Caudal dexmedetomidine in pediatric caudal anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparison of dexmedetomidine and opioids as local anesthetic adjuvants in patient controlled epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data on the efficacy and incidence of adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine (DEX) as a local anesthetic adjuvant for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) are inconclusive. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and risks of DEX for PCEA using opioids as a reference.

METHODS

Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China Biology Medicine for randomized controlled trials comparing DEX and opioids as local anesthetic adjuvants in PCEA.

RESULTS

In total, 636 patients from seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. Postoperative patients who received DEX had lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores than those who received opioids at 4-8 h (mean difference [MD]: 0.61, 95% CI [0.45, 0.76], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), 12 h (MD: 0.85, 95% CI [0.61, 1.09], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), 24 h (MD: 0.59, 95% CI [0.06, 1.12], P = 0.030, I2 = 82%), and 48 h (MD: 0.54, 95% CI [0.05, 1.02], P = 0.030, I2 = 91%). Additionally, patients who received DEX had a lower incidence of itching (odds ratio [OR]: 2.86, 95% CI [1.18, 6.95], P = 0.020, I2 = 0%) and nausea and vomiting (OR: 6.83, 95% CI [3.63, 12.84], P < 0.001, I2 = 24%). In labor analgesia, no significant differences in neonatal (pH and PaO2 of cord blood, fetal heart rate) or maternal outcomes (duration of labor stage, mode of delivery) were found between the DEX and opioid groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with opioids, using DEX as a local anesthetic adjuvant in PCEA improved postoperative analgesia and reduced the incidence of itching and nausea and vomiting without increasing the incidence of adverse events.

Peri-anal infiltration versus caudal block for multimodal analgesia in paediatric patients with Hirschsprung's disease undergoing transanal endorectal pull-through procedure: A randomised trial

Background and Aims

Transanal endorectal pull-through (TERPT) is a standard procedure for managing paediatric patients with Hirschsprung's disease (HD). This study aimed to evaluate peri-anal infiltration versus caudal block as a part of multimodal analgesia for paediatric patients with HD undergoing the TERPT procedure.

Methods

This randomised trial included 60 patients of both genders, aged 6 to 18 months who underwent the TERPT procedure under general anaesthesia. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups to receive either peri-anal infiltration or caudal block with 1 ml/kg bupivacaine 0.25% and dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg in 0.5 ml normal saline. The primary outcome was the time to the first rescue analgesia. The secondary outcomes were the total consumption, the frequency of nalbuphine administration as rescue analgesia within 24 hours and the level of postoperative sedation.

Results

The time to first rescue analgesia was significantly shorter in the peri-anal infiltration group versus the caudal block group (median [interquartile range] 10 [7.5-12.5] h versus 16 [13.5-18.5] h, respectively, P = 0.008). The frequency of administration and the total dose of nalbuphine was significantly higher in the peri-anal infiltration group (P = 0.003 and 0.013, respectively). The sedation score was significantly higher in the caudal block group postoperatively.

Conclusion

For paediatric patients undergoing the TERPT procedure, peri-anal infiltration was less effective than caudal block in terms of the duration of postoperative analgesia. However, both techniques were comparable during the first 6 hours postoperatively.

The Effectiveness of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation for Stroke Patients With Upper Limb Impairments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Upper limb impairments are one of the most common health problems of stroke, affecting both motor function and independence in daily life. It has been demonstrated that intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) increases brain excitability and improves upper limb function. Our study sought to determine the role of iTBS in stroke recovery.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of iTBS in individuals with upper limb impairments following stroke.

Methods

The databases used included Cumulative Index to PubMed, EMBASE, ESCBOhost, The Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Database, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and WanFang Database. Studies published before November 2021 were included. Each participant received an iTBS-based intervention aimed at improving activity levels or impairment, which was compared to usual care, a sham intervention, or another intervention. The primary outcome measure was a change in upper limb function assessment. Secondary outcomes included impairment, participation, and quality of life measures.

Result

A total of 18 studies (n = 401 participants) that met the inclusion criteria were included in this study. There was a slight change in the upper limb function of the iTBS group compared with the control group, as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score (mean difference 2.70, 95% CI −0.02 to 5.42, p = 0.05). Significant improvement in resting motor threshold (RMT) and motor-evoked potential (MEP) was also observed in the meta-analysis of iTBS (MD 3.46, 95% CI 2.63 to 4.28, p < 0.00001); (MD 1.34, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.51, P < 0.00001). In addition, we got similar results when the studies were using the Modified Barthel Index (MBI) assessment (mean difference of 7.34, 95% CI 0.47 to 14.21, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Our study established the efficacy of iTBS in improving motor cortical plasticity, motor function, and daily functioning in stroke patients. However, the review requires evidence from additional randomized controlled trials and high-quality research.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/

Dexmedetomidine & perioperative analgesia in children

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an anaesthetic agent that mimics natural deep sleep and produces minimal cardiorespiratory depression. As such, it is a very valuable option in the management of such a challenging population as paediatric patients. The main objective of this mini review was to evaluate the role of DEX as a perioperative analgesic in children receiving anaesthesia. We searched Google, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2010 and 2021, and reviewed various of aspects of DEX, such as pharmacology, effectiveness, safety, and the most recent evidence on its clinical use as an analgesic in paediatric anaesthesia. We also include a cost estimate of perioperative analgesia with DEX.

Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Versus Morphine as an Adjunct to Bupivacaine in Caudal Anesthesia for Pediatric Thoracic Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Caudal anesthesia is an effective method of pain management, which can be successfully employed to minimize post-thoracotomy pain in pediatric patients. However, its main disadvantage is the short postoperative analgesic period, which can be prolonged by the concurrent administration of one of many adjuvants.

Objectives

This prospective randomized, blinded study aimed to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus morphine as adjuvants to bupivacaine in caudal anesthesia for thoracic surgeries in pediatric patients.

Methods

Fifty patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups. To achieve caudal epidural block anesthesia, the patients in group M (n = 25) were administered morphine and bupivacaine, while group D (n = 25) received a mixture of dexmedetomidine and bupivacaine. The primary outcome of this study was the postoperative analgesic duration achieved. The secondary outcomes included morphine administration in the first 24 hours following caudal block anesthesia, the face, legs, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) scale scores, and adverse effects, including vomiting, itching, bradycardia, hypotension, and respiratory depression.

Results

The results showed that patients who had received dexmedetomidine achieved a longer postoperative analgesia as compared to those who had received morphine (P < 0.001). Postoperatively, the heart rate, blood pressure, pain score, and mean consumption of morphine were lower in group D as compared to the group M. There was no significant difference in the adverse effects between the two groups.

Conclusions

The use of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for caudal anesthesia during pediatric thoracic surgeries induced better and prolonged postoperative analgesia as compared to morphine.

Effect of different administration and dosage of dexmedetomidine in the reduction of emergence agitation in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with sequential trial analysis

BACKGROUND

Beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) against emergence agitation (EA) in children remain controversial. We performed a more comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the protective effect of different administration routes, timing, patterns, and doses of DEX on EA in children.

METHODS

The randomized controlled trials about DEX preventing EA in children were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Sciences up to October 7, 2020. The traditional meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to study the influence of DEX on EA in children. The sequential trial analysis (TSA) further analyzed the pooled results to evaluate meta-analyses' robustness. Grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess evidence quality.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies with 5,688 pediatric patients were included. DEX significantly decreased EA in children compared to placebo [RR 0.29, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.25-0.34] and midazolam (RR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.25-0.45), with firm evidence from TSA. Notably, using DEX significantly reduced severe EA incidence (RR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.32), with firm evidence by TSA and high quality of GRADE. Pre-specified subgroup analyses revealed firm and high-quality evidence for a reduction of EA, only if the perineural route administers DEX (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.14-0.41), as premedication (RR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.20-0.36), as continuous dosage (RR 0.25, 95% CI: 0.18-0.33), at high dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.18-0.31). The pooled results also showed that DEX reduced the incidence of PONV compared to placebo (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.55). Evidence for DEX's influence on other secondary outcomes (emergence time, time in PACU, rescue analgesia, hypotension, and bradycardia) is insufficient to draw any conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm the beneficial effects of DEX on EA, severe EA, and PONV in children. There was firm and high-quality evidence for the efficacy of DEX in preventing EA in children when perineural routes administered DEX, as premedication, as continuous dosage, and at a high dose. The best dose, route, patterns, and timing of DEX and influence on other outcomes call for further studies.