Pre-medication before dental procedures: A randomized controlled study comparing intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral midazolam

Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric patients: an updated meta-analysis with trial-sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is routinely used as preanesthetic medication in pediatric patients. Recently, dexmedetomidine has emerged as an alternative as a premedicant. We aimed to add more evidence about the efficacy and safety of two common routes of administration for pediatric premedication: oral midazolam versus intranasal dexmedetomidine.

METHODS

We systematically searched Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) involving patients ≤ 18 years old undergoing preanesthetic medication and comparing intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral midazolam. Risk Ratio (RR) and Mean Difference (MD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) were computed using a random effects model. Trial-sequential analyses were performed to assess inconsistency.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs (1,239 patients) were included. Mean age was 5.5 years old, and most procedures were elective. There was no difference in satisfactory induction or mask acceptance (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.37; p = 0.11). There was a higher incidence of satisfactory separation from parents in the dexmedetomidine group (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.13-1.74; p = 0.002). Dexmedetomidine was also associated with a reduction in the incidence of emergence agitation (RR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.14-0.88; p = 0.02). Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were marginally lower in the dexmedetomidine group but without clinical repercussions.

CONCLUSION

Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal dexmedetomidine demonstrated better separation from parents and lower incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric premedication, without a difference in satisfactory induction. Intranasal dexmedetomidine may be a safe and effective alternative to oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of dexmedetomidine to midazolam as premedication and a sedative agent in pediatric patients undergoing dental procedures

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric dental surgeries are associated with the emotions of fear, anxiety, and other behavioral disturbances of children that need to be managed. Sedation using drugs like dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MID) is a common pharmacological behavior managing technique. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of both these drugs in current literature.

METHODOLOGY

A thorough literature search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane's database for randomized studies that compared sedative efficacy of dexmedetomidine with midazolam in children of 0-15 years of age undergoing dental surgeries. Sedation in children during dental procedure, when used as a premedication, at the time of separation from parents and at the time of mask induction, onset time, duration of anesthesia, and surgery were evaluated. The mean differences (MDs), odds ratio (OR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated both for continuous and dichotomous outcome data using random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies met out inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results of premedication with DEX was associated with more anxiolysis (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.52, p=0.0001; I2=0%) and at the time of separation from parents (OR=0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.69, p=0.002; I2=52%) in comparison to MID. No significant differences in results were seen at mask induction (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.34-1.18, p=0.15; I2=47%) and for sedation in children during dental procedures (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.07-3.70, p=0.51; I2=72%). Also, there were no significant differences in onset time, duration of anesthesia, and surgery between the two agents.

CONCLUSION

DEX proved to be a better premedicant than MID for pediatric patients. No significant difference in efficacy of both sedative agents was observed in children undergoing dental treatment. More clinical trials need to be conducted to see its efficacy in dental surgeries in children of standardized ages and with standard doses.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs. oral midazolam for premedication in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis.

Methods

Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intranasal Dex vs. oral midazolam in pediatric premedication were collected. Stata 15.0 statistical software was used to analyze the collected data. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect sizes.

Results

A total of 11 studies with 824 children were included, containing 415 patients in the Dex group and 409 patients in the midazolam group. Compared with the oral midazolam group, the intranasal Dex group had a better preoperative sedation effect at parent-child separation (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14-1.64) and anesthesia induction (RR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03-4.22). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of analgesia remedy (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-1.00) the acceptance of anesthesia masks (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12), and incidence of adverse events between (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06-1.13, P = 0.072) between the intranasal Dex and oral midazolam groups.

Conclusion

Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex has better sedative effects of parent-child separation and anesthesia induction in pediatric premedication, but there was no difference in the incidence of anesthesia remedy, anesthesia mask acceptance, and incidence of adverse events. Therefore, compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex is a better choice for premedication in children.

Effect of the Case for Carpule as a Visual Passive Distraction Tool on Dental Fear and Anxiety: A Pilot Study

The present cross-over study aimed to evaluate the effect of a visual passive distraction tool, a case for carpule, in the management of fear and anxiety during invasive dental treatment. Children between the ages of 4 and 8 years that need at least two treatments with inferior alveolar nerve block were selected. All the included children received two treatments at different moments: in one treatment, local anesthesia was performed with a visual passive distraction tool, the crocodile case, for carpule (experimental); in the other treatment, local anesthesia was performed without the device (control). An evaluation of the anxiety levels was performed by measuring the heart rate and salivary cortisol levels. Wilcoxon's nonparametric test was used for a data analysis (p < 0.05). The mean heart rate with the visual passive distraction device fell from 81.8 to 78.1, while the control rose from 91.4 to 100 (p < 0.05). The mean salivary cortisol levels with the visual passive distraction device fell from 2.0 to 1.6, while in the control, they rose from 2.1 to 2.4 (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the crocodile case for carpule as a visual passive distraction device contributed positively to the management of fear and anxiety during inferior alveolar nerve block in children.

A comprehensive evaluation between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for intraoperative sedation in the elderly: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The sedative effect of intraoperative sedation in elderly surgery exerts critical influence on the prognosis. Comparison on the safety and efficacy between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in many clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was inconsistent and suspicious. We aim to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for intraoperative sedation in the elderly via meta-analysis and systematic reviews.

METHODS

RCTs regarding to the comparison of sedative effects and safety between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in elderly patients (aged ≥ 60 years) will be comprehensively searched from 2000 October to 2022 May through 4 English databases and 4 Chinese databases. After extraction in duplicate, the systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed on the primary outcomes (hemodynamic changes, sedative effect, cognitive function) and secondary outcomes (analgesic effect, surgical characteristics, complications, or adverse reactions) for assessing the two therapy methods using Review Manager software (Version 5.3). Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to evaluate the heterogeneity of the results; funnel plot and Egger's trial will be performed to analyze publication bias of the included studies, and trial sequential analysis will be applied to assess the robustness and reliability of preliminary meta-analysis results. Finally, rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations on the meta results will be summarized by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the safety and efficacy between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for intraoperative sedation in the elderly; it will give an insight on the application of dexmedetomidine and midazolam and will provide evidence-based reference for clinical decision-making.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021221897.

Comparative Analysis of Sedative Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in Pediatric Dental Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Children are particularly terrified of having dental treatment. They are physically resistant, frail, and unwilling to cooperate. This severe distress during the pre-operative phase could cause the dentist to have issues with behavior control. Additionally, it may make pediatric dental treatments less effective. In order to reduce anxiety and control behavior in children receiving dental care, sedation is a pharmacological management technique that supports the provision of effective and high-quality dental services. The aim is to compare and evaluate the efficacy of sedative agents like dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric dental practice. A thorough review of the literature was conducted using electronic databases like "MEDLINE, PubMed, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, www.clinicaltrials.gov, conference proceedings abstracts, a bibliography of pertinent references, and manual searches of journals, conferences, and books". There were no restrictions on the language or the date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials were included which compared dexmedetomidine and midazolam in children up to 16 years of age subjected to dental treatment. Information on procedures, participants, interventions, outcome measures, and results were independently extracted by three review writers (TS, SL, and RO). Trial authors were contacted for papers that were confusing or lacking information. The risk of bias was evaluated for each study. We adhered to the Cochrane statistical recommendations. Three trials totaling 229 participants were included. All three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias, with none of them having a high or unclear risk. Meta-analysis was done for the available data for the primary outcomes like sedation level and recovery time. We searched for randomized controlled trials up to Jan 31, 2020. Participants are randomly assigned to an intervention or control group in randomized controlled trial research. While patients in the control group often get a placebo therapy or procedure, those in the interventional group receive the treatment being studied. We found three studies eligible to include in the review. One study evaluated 73 individuals who received general anesthesia for dental treatment. There were 72 and 84 individuals in the second and third investigations, respectively. All the participants of the three studies were divided randomly into two groups and were subjected to dexmedetomidine and midazolam as sedative agents. We gave the evidence an "extremely low certainty" rating. Because there are just three short trials with unusual parameters for comparison, the results are questionable. Overall, the results do not allow us to draw any firm conclusions. Three randomized controlled trials included in this systematic review reported data with varying conclusions; hence we recommend more randomized controlled trials to be conducted on this subject matter.

The Sedative Effects of Inhaled Nebulized Dexmedetomidine on Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Children that need surgery and medical examinations are often uncooperative, and preoperative sedation is necessary. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine in children for sedation that underwent medical examinations or surgery.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library, for randomized controlled trials of Intranasal dexmedetomidine using a spray or a mucosal atomization device in children undergoing examination or elective surgery. We included all studies that analyzed the sedation efficiency of intranasal dexmedetomidine in children.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1,233pediatric patients were included. Compared to other sedation treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine showed similar sedation satisfaction [risk ratio RR: 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.18; P = 0.83; I² = 72%]. there was also no statistical difference in the success rate of separation from parents (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82-1.12; P = 0.58; I² = 67%), and mask acceptability (RR: 1; 95% CI: 0.83-1.20; P = 0.99; I² = 35%). But it is worth mentioning that nebulized dexmedetomidine combined with ketamine provided better sedation satisfaction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.96; I² = 49%) and more satisfactory separation from parents (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; I² = 0%). Moreover, nebulized dexmedetomidine reduced the occurrences of nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.51; P < 0.01; I² = 10%) and emergence agitation (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18-0.49; P < 0.01; I² = 0%). There are no hypotension or arrhythmia reported that required intervention in all articles.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other premedication treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine provided equivalent sedation satisfaction for the examination or preoperative sedation of children, but it reduced the occurrences of emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Comparison of the Effects of Oral Midazolam and Intranasal Dexmedetomidine on Preoperative Sedation and Anesthesia Induction in Children Undergoing Surgeries

Background and Purpose: Premedication with either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine prior to surgery remains less than ideal. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of those two drug regimens would have any beneficial effects on the preoperative sedation and the children’s compliance during anesthesia inhalation induction.

Experimental Approach: One hundred thirty-eight children aged 2–6 years were randomly allocated into three groups: Group M with oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹, Group D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg⁻¹, and Group M + D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg⁻¹ plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹. The primary outcome was the children’s compliance during inhalation induction with sevoflurane. The secondary outcomes included the preoperative sedative effects, behavior scores, parental separation anxiety scores, and the postoperative incidence of emergence agitation and recovery time.

Results: Subjects in Group M + D showed higher satisfaction scores of compliance (p = 0.0049) and mask acceptance (MAS) (p = 0.0049) during anesthesia inhalation induction. Subjects in Group M + D had a significantly shorter time than those in Groups M and D to achieve the desired sedation level (p < 0.001) and remained at a higher sedation score in the holding area and up to the anesthesia induction after drug administration (p < 0.001).

Conclusion and Implications: We conclude that pediatric patients premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg⁻¹ plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ had significantly improved anesthesia induction compliance, and quicker onset to achieve and maintain a satisfactory level of sedation than those premedicated separately with two drugs. Therefore, the combined premed regimen is a greater choice when we are expecting a higher quality of sedation and a smoother anesthesia induction in children undergoing the surgeries.

Intranasal drugs for analgesia and sedation in children admitted to pediatric emergency department: a narrative review

Acute pain is one of the most common symptoms in children admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) and its management represents a real clinical challenge for pediatricians. Different painful procedures can be very stressful for young children and their perception of pain can be enhanced by emotional factors, such as anxiety, distress, or anger. Adequate procedural sedation reduces anxiety and emotional trauma for the patient, but it reduces also stress for operators and the time for procedures. We have reviewed the literature on this topic and the drugs covered in these papers were: midazolam, fentanyl, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine. There are several routes of administering for these drugs to provide analgesia and anxiolysis to children: oral, parenteral, or intranasal (IN). Intravenous (IV) sedation, since it involves the use of needles, can be stressful; instead, IN route is a non-invasive procedure and generally well tolerated by children and it has become increasingly widespread. Some medications can be administered by a mucosal atomizer device (MAD) or by drops. The benefits of the atomized release include less drug loss in the oropharynx, higher cerebrospinal fluid levels, better patient acceptability, and better sedative effects. IN midazolam has a sedative, anxiolytic and amnesic effect, but without analgesic properties. Fentanyl and ketamine are mainly used for pain control. Dexmedetomidine has anxiolytic and analgesic properties. In conclusion, IN analgo-sedation is a simple, rapid and painless option to treat pain and anxiety in the PED requiring brief training on the administration process and experience in sedation.

Comparison in Sedative Effects between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in Dental Implantation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Dexmedetomidine refers to an α₂-adrenergic receptor agonist causing potent sedative, analgesic, and minimal respiratory depression compared with alternative drugs. The present study was aimed at comparing the efficaciousness and safety of midazolam and dexmedetomidine as sedatives for dental implantation. We recruited 60 patients belonging to group I or II of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and treated them with either midazolam or dexmedetomidine in a random manner. Patients' duration of analgesia after surgery, surgeon and patient degrees of satisfaction, Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAAS) scores after drug administration, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, and vital signs were recorded variables. Patients administered dexmedetomidine had significantly lower OAAS scores than those administered midazolam (p < 0.05). Patients administrated dexmedetomidine had a significantly longer analgesia duration after the surgical procedure than those administered midazolam, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Dexmedetomidine had a significantly larger number of surgeons satisfied with the level of sedation/analgesia than midazolam (p < 0.05). Accordingly, it is considered that dexmedetomidine can achieve better postoperative analgesia, surgeon satisfaction, and sedation than midazolam.

A comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

Background

The present study with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to evaluate comprehensively the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation, and to investigate whether the outcomes achieved the required information size to draw the conclusions.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2019. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. Sedative efficacy, postoperative analgesic effect, and incidence of emergence agitation were considered as the co‐primary outcomes. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was applied to rate the quality of evidences.

Results

We acquired data from 34 studies involving 2281 pediatric patients. The results indicated that administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of emergence agitation (RR = 0.78, with 95% CI [0.65, 0.92]) and more satisfactory sedation at parental separation (RR = 0.31, with 95% CI [0.24, 0.41]) compared to midazolam, and the current sample sizes were sufficient with unnecessary further trials. Two groups did not differ significantly in sedation level at mask induction (RR = 0.86, with 95% CI [0.74, 1.00]). And using of dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of postoperative analgesic rescue (RR = 0.57, with 95% CI [0.35, 0.93]), but the number of patients was too few to achieve the required information size and to draw reliable conclusions. Premedication of dexmedetomidine was associated with significant less value of SBP, heart rate, increased incidence of bradycardia, and a lower rate of shivering. And there were no differences about onset of sedation and recovery time between two groups.

Conclusions

Given that more satisfactory sedation at separation from parents and less incidence of emergence agitation, dexmedetomidine is preferred for pediatric sedation. However, compared with midazolam, the superiority of dexmedetomidine in providing adequate sedation at mask induction and postoperative analgesic effects has not yet been defined.