DEXMEDETOMIDINE FOR SEDATION DURING UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY

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.

A Randomized Control Trial of Three Intravenous Dexmedetomidine Doses for Procedural Sedation in Patients Undergoing Minor Gynaecological Surgery

Background: Minor gynaecological procedures are usually done in outpatient settings. Early discharge with minimal haemodynamic compromise is an essential requirement of these procedures. Many sedative drugs are being used for outpatient surgeries. Of the sedative agents available, dexmedetomidine, which has sedative and analgesic sparing effects, has the best safety profile in the cardiorespiratory system. Therefore, we evaluated the optimum dexmedetomidine dose for providing better procedural sedation.

Methodology: This randomized, double-blinded study included 120 ASA grade I and II patients aged 18-45 years who were undergoing short gynaecological procedures in a tertiary care hospital. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups of 40 each. After a loading dose of 1 µg/kg over 10 min, group A received dexmedetomidine infusion at a rate of 0.2 µg/kg/hr, group B at a rate of 0.4 µg/kg/hr, and group C at a rate of 0.6 µg/kg/hr. Perioperative hemodynamic changes, intraoperative adjuvant drug requirements, and postoperative recovery were also compared in the three different dexmedetomidine groups.

Results: Heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate remained within the normal physiological range in all three groups at most perioperative time points. The time to achieve the Modified Aldrete Score and the post-anesthetic discharge scoring system was maximum in group C and minimum in group A. Ketamine had to be supplemented in almost half of the patients in group A and less than a quarter of the patients in group B. In group C, surgery was completed without any drug supplementation. Two patients in group B and four patients in group C had an episode of bradycardia. Oxygen saturation decreased in one patient in group C, necessitating oxygen supplementation.

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine, at a dose of 0.4 µg/kg/hr with ketamine supplementation, provides the most appropriate procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) without any significant hemodynamic compromise.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Efficacy of novel sedation using the combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, ESD can be difficult when patients move due to insufficient sedation. We conducted a prospective confirmatory single arm study to evaluate the efficacy of using dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with midazolam as a novel sedation for ESD.

METHODS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed without intubation in 65 patients. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who did not move or require restraint during ESD, compared to historical control of ESD performed under midazolam sedation. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of complications and self-report questionnaires from patients and endoscopists.

RESULTS

Restraint was not required in 97% of patients sedated using the combination of DEX and midazolam. Depressed respiration, low blood pressure, and bradycardia occurred in 23, 37, and 26% of patients, respectively. All patients recovered without severe complication. Occurrence of low blood pressure and bradycardia were higher, while respiratory depression was lower for the combination group than for the historical control group. The amount of midazolam used was significantly lower than in the control. Of note, 94% of patients had no painful sensations, with 3 reporting chest pain and 3 having a recollection of the procedure. Endoscopists were satisfied with the sedation in 94% of cases. All lesions were resected in en bloc fashion, without perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of DEX and midazolam provided effective sedation for ESD for ESCC.

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

Objectives

To systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation.

Materials and Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (≥18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for conscious sedation and at least one group receiving dexmedetomidine and one group receiving midazolam. Exclusion criteria: patients in intensive care, pediatric subjects and per protocol use of additional sedative medication other than rescue medication. Outcome measures for efficacy comparison were patient and clinician satisfaction scores and pain scores; outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications.

Results

We identified 89 papers, of which 12 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 883 patients were included in these studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher patient and operator satisfaction than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced less pain and had lower analgesic requirements. Respiratory and hemodynamic safety were similar.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine is a promising alternative to midazolam for use in procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine provides more comfort during the procedure for the patient and clinician. If carefully titrated, the safety profiles are similar.

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Background and aim

Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient's satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD).

Results

Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient's satisfaction level (WMD: -0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.149 to -0.207, p = 0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.305, p = 0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were -0.029 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.05), -0.080 (95% CI: -0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: -0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: -10.41, 95% CI: -13.77 to -7.051, p ≤ 0.0001), without significant heterogeneity.

Conclusions

In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar.

Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine as a Sole Sedative Agent in Small Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: A Systematic Review

Dexmedetomidine is an upcoming agent with sedative, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties. This review summarizes empirical evidence for the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative agent, and its effectiveness for small diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, in comparison with other frequently used sedatives. All randomized controlled trials on the effect of dexmedetomidine were reviewed. Pain level, patient satisfaction, operator satisfaction, procedure duration, recovery time, and hemodynamic and respiratory characteristics were examined. A total of 1993 patients (1,621 adults; 372 children) from 35 studies were included. In the adult studies, dexmedetomidine yielded significantly lower pain levels compared to the other sedatives (in 31.25% of the included studies) and significantly more patient satisfaction (68.2%). In studies on children, more favorable results concerning respiratory safety and the level of adequate sedation were found compared to the control sedatives. Implications for future studies are discussed.

Dexmedetomidine in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is the gold standard in the examination and the treatment of the diseases of gastrointestinal system, but the disadvantage of being painful process. At this point the sedative and analgesic agents may be important. Dexmedetomidine is a new sedoanalgesic agent which is alternative to benzodiazepines and opioids. It has analgesia, amnesia, sedative and anxiolytic properties. The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole anesthetic agent and as the adjuvant analgesic agent has been published but has not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety. The author has been collected the published papers in the literature. This article is aimed to describe the use of dexmedetomidine in various gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require sedatives such as midazolam and the more recently developed alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine. To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with midazolam.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD).

RESULTS

We identified nine randomized trials from the database search. Compared to that of midazolam, the pooled OR for restlessness of dexmedetomidine was 0.078 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.013-0.453, P < 0.0001), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. Dexmedetomidine significantly increased Ramsay sedation score compared with midazolam (WMD: 0.401, 95% CI: 0.110-0.692, P = 0.0069), without significant heterogeneity. Compared with midazolam, the pooled OR for hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were 0.454 (95% CI: 0.098-2.11), 1.370 (95% CI: 0.516-3.637), and 2.575 (95% CI: 0.978-6.785), respectively, with no significant differences detected between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Safety and effectiveness using dexmedetomidine versus propofol TCI sedation during oesophagus interventions: a randomized trial

Background

Endoscopic treatment of early neoplastic lesions in oesophagus has evolved as a valid and less invasive alternative to surgical resection. These endoscopic interventions are minimal invasive treatment options usually done with sedation on an outpatient basis. The aim of this trial is to determine the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine sedation compared to the standard used propofol TCI sedation during endoscopic oesophageal interventions.

Methods

The study will be performed as a randomized controlled trial. The first 64 consenting patients will be randomized to either the propofol or the dexmedetomidine group. Following endoscopy patients and gastroenterologists have to fill in questionnaires (PSSI, CSSI) (see abbreviations) about their sedation experiences. Additionally, patients have to accomplish the Trieger test before and after the procedure. Patient monitoring includes time adapted HR, SO₂, ECG, NIBP, exCO_2, NICO, sweat conductance measurement, OAA/S, and the Aldrete score. Effectiveness of sedation, classified by satisfaction levels and pain and sedation score measured by questionnaires is the primary outcome parameter. Respiratory and hemodynamic complications are surrogate parameters for the secondary outcome parameter “safety”.

Discussion

The acceptance level among patients after propofol sedation is high. Dexmedetomidine is a relatively new representative for procedural sedation. Has this new form of conscious sedation the potential to be safer and more effective for patients and endoscopists than propofol during endoscopic oesophageal interventions?

Trial registration

This trial is registered in the ISRCTN Register (ISRCTN 68599804). It will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Departments of Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology & Hepatology of the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam are responsible for the design and conduct of the trial.

Dexmedetomidine impairs success of patient-controlled sedation in alcoholics during ERCP: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of studies about procedural sedation of alcoholics. Dexmedetomidine is recommended for procedural sedation and reported effective for alcohol withdrawal. We evaluated the suitability of dexmedetomidine for sedation of alcoholics during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

Fifty patients with chronic alcoholism scheduled for elective ERCP were randomized 1:1 to receive dexmedetomidine (Dex group) (loading dose 1 μg kg(-1) over 10 min, followed by constant intravenous infusion 0.7 μg kg(-1) h(-1)) or saline placebo (P group). Patient-controlled sedation with propofol-alfentanil was used by patients as a rescue method. Sedation was considered as successful if no intervention of an anesthesiologist was needed. Consumption of sedatives was registered, and sedation levels and vital signs were monitored.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine alone was insufficient in all patients. The mean ± SD consumption of propofol was 159 ± 72 mg in the P group, and 116 ± 61 mg in the Dex group (p = 0.028). Sedation was successful in 19 of 25 (76 %) patients in the Dex group and in all patients in the P group (p = 0.022). The incidence of sedation adverse events did not differ between the groups. Dexmedetomidine was associated with delayed recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol and alfentanil but not dexmedetomidine can be recommended for sedation of alcoholics during ERCP.

Ketodex, a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children: a preliminary report

A combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for upper gastrointestinal endoscopies (UGIE) was studied in 46 children aged 2-12 years over a 6-month period. Dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg and ketamine 2 mg/kg were given as a bolus over 5 min. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation (SpO2), and sedation scores were noted before induction as baseline and then every 5 min until recovery. The duration and ease of the procedure, time to recovery, and adverse effects, if any, were also recorded. UGIE could be performed with ease in 41 of the 46 cases. The HR, MAP, and SpO2 did not change significantly from the baseline. No airway intervention was required in any patient. There was no laryngospasm or shivering in any of the children, and one, four, and 11 children had hiccup, vomiting, and increased salivation, respectively. The Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium score was <4 in all except for two cases. The results of this case series show that this drug combination not only promises to be clinically effective but also safe for UGIE in children. Further randomized controlled trials with standard sedation protocols will be required to draw definite conclusions.

Sedation with dexmedetomidine hydrochloride during endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric cancer

AIM

Although the treatment of early gastric cancer with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely carried out, a standardized method of sedation for ESD has not been established. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized study involving 90 patients with gastric tumors who were intended to be treated with ESD. The patients were sedated either with DEX (i.v. infusion of 3.0 µg/kg per h over 5 min followed by continuous infusion at 0.4 µg/kg per h [n = 30]), propofol (PF [n = 30]), or midazolam (MDZ [n = 30]). In all groups, 1 mg MDZ was added i.v. as needed.

RESULTS

En bloc resection of the gastric tumor was achieved in 88 (98%) patients. None of the DEX-sedated patients showed a significant reduction of the oxygen saturation level. The percentage of patients who showed body movement in the DEX group was significantly lower than those in the PF and MDZ groups, and the mean dose of additional MDZ in the DEX group was significantly smaller than that in the MDZ group. The rate of effective sedation was significantly higher in the DEX group compared with the MDZ or PF group. The mean length of ESD in the DEX group was 65 min, which was significantly shorter than in the other two groups. No DEX-sedated patient developed major surgical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with DEX is effective and safe for patients with gastric tumors who are undergoing ESD.