynamic changes associated with anesthesia and their procedure, receive multiple drug combinations not given in either inpatient or outpatient settings, or experience postprocedural inflammatory syndromes. Accordingly, the generalizability of the AHA scientific statement to this perioperative population is unclear. This focused review highlights important aspects of the new AHA scientific statement and their application to the perioperative setting. The authors review medications frequently encountered and given by anesthesiologists and their risk of drug-induced arrhythmias and discuss common anesthetic and adjunctive medications and their associated risks of bradycardia, atrial fibrillation, torsades de pointes, and drug-induced Brugada syndrome. In many instances, the risk of arrhythmia reported by the AHA scientific statement in the general population appeared to be higher than found in perioperative arenas. Furthermore, the authors discuss the arrhythmia risk of additional medications commonly ordered or administered by anesthesiologists that are not included in the AHA scientific statement. As patient and procedural complexity increases and novel anesthetic combinations propagate, further research and observational studies will be required to delineate further perioperative risks for drug-induced arrhythmia.

The use of dexmedetomidine during pulmonic balloon valvuloplasty in dogs

BACKGROUND

Information regarding the anaesthetic management for pulmonic balloon valvuloplasty (PBV) in dogs is scarce. We present data from dogs receiving dexmedetomidine combined with inhalational anaesthesia during PBV.

METHODS

Anaesthetic records from dogs receiving dexmedetomidine (n = 11) and a control group (n = 29) anaesthetised for PBV between 2012 and 2020 were analysed. Intraoperative variables potentially affected by dexmedetomidine administration were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristic and anaesthetic agents administered were similar between groups. The incidence of hypotension (mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 60 mm Hg) was 25% for dexmedetomidine and 29% for control (p = 0.8); however, dexmedetomidine group received vasopressors for a shorter time (p = 0.02). The incidence of bradycardia was 100% and 96% for dexmedetomidine and control (p = 0.5), but antimuscarinic agents were administered more frequently to the latter (p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine may be a useful adjuvant to general anaesthesia during PBV in dogs and reduced the use of vasopressors and antimuscarinics.

Perioperative Opioid Administration

Opioids form an important component of general anesthesia and perioperative analgesia. Discharge opioid prescriptions are identified as a contributor for persistent opioid use and diversion. In parallel, there is increased enthusiasm to advocate opioid-free strategies, which include a combination of known analgesics and adjuvants, many of which are in the form of continuous infusions. This article critically reviews perioperative opioid use, especially in view of opioid-sparing versus opioid-free strategies. The data indicate that opioid-free strategies, however noble in their cause, do not fully acknowledge the limitations and gaps within the existing evidence and clinical practice considerations. Moreover, they do not allow analgesic titration based on patient needs; are unclear about optimal components and their role in different surgical settings and perioperative phases; and do not serve to decrease the risk of persistent opioid use, thereby distracting us from optimizing pain and minimizing realistic long-term harms.

Balanced Opioid-free Anesthesia with Dexmedetomidine versus Balanced Anesthesia with Remifentanil for Major or Intermediate Noncardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

It is speculated that opioid-free anesthesia may provide adequate pain control while reducing postoperative opioid consumption. However, there is currently no evidence to support the speculation. The authors hypothesized that opioid-free balanced anesthetic with dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative opioid-related adverse events compared with balanced anesthetic with remifentanil.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive a standard balanced anesthetic with either intraoperative remifentanil plus morphine (remifentanil group) or dexmedetomidine (opioid-free group). All patients received intraoperative propofol, desflurane, dexamethasone, lidocaine infusion, ketamine infusion, neuromuscular blockade, and postoperative lidocaine infusion, paracetamol, nefopam, and patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative opioid-related adverse events (hypoxemia, ileus, or cognitive dysfunction) within the first 48 h after extubation. The main secondary outcomes were episodes of postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

The study was stopped prematurely because of five cases of severe bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group. The primary composite outcome occurred in 122 of 156 (78%) dexmedetomidine group patients compared with 105 of 156 (67%) in the remifentanil group (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33; P = 0.031). Hypoxemia occurred 110 of 152 (72%) of dexmedetomidine group and 94 of 155 (61%) of remifentanil group patients (relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.40; P = 0.030). There were no differences in ileus or cognitive dysfunction. Cumulative 0 to 48 h postoperative morphine consumption (11 mg [5 to 21] versus 6 mg [0 to 17]) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (58 of 157 [37%] versus 37 of 157 [24%]; relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.90) were both less in the dexmedetomidine group, whereas measures of analgesia were similar in both groups. Dexmedetomidine patients had more delayed extubation and prolonged postanesthesia care unit stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial refuted the hypothesis that balanced opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, compared with remifentanil, would result in fewer postoperative opioid-related adverse events. Conversely, it did result in a greater incidence of serious adverse events, especially hypoxemia and bradycardia.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Effect of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation: A meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

An uncontrolled adrenergic response during tracheal intubation may lead to life-threatening complications. Dexmedetomidine binds to α2-receptors and may attenuate this response. The primary aim of our meta-analysis is to investigate dexmedetomidine efficacy in attenuating sympathetic response to tracheal intubation, compared with placebo or no dexmedetomidine, in terms of heart rate and blood pressure at intubation.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

SETTING

Systematic search from inception until December 1, 2020 in the following databases: Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and Google Scholar.

INTERVENTIONS

All randomized controlled trials investigating intravenous dexmedetomidine as premedication in adult patients undergoing tracheal intubation were included in our study. Studies were included without any language or publication date restriction. A trial sequential analysis and a post-hoc meta-regression were performed on the main outcomes.

MEASUREMENTS

Hemodynamic parameters and heart rate at tracheal intubation, dose of anesthetic needed for induction of anesthesia, total anesthetic requirement throughout the operative procedure, postoperative pain and percentage of patients requiring analgesics at 24 postoperative hours, postoperative nausea and vomiting, intraoperative and postoperative bradycardia, hypotension, dizziness, shivering and/or respiratory depression.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-nine included studies randomized 6833 patients. During laryngoscopy, all hemodynamic parameters were significantly greater in the no dexmedetomidine group. In particular, in the dexmedetomidine group, systolic blood pressure differed by -21.8 mm Hg (95% CI -26.6 to -17.1, p-value < 0.001, I² 97%), mean arterial pressure by -12.8 mm Hg (95% CI -15.6 to -10.0, p-value < 0.001, I² 98%), and heart rate by -16.9 bpm (95% CI -19.8 to -13.9, p-value < 0.001, I² 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving premedication with dexmedetomidine for tracheal intubation, compared with no dexmedetomidine, have a lower blood pressure and heart rate, however, the risk of bradycardia and hypotension is relevant and its use during daily practice should be cautiously evaluated for each patient.

Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the analgesic and antiemetic effects of adjuvant dexmedetomidine (DEX) for breast cancer surgery using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to collect the studies that performed randomized controlled trials. The effect size was estimated by odd ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD). Statistical analysis was performed using the STATA 13.0 software.

RESULTS

Twelve published studies involving 396 DEX treatment patients and 395 patients with control treatment were included. Pooled analysis showed that the use of DEX significantly prolonged the time to first request of analgesia (SMD = 1.67), decreased the postoperative requirement for tramadol (SMD = -0.65) and morphine (total: SMD = -2.23; patient-controlled analgesia: SMD = -1.45) as well as intraoperative requirement for fentanyl (SMD = -1.60), and lower the pain score at 1 (SMD = -0.30), 2 (SMD = -1.45), 4 (SMD = -2.36), 6 (SMD = -0.63), 8 (SMD = -2.47), 12 (SMD = -0.81), 24 (SMD = -1.78), 36 (SMD = -0.92), and 48 (SMD = -0.80) hours postoperatively compared with the control group. Furthermore, the risks to develop postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) (OR = 0.38) and vomiting (OR = 0.54) were significantly decreased in the DEX group compared with the control group. The pain relief at early time point (2, 6, 12, 24 hours postoperatively) and the decrease in the incidence of PONV were especially obvious for the general anesthesia subgroup (P < .05) relative to local anesthesia subgroup (P >.05).

CONCLUSION

DEX may be a favorable anesthetic adjuvant in breast cancer surgery, which could lower postoperative pain and the risk to develop PONV. DEX should be combined especially for the patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Enhanced recovery pathways for ambulatory surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Implementation of enhanced recovery pathways have allowed migration of complex surgical procedures from inpatient setting to the outpatient setting. These programs improve patient safety and patient-reported outcomes. The present article discusses the principles of enhanced recovery pathways in adults undergoing ambulatory surgery with an aim of improving patient safety and postoperative outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Procedure and patient selection is one of the key elements that influences perioperative outcomes after ambulatory surgery. Other elements include optimization of comorbid conditions, patient and family education, minimal preoperative fasting and adequate hydration during the fasting period, use of fast-track anesthesia technique, lung-protective mechanical ventilation, maintenance of fluid balance, and multimodal pain, nausea, and vomiting prophylaxis.

SUMMARY

Implementation of enhanced recovery pathways requires a multidisciplinary approach in which the anesthesiologist should take a lead in collaborating with surgeons and perioperative nurses. Measuring compliance with enhanced recovery pathways through an audit program is essential to evaluate success and need for protocol modification. The metrics to assess the impact of enhanced recovery pathways include complication rates, patient reported outcomes, duration of postoperative stay in the surgical facility, unplanned hospital admission rate, and 7-day and 30-day readmission rates.

Intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine and quality of recovery after elective surgery in adult patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pre- and perioperative intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine for enhancing quality of recovery (as measured by 40-item quality of recovery questionnaire (QoR-40), ranged from 40 to 200) after surgery.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

Adult patients undergoing elective surgery.

INTERVENTION

Intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine during pre- and perioperative period.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. The secondary outcome was the incidence of dexmedetomidine-related adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Moderate to low quality evidence suggested that dexmedetomidine (DEX) increased the quality of recovery after surgery (WMD, weighted mean difference 15.71, 95% CI, confidence interval 0.43 to 31.00; 428 participants; 5 RCTs; low quality evidence), decreased the incidence of postoperative nauseas or vomiting (RR, risk ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83; 404 participants; 6 RCTs; moderate quality evidence; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.55; 356 participants; 5 RCTs; moderate quality evidence) without increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 1.78, 95% CI 0.78 to 4.02; 275 participants; 4 RCTs; moderate quality evidence), dizziness (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.00; 183 participants; 3 RCTs; moderate quality evidence), pruritus (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.44; 186 participants; 3 RCTs; moderate quality evidence), hypotension requiring an intervention (RR: 1.48, 95% CI, 0.68 to 3.23; 254 participants; 3 RCTs; moderate quality evidence) and longer length of hospital stay (WMD: -0.75 days, 95% CI -1.95 to 0.44; 246 participants; 3 RCTs; low quality evidence) in early postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine as an anesthetic adjuvant to general anesthesia was associated with an enhanced quality of recovery (15.71; far more than a clinically significant improvement of 6.3) without increased risk of adverse events in the early postoperative period (moderate to low quality evidence). Further large sample and high quality RCTs are needed to confirm the current findings.