Efficacy of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for sedation in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review

Safety and efficacy of a novel dexmedetomidine nasal spray for pre-anesthetic sedation in children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Off-label intranasal administration of injectable dexmedetomidine has been widely applied in the pediatric sedation setting. However, the development of an improved drug delivery system that is easy to use is needed. We developed a novel dexmedetomidine nasal spray that can be administered directly without dilution or configuration for pediatric pre-anesthetic sedation. This nasal spray has a fixed dose and is stable during storage. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first licensed nasal spray preparation of dexmedetomidine worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the pre-anesthetic sedation efficacy and safety of the novel dexmedetomidine nasal spray in children.

METHODS

The study was conducted at 11 sites in China between 24 November 2021 and 20 May 2022 and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05111431, first registration date: 20/10/2021). Subjects (n = 159) between 2 and 6 years old who were to undergo elective surgery were randomized to the dexmedetomidine group (n = 107) or the placebo group (n = 52) in a 2:1 ratio. The dosage was 30 µg or 50 µg based on the stratified body weight. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of subjects who achieved the desired child-parent separation and Ramsay scale ≥ 3 within 45 min of administration. Safety was monitored via the assessments of adverse events, blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and blood oxygen saturation.

RESULTS

The proportion of subjects achieving desired parental separation and Ramsay scale ≥ 3 within 45 min was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group (94.4%) vs the placebo group (32.0%) (P < 0.0001). As compared with placebo, dexmedetomidine treatment led to more subjects achieving Ramsay scale ≥ 3 or UMSS ≥ 2, and shorter time to reach desired parental separation, Ramsay scale ≥ 3 and UMSS ≥ 2 (all P < 0.0001). Adverse events were reported in 90.7% and 84.0% of subjects in the dexmedetomidine and placebo groups, respectively, and all the events were mild or moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel dexmedetomidine nasal spray presented effective pre-anesthetic sedation in children with a tolerable safety profile.

Effect of prolonged sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, propofol, and sevoflurane on sleep homeostasis in rats

BACKGROUND

Sleep disruption is a common occurrence during medical care and is detrimental to patient recovery. Long-term sedation in the critical care setting is a modifiable factor that affects sleep, but the impact of different sedative-hypnotics on sleep homeostasis is not clear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic comparison of the effects of prolonged sedation (8 h) with i.v. and inhalational agents on sleep homeostasis. Adult Sprague-Dawley rats (n=10) received dexmedetomidine or midazolam on separate days. Another group (n=9) received propofol or sevoflurane on separate days. A third group (n=12) received coadministration of dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane. Wakefulness (wake), slow-wave sleep (SWS), and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep were quantified during the 48-h post-sedation period, during which we also assessed wake-associated neural dynamics using two electroencephalographic measures: theta-high gamma phase-amplitude coupling and high gamma weighted phase-lag index.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine-, midazolam-, or propofol-induced sedation increased wake and decreased SWS and REM sleep (P<0.0001) during the 48-h post-sedation period. Sevoflurane produced no change in SWS, decreased wake for 3 h, and increased REM sleep for 6 h (P<0.02) post-sedation. Coadministration of dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane induced no change in wake (P>0.05), increased SWS for 3 h, and decreased REM sleep for 9 h (P<0.02) post-sedation. Dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and coadministration of dexmedetomidine with sevoflurane reduced wake-associated phase-amplitude coupling (P≤0.01). All sedatives except sevoflurane decreased wake-associated high gamma weighted phase-lag index (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to i.v. drugs, prolonged sevoflurane sedation produced minimal changes in sleep homeostasis and neural dynamics. Further studies are warranted to assess inhalational agents for long-term sedation and sleep homeostasis.

Association between dexmedetomidine administration and outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between dexmedetomidine administration and outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI).

DESIGN

A single-center, retrospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Intensive care unit (ICU).

PATIENTS

A total of 2192 critically ill patients with SA-AKI were included in the analysis, which identified from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV) database between 2008 and 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was recovery of renal function. In-hospital mortality, vasopressor requirements, length of ICU and hospital stay were considered secondary outcomes. The Cox proportional hazards, logistic regression, and linear regression models were used to assess the association between dexmedetomidine and outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match patients receiving dexmedetomidine to those without treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

After PSM, 719 matched patient pairs were derived from patients who received dexmedetomidine and those who did not. The administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher rate of renal recovery [61.8% vs. 55.8%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.35; P = 0.01], reduced in-hospital mortality [28.3% vs. 41.3%, HR 0.56; P < 0.001], and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay [15.8d vs 12.6d, HR 2.34; P < 0.001] and hospital stay [23.7d vs 19.7d, HR 4.47; P < 0.001]. No significant difference was found in vasopressor requirements in patients with SA-AKI. Nevertheless, results illustrated that dose receiving between 0.30 and 1.00 μg/kg/h and duration using under 48 h of dexmedetomidine was associated with improvements in renal function recovery in SA-AKI patients.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvements in renal function recovery and in-hospital survival in critically ill patients with SA-AKI. The results need to be verified in further randomized controlled trials.

Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for Sedation During Medical Thoracoscopy: A Pilot Randomized-Controlled Trial (RCT)

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing the utility of dexmedetomidine with other drugs for sedation during medical thoracoscopy are lacking. In this pilot study, we compared dexmedetomidine with midazolam for sedation in thoracoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive subjects were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine (n=30) (group D) or midazolam (n=30) (group M). All received fentanyl for procedural analgesia. The primary endpoint was pulmonologist-rated overall procedure satisfaction on the visual analog scale (satisfaction VAS). Key secondary outcomes were pulmonologist-rated cough on VAS (cough VAS), patient-rated faces pain scale scores, change in hemodynamic variables, total additional fentanyl dose, and adverse events during procedure.

RESULTS

The satisfaction VAS score (mean±SD) was significantly greater in group D versus group M (7.5±1.4 and 6.5±1.1, respectively) ( P =0.003). The cough VAS scores (mean±SD) were 2.1±1.5 (group D) and 3.1±1.3 (group M) ( P =0.014). The scores (mean±SD) for patient-rated faces pain scale were 2.9±1.8 and 4.2±2.3 ( P =0.019) in group D and group M, respectively. The additional dose of fentanyl administered in group M was significantly greater than in group D ( P =0.001). The responses at the local anesthesia infiltration, skin incision, thoracoscope insertion, and biopsy between both groups were similar. The hemodynamic parameters were comparable in both groups. Also, more patients were willing for repeat thoracoscopy if needed; in the dexmedetomidine group.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this pilot RCT indicate that dexmedetomidine may be more efficacious than midazolam for sedation in patients undergoing medical thoracoscopy. These observations need to be confirmed in an adequately powered RCT.

Dexmedetomidine Reduces Incidences of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Adult Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To assess the antiarrhythmic properties of dexmedetomidine in patients in the intensive care unit.

Methods

A literature review was conducted with Ovid MEDLINE (R), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, and Scopus. Study Selection. Randomized controlled trials were included, examining the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, ventricular tachycardia, or ventricular fibrillation with dexmedetomidine compared to placebo or an alternative sedative agent. For each publication that met the selection criteria, the patient demographics, incidence of arrhythmias, mortality, and adverse events were collected. Data extraction was carried out by two authors independently.

Results

We identified 6 out of 126 studies that met the selection criteria for our meta-analysis, all of which focused on the perioperative cardiac surgery period. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine demonstrated a significant reduction of the overall incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16, 0.76). In particular, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the risk of ventricular tachycardia compared with control (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08, 0.80, I² 0%). Regarding adverse events, dexmedetomidine significantly increased the frequency of bradycardia (RR 2.78 95% CI 2.00, 3.87). However, there was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.12, 3.02).

Conclusion

From this meta-analysis, we report a decreased incidence of ventricular tachycardia with dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients. This result favors the use of dexmedetomidine for its antiarrhythmic properties.

Midazolam exhibits antitumour and anti-inflammatory effects in a mouse model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Anaesthesia and perioperative management contribute to long-term outcomes of patients with cancer, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We assessed the antitumour, anti-inflammatory, and analgesic effects of midazolam on LSL-Kras^G12D/+;Trp53^flox/flox;Pdx-1^cre/+ transgenic mice with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Six-week-old transgenic mice were administered midazolam 30 mg kg^-1 day^-1 p.o. (n=13); midazolam 30 mg kg^-1 day^-1 with 1-(2-chlorophenyl)-N-methyl-N(1-methylpropyl)-3-isoquinoline carboxamide (PK11195) 3 mg kg^-1 day^-1 i.p., a peripheral benzodiazepine receptor antagonist (n=10); or vehicle (water; n=14) until the humane endpoint. Cancer-associated pain was evaluated using hunching score and mouse grimace scale. Tumour stage and immuno-inflammatory status were determined histopathologically. Anti-proliferative and apoptotic potentials of midazolam were investigated using mouse pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cell lines.

RESULTS

Midazolam significantly inhibited tumour size and proliferative index of Ki-67 and cyclins in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, which was blocked by administration of PK11195. Local myeloperoxidase⁺ tumour-associated neutrophils, arginase-1⁺ M2-like tumour-associated macrophages, and CD11b⁺Ly-6G⁺ polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells were reduced by midazolam, which was antagonised by administration of PK11195. Hunching and mouse grimace scale were improved by midazolam, whereas the scores increased with midazolam+PK11195 treatment. Plasma pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and CC chemokine ligand (CCL)2, CCL3, and CCL5, were reduced by midazolam, whereas these cytokines increased with PK11195. Midazolam inhibited pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma proliferation through downregulation of cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases and induced apoptosis in vitro.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that midazolam inhibits pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma proliferation and local infiltration of tumour-associated neutrophils, tumour-associated macrophages, and polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells, thereby inhibiting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma progression.

Galanin Neurons Unite Sleep Homeostasis and α2-Adrenergic Sedation

Our urge to sleep increases with time spent awake, until sleep becomes inescapable. The sleep following sleep deprivation is longer and deeper, with an increased power of delta (0.5–4 Hz) oscillations, a phenomenon termed sleep homeostasis [1, 2, 3, 4]. Although widely expressed genes regulate sleep homeostasis [1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] and the process is tracked by somnogens and phosphorylation [1, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14], at the circuit level sleep homeostasis has remained mysterious. Previously, we found that sedation induced with α2-adrenergic agonists (e.g., dexmedetomidine) and sleep homeostasis both depend on the preoptic (PO) hypothalamus [15, 16]. Dexmedetomidine, increasingly used for long-term sedation in intensive care units [17], induces a non-rapid-eye-movement (NREM)-like sleep but with undesirable hypothermia [18, 19]. Within the PO, various neuronal subtypes (e.g., GABA/galanin and glutamate/NOS1) induce NREM sleep [20, 21, 22] and concomitant body cooling [21, 22]. This could be because NREM sleep’s restorative effects depend on lower body temperature [23, 24]. Here, we show that mice with lesioned PO galanin neurons have reduced sleep homeostasis: in the recovery sleep following sleep deprivation there is a diminished increase in delta power, and the mice catch up little on lost sleep. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine cannot induce high-power delta oscillations or sustained hypothermia. Some hours after dexmedetomidine administration to wild-type mice there is a rebound in delta power when they enter normal NREM sleep, reminiscent of emergence from torpor. This delta rebound is reduced in mice lacking PO galanin neurons. Thus, sleep homeostasis and dexmedetomidine-induced sedation require PO galanin neurons and likely share common mechanisms.

•

This is the first identification of a cell type underlying sleep homeostasis

•

Preoptic galanin neurons are essential for sleep homeostasis

•

Galanin neurons mediate the sedative and hypothermic actions of dexmedetomidine

•

Dexmedetomidine causes an EEG delta power rebound dependent on galanin neurons

Sedative drugs used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of different sedative drugs on all-cause mortality rate, duration of ICU stay, and risk of delirium in mechanically ventilated ICU patients are unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of individual sedative drugs and drug combinations in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane, EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched for studies that assessed sedation in ICU mechanically ventilated patients. A Bayesian random-effects model was used to combine the direct comparisons and indirect evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-one randomized, controlled trials were included, which consisted of 4491 patients who received one of seven sedative drugs or a combination of drugs. There were no significant differences regarding the all-cause mortality rate. Compared to propofol, inhalation anesthetics (hazard ratio [HR] 0.121; 95% credible interval [CrI] -7.58 to 7.62), alpha agonists (HR 2.2; 95% CrI 0.776 to 5.22), propofol with benzodiazepines (HR 0.306; 95% CrI -6.97 to 7.65), ketamine with benzodiazepines (HR 6.57; 95% CrI -6.05 to 19.1) and placebo (HR 2.4; 95% CrI -5.37 to 10.3), benzodiazepines (HR 3.62; 95% CrI 0.834 to 6.2) may increase the duration of ICU stay. Compared to alpha agonists, propofol (HR 2.4; 95% CrI 0.304 to 21.1) and placebo (HR 6.12; 95% CrI 0.745 to 54.6), benzodiazepines (HR 2.59; 95% CrI 1.08 to 7.4) were associated with incremental risks of delirium.

CONCLUSION

Compared to propofol, benzodiazepines may increase the duration of ICU stay. Compared to alpha agonists, benzodiazepines were associated with an increased risk of delirium.

Comparison of bupivacaine plus intrathecal fentanyl and bupivacaine alone for spinal anesthesia with intravenous dexmedetomidine sedation: a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Fentanyl is widely used as an intrathecal adjuvant to local anesthetics to enhance the duration of spinal anesthesia. Recent evidence suggests that intravenous dexmedetomidine prolongs the duration of spinal anesthesia. This noninferiority study evaluated whether bupivacaine alone could provide a noninferior duration of block compared with bupivacaine and fentanyl when intravenous dexmedetomidine was administered intraoperatively.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either bupivacaine 13 mg with intrathecal fentanyl 20 µg (Group BF) or bupivacaine 13 mg (Group B). Both groups underwent intravenous dexmedetomidine sedation throughout the surgery (1 µg kg^-1 for 10 min, followed by 0.5 µg kg^-1 h^-1). The primary outcome was the time to two-segment regression of the sensory block. The noninferiority margin for the mean difference was predefined as -10 min. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, analgesics consumptions, and the incidences of pruritus, nausea, and vomiting.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the two-segment regression time of sensory block (Group B 109.1±25.0 min vs Group BF 104.3±25.9 min; p=0.484). The mean difference in the two-segment regression time between the 2 groups was 4.8 min (95 % CI -8.9 to 18.6), demonstrating the noninferiority of bupivacaine alone. Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The duration of spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine alone is noninferior to that of bupivacaine plus fentanyl in patients receiving intravenous dexmedetomidine intraoperatively. Our results suggest that intrathecal fentanyl may not be required when intravenous dexmedetomidine is administered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03105115.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions to prevent shivering after surgery: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although many drugs have been studied to prevent postoperative shivering, their comparative effectiveness is unknown. We attempted to assess the comparative effectiveness of the pharmacologic strategies to prevent shivering after surgery including intravenous (IV) and intrathecal (IT) meperidine, IV and IT dexmedetomidine, IV and IT clonidine, nefopam, tramadol, ketamine, and serotonin receptor antagonists.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We implemented a frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Random effect model was selected according to deviance information criteria. The incidence of moderate or severe shivering and the overall incidence of postoperative shivering were compared in all patients and subgroups of general and spinal anesthesia.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy trials with 6062 participants were included. All interventions except clonidine IT and dexmedetomidine IT significantly decreased the incidence of moderate or severe shivering. All interventions except clonidine IT significantly decreased the overall incidence of shivering. Nefopam IV was ranked best regarding both the incidence of moderate or severe shivering (odds ratio [OR] 0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.25, SUCRA 86.2, moderate quality-evidence), and the overall incidence of shivering (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.15, SUCRA 85.7, moderate quality-evidence), which was consistent in the subgroups of anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Nefopam was ranked best regarding both severity and incidence of postoperative shivering. In addition to nefopam, tramadol, meperidine IV and IT, and dexmedetomidine IV were ranked high. However, there was significant heterogeneity regarding the individual drug regimen and surgery type, precluding firm conclusion. Further randomized trials are required to compare the efficacy of the drugs with high rank.

Effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine on analgesic efficacy and inflammatory cytokines in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery

The effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine on analgesic efficacy and inflammatory cytokines in patients with laparoscopic surgery were investigated. A total of 179 laparoscopic patients from March 2015 to May 2017 were enrolled and randomly divided into the control group (group A) and three experimental groups with different doses of dexmedetomidine (group B: 0.25; group C: 0.5 and group D: 1 µg/kg). Results showed that there was no significant difference between the four groups in the operation time, the amount of surgical bleeding and intraoperative fluid infusion. The VAS score of group A was significantly higher than the other three groups. In addition, the VAS score of group D at each time-point was the lowest. There was no significant difference regarding the agitation score and sedation score between group A and group B. Furthermore, the restlessness score and sedation score in group C were significantly lower than those in group A and group B. Next we found that CRP and TNF-α in group A and group B were significantly higher than those in groups C and D. In addition, IL-10 in group D was significantly higher than that in group C. Moreover, patients in group C had the least adverse reaction effects. In conclusion, medium dosage of dexmedetomidine cannot only effectively relieve the pain of laparoscopic patients but also regulate the secretion of inflammatory cytokines.

Replacement of dexmedetomidine loading with midazolam for sedation in elderly patients with spinal anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative during spinal anesthesia. However, it requires a loading dose, which can result in transient hypertension, hypotension, bradycardia, and/or sinus arrest. In addition, the time required to reach an appropriate depth of sedation may cause anxiety to the patients. Therefore, we examined whether an intravenous bolus of midazolam could replace the loading dose of dexmedetomidine for sedation during surgery in elderly patients who received spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

Patients aged over 60 years who scheduled to undergo total knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized into 2 groups. Patients in dexmedetomidine group (group D) (n = 20) were administered a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg over 10 min) intravenously followed by dexmedetomidine maintenance (0.5 μg/kg/h). Patients in group MD (n = 20) were administered an intravenous midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) followed by dexmedetomidine maintenance (0.5 μg/kg/h) intravenously. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MBP), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and patient state index (PSI) were recorded. Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) scores were evaluated at 10 minutes after drug administration and the end of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 40 subjects were enrolled in the present study. At baseline, there was no between-group difference in HR. Ten minutes after drug administration, group D had lower HR than group MD (62.1 ± 9.4 versus 69.6 ± 13.4, P = .047). PSI was significantly lower in group MD at 10 minutes after drug administration (82.8 ± 13.0 versus 72.0 ± 16.0, P = .024); there was no between-group difference at 30 and 60 minutes, and lower values in group D at the end of surgery (70.2 ± 22.6 versus 79.7 ± 10.9, P = .011). The RSS score showed statistically significantly deeper sedation in group MD 10 minutes after drug administration, but no difference at the end of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

An intravenous bolus of midazolam is a viable alternative to dexmedetomidine loading for sedation during surgery in elderly patients who received spinal anesthesia. This is especially effective for patients who are at high risk for bradycardia or who want a faster sedation.

LC-MS/MS Method for Simultaneous Quantification of Dexmedetomidine, Dezocine, and Midazolam in Rat Plasma and Its Application to Their Pharmacokinetic Study

A simple, sensitive, and accurate LC-MS/MS method was established and validated for the simultaneous quantification of dexmedetomidine, dezocine, and midazolam in rat plasma. Chromatographic separation was achieved on a C18 column (50 mm × 2.1 mm, 3 µm) using a mobile phase composed of water (containing 0.1% formic acid) and acetonitrile. The lower limits of quantification were 0.1, 0.1, and 0.2 ng/mL for dexmedetomidine, dezocine, and midazolam in rat plasma, respectively. The analytes were determined with selected reaction monitoring under positive ionization mode. The intra- and interday precision and accuracy were all within acceptable limits during the entire validation, and the stability of analytes was acceptable under various storage conditions. The validated method was successfully applied in pharmacokinetic studies of dexmedetomidine, dezocine, and midazolam following intravenous injection.

Sleep and Sedative States Induced by Targeting the Histamine and Noradrenergic Systems

Sedatives target just a handful of receptors and ion channels. But we have no satisfying explanation for how activating these receptors produces sedation. In particular, do sedatives act at restricted brain locations and circuitries or more widely? Two prominent sedative drugs in clinical use are zolpidem, a GABA_A receptor positive allosteric modulator, and dexmedetomidine (DEX), a selective α2 adrenergic receptor agonist. By targeting hypothalamic neuromodulatory systems both drugs induce a sleep-like state, but in different ways: zolpidem primarily reduces the latency to NREM sleep, and is a controlled substance taken by many people to help them sleep; DEX produces prominent slow wave activity in the electroencephalogram (EEG) resembling stage 2 NREM sleep, but with complications of hypothermia and lowered blood pressure—it is used for long term sedation in hospital intensive care units—under DEX-induced sedation patients are arousable and responsive, and this drug reduces the risk of delirium. DEX, and another α2 adrenergic agonist xylazine, are also widely used in veterinary clinics to sedate animals. Here we review how these two different classes of sedatives, zolpidem and dexmedetomideine, can selectively interact with some nodal points of the circuitry that promote wakefulness allowing the transition to NREM sleep. Zolpidem enhances GABAergic transmission onto histamine neurons in the hypothalamic tuberomammillary nucleus (TMN) to hasten the transition to NREM sleep, and DEX interacts with neurons in the preoptic hypothalamic area that induce sleep and body cooling. This knowledge may aid the design of more precise acting sedatives, and at the same time, reveal more about the natural sleep-wake circuitry.

Randomized comparison between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for prevention of emergence agitation after nasal surgeries

Background

Emergence agitation (EA) in nasal surgeries is seen in around 22% of patients, which can go to dangerous levels. Dexmedetomidine is effective in prevention of EA in such patients. Midazolam given as premedication fails to prevent EA due to its short half-life. In this study, we compared efficacy of dexmedetomidine and midazolam by intravenous infusion for prevention of EA in adult nasal surgeries.

Materials and Methods

Seventy patients belonging to American society of anesthesiologist Status I and II, between 18 and 60 years of age posted for elective nasal surgeries were randomly divided into two groups. Group D received intravenous dexmedetomidine 0.5 mcg/kg over 15 min followed by 0.1 mcg/kg/h. Group M received intravenous midazolam 0.02 mg/kg over 15 min followed by 0.02 mg/kg/h. EA scores, emergence times, and hemodynamic parameters were monitored and compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was done by independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Chi-square test as applicable.

Results

Incidence of EA was comparable between the groups (P = 0.23). Two patients in midazolam group developed dangerous agitation while none in dexmedetomidine group. Patients in midazolam group (12.4%) were agitated even in postoperative period, which was not seen with dexmedetomidine group. Hypotension and bradycardia were seen more in dexmedetomidine group.

Conclusion

Efficacy of midazolam when given as an intravenous infusion is comparable to dexmedetomidine in prevention of EA in nasal surgeries.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES

We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS

Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine as a Sedative for Pediatric Procedural Sedation

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine as a sedative medication for non-invasive procedural sedation.

METHODS

Subjects 6 months to 18 years of age undergoing non-invasive elective procedures were included. Dexmedetomidine (3 mcg/kg) was administered IN 40 minutes before the scheduled procedure time. The IN dexmedetomidine cohort was matched and compared to a cohort of 690 subjects who underwent sedation for similar procedures without the use of dexmedetomidine to evaluate for observed events/interventions and procedural times.

RESULTS

One hundred (92%) of the 109 included subjects were successfully sedated with IN dexmedetomidine. There were no significant differences in the rate of observed events/interventions in comparison to the non-dexmedetomidine cohort. However, the IN dexmedetomidine group had a longer postprocedure sleep time when compared to the non-dexmedetomidine cohort (p < 0.001), which had a significant effect on recovery time (p = 0.024). Also, the dexmedetomidine cohort had longer procedure time and total admit time (p < 0.001 and p = 0.037, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IN dexmedetomidine may be used for non-invasive pediatric procedural sedation. Subjects receiving IN dexmedetomidine had a similar rate of observed events/interventions as the subjects receiving non-dexmedetomidine sedation, with the exception of sleeping time. Also, patients sedated with IN dexmedetomidine had longer time to discharge, procedure time, and total admit time in comparison to other forms of sedation.

Dexmedetomidine Acts via the JAK2/STAT3 Pathway to Attenuate Isoflurane-Induced Neurocognitive Deficits in Senile Mice

Background

Previous studies showed that isoflurane-induced cognitive deficits could be alleviated by dexmedetomidine in young animal subjects. In the current study, we examine whether dexmedetomidine could also alleviate isoflurane-induced cognitive deficits in senile animals.

Methods

Senile male C57BL/6 mice (20 months) received dexmedetomidine (50 μg/kg, i.p.) or vehicle 30 minutes prior to isoflurane exposure (1.3% for 4 h). Cognitive function was assessed 19 days later using a 5-day testing regimen with Morris water maze. Some subjects also received pretreatment with α₂ adrenoreceptor antagonist atipamezole (250 μg/kg, i.p.), JAK2 inhibitor AG490 (15 mg/kg i.p.) or STAT3 inhibitor WP1066 (40 mg/kg i.p.) 30 minutes prior to dexmedetomidine.

Results

Isoflurane exposure increased and reduced the time spent in the quadrant containing the target platform in training sessions. The number of crossings over the original target quadrant was also decreased. Dexmedotomidine attenuated such effects. Effects of dexmedotomidine were reduced by pretreatment with atipamezole, AG490 and WP1066. Increased phosphorylation of JAK2 and STAT3 in the hippocampus induced by isoflurane was augmented by dexmedetomidine. Effects of dexmedetomidine on JAK2/STAT3 phosphorylation were attenuated by atipamezole, AG490 and WP1066. Isoflurane promoted neuronal apoptosis and increased the expression of cleaved caspase-3 and BAD, and reduced Bcl-2 expression. Attenuation of such effects by dexmedotomidine was partially blocked by atipamezole, AG490 and WP1066.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine could protect against isoflurane-induced spatial learning and memory impairment in senile mice by stimulating the JAK2/STAT3 signaling pathway. Such findings encourage the use of dexmedetomidine in geriatric patients receiving isoflurane anesthesia.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Patients undergoing endoscopy frequently require sedation, which commonly includes the administration of midazolam or dexmedetomidine. Previous meta-analyses have mainly focused on comparing the effects of these two drugs in intensive care unit patients. In the present study, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the sedative and clinical effectiveness of these two drugs in patients undergoing endoscopy were searched in a number of databases. The meta-analysis showed that dexmedetomidine demonstrated a significantly lower rate of respiratory depression and adverse events compared with those presented upon midazolam administration. A significant difference was also observed in the sedation potency of the sedatives. The current controlled data suggest that dexmedetomidine may be an alternative to midazolam in the sedation for endoscopy. However, more high-quality and well-designed studies are required to further evaluate this conclusion.

Dexmedetomidine decreases the inflammatory response to myocardial surgery under mini-cardiopulmonary bypass

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with extracorporeal circulation produces changes in the immune system accompanied by an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and a decrease in anti-inflammatory cytokines. We hypothesize that dexmedetomidine (DEX) as an anesthetic adjuvant modulates the inflammatory response after coronary artery bypass graft surgery with mini-CPB. In a prospective, randomized, blind study, 12 patients (4 females and 8 males, age range 42-72) were assigned to DEX group and compared with a conventional total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) group of 11 patients (4 females and 7 males). The endpoints used to assess inflammatory and biochemical responses to mini-CPB were plasma interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-10, interferon (INF)-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, C-reactive protein, creatine phosphokinase, creatine phosphokinase-MB, cardiac troponin I, cortisol, and glucose levels. These variables were determined before anesthesia, 90 min after beginning CPB, 5 h after beginning CPB, and 24 h after the end of surgery. Endpoints of oxidative stress, including thiobarbituric acid reactive species and delta-aminolevulinate dehydratase activity in erythrocytes were also determined. DEX+TIVA use was associated with a significant reduction in IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α, and INF-γ (P<0.0001) levels compared with TIVA (two-way ANOVA). In contrast, the surgery-induced increase in thiobarbituric acid reactive species was higher in the DEX+TIVA group than in the TIVA group (P<0.01; two-way ANOVA). Delta-aminolevulinate dehydratase activity was decreased after CPB (P<0.001), but there was no difference between the two groups. DEX as an adjuvant in anesthesia reduced circulating IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α, and INF-γ levels after mini-CPB. These findings indicate an interesting anti-inflammatory effect of DEX, which should be studied in different types of surgical interventions.

Sedation/drugs used in intensive care sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is recognition that the use of sedative drugs in critically ill patients is potentially harmful, particularly in relation to ICU delirium and clinical outcomes. In that context, there is an increasing interest in maintaining light sedation, the use of non-gamma-aminobutyric acid agonist agents and antipsychotics.

RECENT FINDINGS

The sedative drugs currently available have limitations relating to duration of action, cost or variability in response. Recent reviews and meta-analyses comparing sedatives in ICU patients differ in their findings depending on whether trials in elective cardiac surgical patients are included. Dexmedetomidine does appear to reduce the number of ventilator days in the less sick critically ill patient. There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of antipsychotics in ICU patients to prevent or treat delirium, although they will reduce agitation and they appear to be well tolerated when used in the critically ill patient. Sedation protocols and early mobilization reduce the use of sedative drugs and improve some outcomes but are challenging to implement in practice.

SUMMARY

The bedside clinician needs to balance the need to sedate the patient and maintain life-saving support, while keeping their patient responsive, cooperative and pain free.

Post-operative cardiac arrest induced by co-administration of amiodarone and dexmedetomidine: a case report

We firstly report a postoperative hemodialysis patient who was co-administered with amiodarone and dexmedetomidine and developed severe bradycardia followed by cardiac arrest. A 79-year-old male patient underwent an amputation of the right lower extremity. The electrocardiogram of the patient showed a complete right bundle branch block with left anterior fascicular block before the anesthesia, and paroxysmal atrial tachycardia over 200 beats/min lasting 15 min was observed during surgery. After admission to the intensive care unit, the intensivist and the consultant cardiologist decided to treat tachycardia using amiodarone. The initial dosing of amiodarone and the maintenance infusion succeeded to decrease the heart rate. Approximately 2 h and a half after the start of dexmedetomidine infusion for sedation, the heart rate gradually declined and severe bradycardia suddenly followed by cardiac arrest was observed. Resuscitation was promptly initiated and the patient regained sinus rhythm without delay. In retrospective analysis, the monitoring record of the electrocardiogram revealed the marked atrioventricular conduction abnormalities. This is the first case report concerning a cardiac arrest induced by amiodarone and dexmedetomidine.

The relationship between the Bispectral Index (BIS) and the Observer Alertness of Sedation Scale (OASS) scores during propofol sedation with and without ketamine: a randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial

Prior studies have examined the static effect of intravenous ketamine on the BIS Index for sedation but it remains unknown if the BIS Index is a reliable method to track sedation levels in the presence of ketamine. The major objective of the current investigation was to compare the BIS Vista Index ability to track varying depths of sedation as determined by OASS scores in a standardized anesthetic regimen with and without ketamine. The study was a randomized, double blinded clinical trial. Patients undergoing breast surgery under sedation with propofol were randomized to receive ketamine (1.5 μg kg min(-1)) or saline. Infusion data was used to estimate propofol plasma concentrations (Cp). The main outcome of interest was the correlation between the BIS Vista Index with the OASS score. Twenty subjects were recruited and fifteen completed the study. Four hundred fifty-five paired data points were included in the analysis. Model performance (Nagelkerke R(2)) of the multinomial logistic regression model was 0.57 with the c-statistic of 0.87 (95 % CI 0.82-0.91). Compared to awake the odds ratio for BIS values predicting moderate sedation in the saline/propofol group 1.19 (95 % CI 1.12-1.25) but only 1.06 (95 % CI 1.02-1.1) in the ketamine/propofol group (P = 0.001). There was no difference in the odds for BIS values to predict deep sedation between groups (P = 0.14). The BIS monitor can be used to monitor sedation level even when ketamine is used with propofol as part of the sedation regimen. However, ketamine reduces the value of the BIS in predicting moderate sedation levels.

Neuronal ensembles sufficient for recovery sleep and the sedative actions of α2 adrenergic agonists

Do sedatives engage natural sleep pathways? It is usually assumed that anesthetic-induced sedation and loss-of-righting-reflex (LORR) arise by influencing the same circuitry to lesser or greater extents. For the α2 adrenergic receptor agonist dexmedetomidine, we find that sedation and LORR are in fact distinct states, requiring different brain areas, the preoptic hypothalamic area and locus coeruleus (LC) respectively. Selective knockdown of α2A adrenergic receptors from the LC abolished dexmedetomidine-induced LORR, but not sedation. Instead, we found that dexmedetomidine-induced sedation resembles the deep recovery sleep that follows sleep deprivation. We used TetTag-pharmacogenetics in mice to functionally mark neurons activated in the preoptic hypothalamus during dexmedetomidine-induced sedation or recovery sleep. The neuronal ensembles could then be selectively reactivated. In both cases NREM sleep, with the accompanying drop in body temperature, was recapitulated. Thus α2 adrenergic receptor-induced sedation and recovery sleep share hypothalamic circuitry sufficient for producing these behavioral states.

Tablet-based Interactive Distraction (TBID) vs oral midazolam to minimize perioperative anxiety in pediatric patients: a noninferiority randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative anxiety is a common and undesirable outcome in pediatric surgical patients. The use of interactive tools to minimize perioperative anxiety is vastly understudied. The main objective of the current investigation was to compare the effects of a tablet-based interactive distraction (TBID) tool to oral midazolam on perioperative anxiety. We hypothesized that the TBID tool was not inferior to midazolam to reduce perioperative anxiety.

METHODS

108 children, ages 1-11 years, presenting for outpatient surgical procedures were prospectively randomized to oral midazolam (0.5 mg·kg(-1); 20 mg max) or TBID. The primary outcome was the change in anxiety level from baseline to parental separation and anesthetic induction. Other data collected included emergence delirium, parental satisfaction, time-to-PACU discharge, and posthospitalization behavior.

RESULTS

The mean difference (95% CI) in the increase of anxiety at parental separation between the TBID and the midazolam group was -9 (-2.6 to -16.4), P = 0.006, demonstrating superiority to midazolam group (one-sided P = 0.003). For children 2-11 years, the mean difference (95% CI) in anxiety at induction was significant between the TBID and midazolam groups, -14.0 (-6.1 to -22.0), P < 0.001. The median (IQR) time-to-PACU discharge was 111 (75-197) min in the midazolam group and 87 (55-137) min in the TBID group, P = 0.03. Decreased emergence delirium and increased parental satisfaction were also observed in the TBID group.

CONCLUSIONS

A TBID tool reduces perioperative anxiety, emergence delirium, and time-to-discharge and increases parental satisfaction when compared to midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.

Overestimation of mortality risk and preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing elective general surgery procedures: a propensity matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Deficiencies in risk communication have been identified in perioperative medicine. Objective measurement of risk overestimation by general surgery patients has not been performed. In addition, it is unknown if surgical risk overestimation is associated with the development of preoperative anxiety. The main objective of the current investigation was to examine the association between overestimation of surgical mortality risk and the development of preoperative anxiety.

METHODS

Patients estimation of surgical morality risk was compared to the actual mortality risk obtained by the American College of Surgeons national database. Preoperative anxiety was evaluated using a validated instrument. Propensity matched analysis was performed to examine an independent association between mortality risk overestimation and preoperative anxiety.

RESULTS

138 patients completed the study. 40 out of 138 (29%) patients overestimated their surgical mortality risk by at least 5%. 31 out of 138 (22%) patients estimated their surgical mortality risk by at least 10%. Patients who overestimated mortality risk (≥5%) were more likely to have postponed the surgery voluntarily, 9 out of 40 (23%) compared to patients who did not overestimate risk, 1 out of 98 (1%), P < 0.001. After propensity matching to control for covariate imbalances, overestimation of mortality risk was associated with the development of preoperative anxiety, OR (95%CI) of 9.5 (2.7-32.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Overestimation of perioperative mortality risk is common in patients undergoing general surgery and it is associated with preoperative anxiety and voluntarily delays of surgical treatment. Improved communication strategies are needed to minimize misleading risk perception in surgical patients.

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol in intensive care unit patients

Dexmedetomidine is indicated as a sedative agent in intensive care units (ICUs). While several clinical trials and two meta-analyses have compared this agent with propofol or midazolam, the results were variable depending on the specific end-point (e.g., duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU mortality, maintaining a target depth of sedation, incidence of delirium episodes, length of hospital stay). Hence, the effectiveness of this new agent vs the comparators seems to be controversial. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) is a statistical technique that can estimate the optimal, cumulative number of patients that would be needed to generate a conclusive result. We therefore applied a TSA model to the most recent meta-analysis evaluating dexmedetomidine. A total of 10 randomized controlled trials were included in our analysis. According to our results, the comparison of dexmedetomidine vs propofol showed no proof of incremental effectiveness for the end-points of length of ICUs stay and incidence of delirium episodes. In contrast, futility (i.e., proof of no incremental effectiveness) was demonstrated for the end-point of mechanical ventilation. Hence, the results for the comparison of dexmedetomidine vs propofol were inconclusive for the first two end-points; on the other hand, conclusiveness was reached for the third end-point. We conclude that the place of dexmedetomidine in therapy of critically ill patients is very uncertain and further controlled trials are still needed.

Does dexmedetomidine as a neuraxial adjuvant facilitate better anesthesia and analgesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Neuraxial application of dexmedetomidine (DEX) as adjuvant analgesic has been invetigated in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety in these RCTs. We performed this meta-analysis to access the efficacy and safety of neuraxial DEX as local anaesthetic (LA) adjuvant.

Methods

We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to June 2013 for RCTs that investigated the analgesia efficacy and safety for neuraxial application DEX as LA adjuvant. Effects were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighed mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratio (OR) with suitable effect model. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity and analgesic duration, bradycardia and hypotension.

Results

Sixteen RCTs involving 1092 participants were included. Neuraxial DEX significantly decreased postoperative pain intensity (SMD, −1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), −1.70 to −0.89; P<0.00001), prolonged analgesic duration (WMD, 6.93 hours; 95% CI, 5.23 to 8.62; P<0.00001) and increased the risk of bradycardia (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.18 to 6.10; P = 0.02). No evidence showed that neuraxial DEX increased the risk of other adverse events, such as hypotension (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.85; P = 0.17). Additionally, neuraxial DEX was associated with beneficial alterations in postoperative sedation scores and number of analgesic requirements, sensory and motor block characteristics, and intro-operative hemodynamics.

Conclusion

Neuraxial DEX is a favorable LA adjuvant with better and longer analgesia. The greatest concern is bradycardia. Further large sample trials with strict design and focusing on long-term outcomes are needed.