Comparison of dexmedetomidine with on-demand midazolam versus midazolam alone for procedural sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric tumor

Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence.

METHODS

Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients.

CONCLUSION

Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for agitation and delirium in the ICU: A multicenter, single-blind, 3-arm parallel randomized controlled trial study protocol

Background

Agitation is very common in the intensive care unit (ICU). The causes include pain, delirium, underlying disease, withdrawal syndrome, and some drug treatments. The practical goal of ICU treatment is to find an appropriate sedation regimen to reduce pain, restlessness, and delirium. Previous trials have examined the use of dexmedetomidine, but no trials have evaluated the efficacy and safety of ciprofol, a new sedative drug.

Methods

This study was a multicenter, single-blind, 3-arm parallel randomized controlled trial. ICU patients aged ≥ 18 years with agitation and delirium who met the eligibility criteria were included. The main outcome was the proportion of patients who needed additional study medication or midazolam due to agitation within 4 h after the first intravenous injection of the study medication. The secondary outcomes included the pass rate as indicated by a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score < +1, the effectiveness rate of improving delirium symptoms, the number of recurrences of agitation within 24 h, the incidence of rescue treatment, the dose and cost of analgesic and sedative drugs, the length and cost of ICU stay, and the 30-day survival period. The safety evaluation included the incidence of adverse events (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxia, etc.) and the rate of endotracheal intubation. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive ciprofol, dexmedetomidine, or normal saline at a ratio of 1:1:1. The rates of additional drug administration within 4 h after the first injection of the study drug in the three groups were 40, 50, and 90%, respectively. A total sample size of 81 subjects was required to reach 90% power and an α of 0.05. Considering a 20% loss rate, 102 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the three groups in equal proportions.

Ethics and communication

This trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of Dalian Municipal Central Hospital. The communication plan includes presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, and presentations to the public through non-professional media.

Clinical trial registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier ChiCTR220006 2799.

Postoperative analgesic effect of dexmedetomidine combined with TPVB applied to open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study is aimed to investigate the analgesic effect of combined dexmedetomidine and thoracic paravertebral nerve block (TPVB) on gastric cancer (GC) patients undergoing open gastrectomy.

METHODS

From May 2019 to Nov 2020, a total of 80 GC patients preparing for open gastrectomy were enrolled in our hospital and were divided into the ropivacaine (RO) group and the ropivacaine + dexmedetomidine (RD) group ad libitum. All of the patients underwent TPVB. The characteristics, usage of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), adverse events, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, inflammatory cytokines, and T cell subgroups between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Patients in the RD group showed the decreased occurrence rate of postoperative adverse events and VAS scores and improved anti-inflammation and immune function. These findings implied that the application of dexmedetomidine in combination with ropivacaine in TPVB has a good postoperative analgesic effect, as well as anti-inflammatory and immune-enhancing effects.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct analgesic may be potentially applied in clinical practice for GC patients undergoing open gastrectomy.

Safety and efficacy of pentazocine–midazolam combination for pain and anxiety relief in radiofrequency ablation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background and Aim

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy is frequently used as first‐line treatment for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). RFA is often associated with pain; however, no definitive solution has been established for its relief. We retrospectively analyzed the safety and efficacy of the combination of pentazocine and midazolam to relieve pain experienced by HCC patients undergoing RFA.

Methods

We studied 77 patients with 98 HCCs treated with RFA between January 2015 and August 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: the sedative‐free group, which included those who received pentazocine alone, and the pentazocine–midazolam group, which included those who received a combination of pentazocine and midazolam. The degrees of analgesia and sedation were evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale (RASS), respectively. Other parameters such as treatment time, awakening time, midazolam dosage, vital signs, local recurrence rate, and time to recurrence were also examined.

Results

The median NRS score and RASS score were significantly lower in the pentazocine–midazolam group. Ninety‐five percent of patients in the pentazocine–midazolam group had no memory of the RFA session. The treatment time and awakening time were prolonged for the pentazocine–midazolam group. No significant differences in oxygen saturation, recurrence rates, and time to local recurrence were observed between groups.

Conclusion

A combination of pentazocine and midazolam is safe and effective for pain and anxiety relief experienced by patients undergoing RFA for local treatment of HCC.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Characteristic Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine on Neurocognitive Dysfunction in Elderly Patients with Colorectal Tumors after Laparoscopic Operation

In order to investigate the effects of Dexmedetomidine (DEX) on postoperative anesthesia recovery time and consciousness function in elderly patients with laparoscopic colorectal tumors, 40 patients (20 in the control group and 20 in the DEX group) were selected. The DEX group was intravenously pumped at a rate of 0.8 μg/kg/h for 10 min and then continuously pumped at a rate of 0.3 μg/kg/h until 40 min before the end of the operation. The two groups were given the same amount of normal saline, with the same way of anesthesia. The results showed that the visual analog scale (VAS) score of pain in the two groups decreased signally. Compared with the control group, the inflammatory factors tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP-2) in the DEX group were remarkably decreased at T1 and T2 stages, with a considerable difference (P < 0.05). One month after the auxiliary diagnosis of colorectal tumor, no clear nodular, irregular shape patches, or patchy diffuse limited points were found, which indicated that the whole tumor had been removed. In summary, DEX could improve postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients who underwent the laparoscopic radical resection of colon cancer, and its mechanism was related to the reduction of inflammatory factors. Therefore, the anesthesia intervention with DEX during the operation had a positive significance for tumor resection.

Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

During endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer, patient body movement can sometimes occur, which may cause discontinuation of the procedure. Propofol and dexmedetomidine have recently been found to be useful sedatives for endoscopic submucosal dissection. This study investigated whether sedation using propofol plus dexmedetomidine can suppress the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and compared this combination with sedation using propofol alone.

METHODS

This was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial esophageal cancers who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Yokohama City University Hospital were prospectively enrolled and were randomly assigned to the propofol and the propofol plus dexmedetomidine groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of restlessness. The secondary endpoints were the satisfaction score, maintenance dose of propofol, and number of rescue propofol injections.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (propofol group: n = 33; combination group: n = 33) were included. The combination group had a significantly lower incidence of restlessness than the propofol group (3.0% vs 27.3%, P = 0.02). In the combination group, the satisfaction scores of the endoscopists were significantly higher, the maintenance dose of propofol was significantly lower, and the number of rescue propofol injections was lower than those in the propofol group (3.0% vs 18.2%, P < 0.001). Although the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the combination group (30.3% vs 3.0%, P < 0.01), no serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

The propofol plus dexmedetomidine combination provided excellent sedation that effectively suppressed the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation with colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study

Objective

Conscious sedation for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not been standardized, and there are no studies of sedation for colorectal ESD.

Methods

We conducted a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial to clarify the usefulness of DEX during colorectal ESD. In total 80 patients with colorectal ESD from April 2016 to May 2017 were assigned to the placebo group or the DEX group (40 cases each). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction (visual analogue scale: VAS). Secondary outcomes were evaluated for 13 factors, including patient pain level (VAS), endoscopist satisfaction (VAS), objective patient pain level viewed from the endoscopist’s perspective (VAS), rate of patient response, rate of side effects, etc., from the patient’s and endoscopist’s perspectives.

Results

Patient satisfaction was 8.4 and 9.1 (P = 0.018) in the placebo group and the DEX group, respectively. Secondary outcomes of patient pain level, endoscopist satisfaction, objective patient pain level from the endoscopist’s perspective for the placebo and DEX groups were 1.2 and 0.4 (P = 0.045), 8.2 and 9.3 (P < 0.001), and 1.2 and 0.5 (P = 0.002), respectively. All of these were significantly positive results (more comfortable and less pain) in the DEX group. The rate of a patient response was 100% in all cases. The side effects (hypoxia/bradycardia/hypotension) were 0%/0%/0% and 7.5%/7.5%/5% (P = 0.030). However, these rates were less than the reported side effect occurrence rate, and no additional medication was needed.

Conclusion

DEX enables conscious sedation, and is useful not only for patient and endoscopist satisfaction but also for pain relief. DEX is an effective sedation method for colorectal ESD.

Efficacy of a Dexmedetomidine-Remifentanil Combination Compared with a Midazolam-Remifentanil Combination for Conscious Sedation During Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blinded Preliminary Trial

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine as a conscious sedative exhibits both analgesia and respiratory sparing effects.

AIMS

We evaluated and compared the sedative effect and the safety of a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) regimen with a midazolam-remifentanil (MR) combination during the endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) requiring conscious sedation.

METHODS

One-hundred and ninety-eight patients were randomized and divided into two groups. A bolus of midazolam (0.05 mg kg^-1) was injected intravenously for MR group, and dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg^-1) was pumping for 10 min for DR group. Next, an initial loading dose of 1 μg kg^-1 and 0.05-0.2 μg kg^-1 min^-1 of remifentanil was administered in all patients. Hemodynamic and respiratory changes, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Visual Analogue Scale, endoscopist and patient satisfaction were assessed. Furthermore, adverse events as well as recovery time and discharge time were rated.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the DR group compared with MR group. The occurrence of desaturation was statistically higher, and the operation time was longer in the MR group. Although no statistically significant values could be determined between the two groups about amnesia and need of additional drug, the DR group was found to require a significantly reduced amount of extra midazolam. Furthermore, nausea during catheterization of oropharynx was found to be more pronounced in the DR group.

CONCLUSIONS

The dexmedetomidine-remifentanil protocol provided a parallel sedative efficacy and improved respiratory sparing effects. The higher patient satisfaction scores potentially offer a more reproducible ERCP quality. Adding dexmedetomidine to remifentanil can be used safely as a conscious sedation method during ERCP.

Impact of oxygen inhalation via a three-way breathing tube combined with respiratory thoracic band on stress response and pain in patients receiving dexmedetomidine anesthesia for gastroscopic diagnosis and treatment

AIM

To investigate the effect of oxygen inhalation via a three-way breathing tube combined with respiratory thoracic band on stress response and pain in patients receiving dexmedetomidine anesthesia for gastroscopic diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

One hundred and six patients who underwent dexmedetomidine anesthesia for gastroscopic diagnosis and treatment from May 2014 to May 2016 were divided into either an observation group or a control group. The control group was given mask oxygen inhalation, and the observation group was given oxygen inhalation via a three-way breathing tube combined with respiratory thoracic band. Then stress response, pain and complications were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Blood glucose, epinephrine, and cortisol were significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group when the gastroscope passed through the throat (5.82 mmol/L ± 0.74 mmol/L vs 6.35 mmol/L ± 0.91 mmol/L, 83.46 pg/mL ± 8.15 pg/mL vs 90.65 pg/mL ± 9.47 pg/mL, 188.49 ng/mL ± 13.67 ng/mL vs 237.82 ng/mL ± 24.34 ng/mL, P < 0.05). Visual analogue scale score was significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group at the end of the procedure (1.86 ± 0.27 vs 2.41 ± 0.53, P < 0.05). The percentage of patients with grade I body movement was significantly higher and the percentage of patients with grade III body movement was significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The rate of complications was significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group (9.43% vs 30.19%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Oxygen inhalation via a three-way breathing tube combined with respiratory thoracic band can help to reduce stress response, ease pain, and reduce complications in patients receiving dexmedetomidine anesthesia for gastroscopic diagnosis and treatment.