Is dexmedetomidine superior to midazolam as a premedication in children? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews on Pediatric Sedation in Dentistry: An Umbrella Review

Sedation is a depression of a patient's state of consciousness, induced by medications, that can reach different levels of intensity during a medical procedure. Conscious sedation produces a minimally depressed level of consciousness without impairment of the ability to maintain an open airway, of protective reflexes or of responses to verbal and physical stimulation. This umbrella review is aimed at critically assessing the available systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) on sedation in children/adolescents. An electronic database search was conducted that included Pubmed-Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, Scielo, Embase, LILACS and TRIP and the scope of which extended until January 2023. The risk of bias (RoB) of SRs was analyzed using the Measurement Tool to Assess SRs criteria 2 (AMSTAR2). Of 998 entries, 37 SRs were included. In terms of methodological quality, eight studies were assessed as having critically low quality, four studies had low quality, nine studies had moderate quality, and sixteen were considered to be of high quality. Based on the current guidelines, the most employed drugs in pediatric dentistry for sedation are nitrous oxide and midazolam; however, the available evidence supporting their use is insufficient and of low/critically low quality. The combined technique is recommended (nitrous oxide (30-50%) + midazolam). The optimal dose of oral midazolam is 0.75 mg/kg. The level of methodological quality of SRs is expected to increase according to the results and future directions of this umbrella review.

Effect of recorded mother's voice on emergence delirium in pediatric patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Emergence delirium is a common complication in children. Recorded mother's voice, as a non-pharmacological measure, is increasingly used to prevent the emergence of delirium in pediatric patients, but sufficient evidence is still needed to prove its efficacy.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Sinomed databases were searched for randomized controlled trials exploring the efficacy of recorded mother's voice in preventing the emergence of delirium in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. The original data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager 5.4.1. This study was conducted based on the Cochrane Review Methods.

RESULTS

Eight studies with 724 children were included in the analysis. Recorded mother's voice reduced the incidence of emergence delirium when compared with either no voice (RR: 0.45; [95 % CI, 0.34 - 0.61]; p < 0.01; I2 = 7 %) or stranger's voice (RR: 0.51; [95 % CI, 0.28 - 0.91]; p = 0.02; I2 = 38 %) without increasing other untoward reactions. In addition, it shortened the post-anesthesia care unit stay time when compared with no voice (MD = -5.64; [95 % CI, -8.43 to -2.58]; p < 0.01, I2 = 0 %), but not stranger's voice (MD = -1.23; [95 % CI, -3.08 to 0.63]; p = 0.19, I2 = 0 %). It also shortened the extubation time and reduced the incidence of postoperative rescue analgesia.

CONCLUSION

The current analysis indicated that recorded mother's voices could reduce the incidence of emergency delirium, shorten post-anesthesia care unit stay time and extubation time, and decrease the incidence of postoperative rescue analgesia in children.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as intranasal premedication for intravenous deep sedation in pediatric dental treatment

Background/purpose

Optimal sedation management for pediatric dental treatment demands special focus as it's tubeless and shares a same oral space. The study was to evaluate dexmedetomidine compared to midazolam for intranasal premedication in pediatric dental treatment under intravenous deep sedation.

Materials and methods

A hundred children aged 3-7 years scheduled for elective dental treatment under intravenous deep sedation anesthesia were enrolled, of whom 50 children (Group D) were intranasally premedicated with 2.0 μg/kg dexmedetomidine and the remaining 50 children (Group M) received traditional 0.2 mg/kg midazolam. Acceptance rate of venipuncture was regarded as the primary endpoint.

Results

The acceptance rate of venipuncture in Group D and Group M were 76% versus 52%, respectively (P = 0.021). More children in Group M complained about bitter/sour taste than Group D (62% vs. 8%, P < 0.001). Intraoperatively, children in Group M were found to have more choking cough than Group D (30% vs. 9%, P = 0.003), and patients in Group M required more suction (18 [36%] in Group M vs. 4 [8%] in Group D, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidences of temporal hypoxemia (SpO2 ≤ 90%), however, two children in Group M experienced hypoxemia over 10 s.

Conclusion

Compared to the 0.2 mg/kg midazolam, children premedicated with 2.0 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine showed superior venipuncture acceptance, had less intraoperative choking cough and required fewer suction. It seems to be a good alternative to midazolam as premedication for deep sedation in pediatric dental treatment.

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.

Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Moderate to deep sedation is required for dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. Midazolam is the most commonly used sedative, whereas intranasal dexmedetomidine is increasingly used in pediatric sedation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this trial was to compare the sedative efficacy of oral midazolam alone with that of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam during dental treatment of children with dental anxiety.

DESIGN

In total, 83 children (aged 3-12 years) scheduled to undergo dental sedation were randomized to receive oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal placebo, or oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) plus intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg). The primary outcome was the rate of successful sedation for dental treatment. Secondary outcomes were the onset time and adverse events during and after treatment. Data analyses involved descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

The rate of successful sedation was significantly higher in combination group (P = 0.007), although the sedation onset time was significantly longer in combination group (17.5 ± 2.4 min) than in monotherapy group (15.7 ± 1.8) (P = 0.003). No children required medical intervention or oxygen therapy for hemodynamic disturbances, and the incidences of adverse events had no significant difference between groups (P = 0.660).

CONCLUSION

Combined treatment with oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) is more significantly effective for managing the behavior of non-cooperative children during dental treatment, compared to oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) alone. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100042300) TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2100042300, Clinical trial first registration date: 17/01/2021.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial

BACKGROUND

Children under 6 years who need magnetic resonance imaging usually require sedation to obtain best quality images, but the optimal sedation protocol remains to be determined. In 2018, we showed a 22% interruption in image acquisition during magnetic resonance imaging when performing a propofol-based sedation using a bolus approach. As non-pharmacological premedication is often insufficient to reduce the anxiety of children related to parental separation, pharmacological premedication may be useful to facilitate the induction of anesthesia. In our institution, effective premedication is obtained oral intake of midazolam, though its administration relies on patients' compliance and could also lead to paradoxical reaction. Dexmedetomidine has a safe profile in the pediatric population and can therefore represent an interesting alternative. The primary objective of this trial is to demonstrate the superiority of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam as premedication in reducing the occurrence of any event requiring temporary or definitive interruption of the examination to allow anesthesiologist intervention in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging under propofol sedation.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, superiority trial, we planned to include 250 patients, aged 6 months to 6 years, undergoing a scheduled magnetic resonance imaging requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist. After informed consent, the patients will be randomized to receive either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication. The data will be analyzed in intention to treat, using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z, chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney U tests. A P-value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

The MIDEX MRI study will assess the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam to improve the quality of a propofol-based sedation prior to magnetic resonance imaging, without negative repercussion on the postoperative period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05192629 . Registered on 14 January 2022. Protocol version 2.1.

Development and validation of a prediction model for preoperative anxiety in children aged 2-12 years old

BACKGROUND

Children with preoperative anxiety are at risk of perioperative adverse events, such as reflux aspiration, prolonged induction time, wake agitation, and delirium. Identifying children at high risk of severe preoperative anxiety may help anesthesiologists intervene and manage them in advance.

AIM

The authors hypothesized that the risk of developing serious preoperative anxiety in children is predictable by variables related to basic information about the parent and child. We developed a clinical prediction model to identify patients vulnerable to severe preoperative anxiety among children aged 2-12 years.

METHODS

We enrolled patients aged 2-12 years who underwent elective surgery under general anesthesia and divided them into derivation (n = 340, 70.8%) and validation (n = 140, 29.2%) groups. Preoperative anxiety was assessed using the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale, and a high level of preoperative anxiety was defined as a score of >30. The following predictors were collected preoperatively: gender, age, weight, children's education level, only child, history of surgery, waiting time in the anesthesia waiting area, parental education level, parental anxiety, whether venous access had been established in the ward, and whether they had received anti-anxiety interventions. A prediction model was built using binary logistic regression analysis; bootstrap was applied for internal validation, and external validation was performed using the validation datasets.

RESULTS

The prediction model had good discrimination, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.961 (95% CI = 0.943-0.979) and 0.896 (95% CI = 0.842-0.950) in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The predictive variables included in the final clinical model were pharmacological intervention (OR = 0.008, 95% CI = 0.002-0.025), nonpharmacological intervention (OR = 0.342, 95% CI = 0.104-1.127), parental education level (OR = 0.211, 95% CI = 0.108-0.411), parental anxiety (OR = 6.15, 95% CI = 2.396-15.786), only child (OR = 2.417, 95% CI = 1.065-5.488), history of surgery (OR = 3.513, 95% CI = 1.137-10.860), and age (OR = 0.692, 95% CI = 0.500-0.957).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a clinical prediction model was developed and validated for the first time. The proposed clinical prediction model can help doctors identify children most likely to develop a high level of preoperative anxiety.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION IDENTIFIER

ChiCTR2100054409 (https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx).

The optimum time for intravenous cannulation after induction with sevoflurane in children premedicated with dexmedetomidine

BACKGROUND

Inhalation anesthesia is a frequently used method for anesthesia induction, especially in young children. No information is available on the optimum time for safe intravenous cannulation after inhalational induction in children with dexmedetomidine premedication. The purpose of the present study was to determine the optimal time for intravenous cannulation after induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide in children premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine.

METHODS

This prospective and observational study was conducted by using the up-down sequential method. Children, who were aged 2-6 years with ASA physical status I, and who underwent inhalation induction for elective surgery were included in the study. Anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide after the premedication with intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 mcg/kg). Intravenous cannulation was attempted on the dorsum of the hand by an experienced anesthesiologist 4 min after the loss of the eyelash reflex in the first patient. The procedure was considered successful in patients without any movement, cough, or laryngospasm. The waiting time for cannulation was increased by 15 s if the procedure was not successful in the previous patient, and on the contrary, it was reduced by 15 s if the procedure was successful in the previous patient. The probit test was used in the analysis of up-down sequences.

RESULTS

In the present study in which a total of 40 patients were included, the effective cannulation time was found to be 14.40 s (95% confidence limits, 1.30-27.82 s) in 50% of the patients, and the effective cannulation time was found as 84.64 s (95% confidence limits, 69.61-218.26 s) in 95% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we suggest that the appropriate time for cannulation is 85 s (1.45 min) after the loss of eyelash reflex in children sedated with dexmedetomidine and induction with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide-oxygen mixture.

Effect of oral esketamine on preoperative sedation and venipuncture analgesia in pediatric patients: a prospective randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2323639/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

Background Anxiety and uncooperation are common among pediatric patients during the preoperative preparation, which requires adequate and appropriate analgesia and sedation. Methods We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial involving 1–6-year-old pediatric patients scheduled for elective tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy between December 2020 and May 2021. Patients were randomly assigned to control (group C), esketamine 1 mg.kg− 1 (group EK1), or esketamine 2 mg.kg− 1 (group EK2) group. Venipuncture analgesia, cooperation, and sedation, as well as satisfaction upon parent–child separation, cooperation, sedation, and adverse events, were compared among the three groups. Dynamic changes in the sedation score and vital signs were monitored. Results A total of 88 pediatric patients were analyzed, with 29, 29, and 30 patients in groups C, EK1, and EK2, respectively. Compared with group C, groups EK1 and EK2 both had better analgesia during venipuncture (P < 0.001). In addition, better cooperation and sedation was noticed in groups EK1 and EK2 during parent–child separation and venipuncture than in group C. Compared with the baseline, the mean respiratory rate had a significant decrease from 25.6 ± 0.3 to 24.6 ± 0.4 breaths/min at 30 min after the esketamine administration in group EK2, although it was still within normal limits (P = 0.030). There were no significant differences in adverse events among three groups. Conclusions Preoperative oral administration of 1 or 2 mg.kg− 1 esketamine in pediatric patients could achieve effective analgesia and sedation. Oral medication of 2 mg.kg− 1 esketamine had more pronounced effects. Trial registration : This clinical trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000040739) on 08/12/2020.

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.

Best Evidence-Based Dosing Recommendations for Dexmedetomidine for Premedication and Procedural Sedation in Pediatrics: Outcome of a Risk-Benefit Analysis By the Dutch Pediatric Formulary

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is currently off-label for use in pediatric clinical care worldwide. Nevertheless, it is frequently prescribed to pediatric patients as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia or for procedural sedation. There is ample literature on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in this vulnerable patient population, but there is a general lack of consensus on dosing. In this project, we aimed to use the standardized workflow of the Dutch Pediatric Formulary to establish best evidence-based pediatric dosing guidelines for dexmedetomidine as premedication and for procedural sedation.

METHOD

The available literature on dexmedetomidine in pediatrics was reviewed in order to address the following three questions: (1) What is the right dose? (2) What is known about efficacy? (3) What is known about safety? Relevant literature was compiled into a risk-benefit analysis document. A team of clinical experts critically appraised the analysis and the proposed dosing recommendations.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered via the intravenous or intranasal route. Clearance is age dependent, warranting higher doses in infants to reach similar exposure as in adults. Dexmedetomidine use results in satisfactory sedation at parent separation, adequate sedation and a favorable recovery profile. The safety profile is good and comparable to adults, with dose-related hemodynamic effects.

CONCLUSION

Following the structured approach of the Dutch Pediatric Formulary, best evidence-based dosing recommendations were proposed for dexmedetomidine, used as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia (intranasal dose) and for procedural sedation (intranasal and intravenous dose) in pediatric patients.

Comparison of nebulized dexmedetomidine and ketamine for premedication in pediatric patients undergoing hernia repair surgery: a randomized comparative trial

Background

Allaying anxiety and providing calm children in the operating room is a challenging task for anesthesiologists. This study was designed to compare the use of nebulized dexmedetomidine and ketamine for premedication in pediatric patients under general anesthesia.

Methods

Seventy patients, aged 2 to 8 years of both sexes, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II scheduled for hernia repair surgery under general anesthesia, were randomized to two equal groups using a computer-generated random number table. Patients in group D received dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg), and patients in group K received ketamine (2 mg/kg) by a jet nebulizer before the induction of anesthesia. The study's primary objective was comparing the level of sedation, which was achieved at 30 min after a study drug administration using the Ramsay sedation scale, between the two groups. The secondary objectives were the two-group comparison of parental separation anxiety scale, acceptance of the mask, hemodynamic variables, recovery time, incidence of emergence agitation, and adverse events.

Results

The median Ramsay sedation scale at 30 min was 3 (1–4) in group D and 3 (1–3) in group K (P = 0.002). Patients in group D had a more acceptable parental separation anxiety scale (P = 0.001) and a satisfactory mask acceptance scale (P = 0.042).

Conclusions

Nebulized dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) provided better sedation along with smooth parental separation and satisfactory mask acceptance during induction of anesthesia with a similar emergence agitation profile and adverse reactions compared to nebulized ketamine in pediatric patients.

The therapeutic antiemetic and hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine, ephedrine, and dexamethasone in combination with midazolam on laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients: A randomised clinical trial

Objective:

The objective was to compare the hemodynamic and antiemetic effects of the combination of midazolam with ephedrine, dexamethasone, and dexmedetomidine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgical patients.

Materials and Methods:

This randomised, parallel-group, double-blind clinical trial was conducted by enrollment of 96 patients who were referred for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients assigned into three equal-sized intervention arms having received anaesthesia induction with midazolam-ephedrine, midazolam-dexamethasone, and midazolam-dexmedetomidine using a block randomisation method. Frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting were observed from recovery to 24 h later, adverse events, and sedation on Ramsay sedation scale at recovery, 1, 2, and 4 h postoperatively. Data were recorded and analysed at a significance level lower than 0.05 in SPSS software.

Results:

The clinical parameters including mean blood pressure at all times and heart rate in 60–90 min were lower in the dexmedetomidine group when compared with other groups. The lowest severity of postsurgery nausea occurrence was observed in the midazolam-dexamethasone group and those receiving midazolam-dexmedetomidine from 4 to 24 h. In addition, vomiting scores were lower throughout recovery up to postoperative 4 h in the dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine groups (all P < 0.05). The highest sedation score was observed in the dexmedetomidine group during recovery up to 2 h (P = 0.001), reflecting a more clinically superior effect than dexamethasone (P = 0.01).

Conclusions:

A positive implication of dexmedetomidine was observed in attenuating postoperative nausea and vomiting and potentiating sedation. Nevertheless, it is providing a drop in the blood pressure and heart rate. Lending support to the potent adjuvant efficacy of dexamethasone following dexmedetomidine, consequently, a hypothesis can be put forward, stating that the dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to midazolam are expected to bring the advantages of avoiding the adverse events and improving postoperative sedation.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine: Procedural sedation in palliative care: A case report

BACKGROUND

This report describes the use of intranasal dexmedetomidine to control incident pain and facilitate daily change of dressing in a patient with cutaneous breast cancer.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 45-year-old woman with extensive thoracic cutaneous metastatic bilateral breast cancer requiring daily 2-hour dressing changes to manage significant exudate. Pain during change of dressing was severe and unresponsive to usual analgesics. Deeper sedation was not an option as the patient was required to change position 1 hour into dressing change.

CASE MANAGEMENT

Intranasal dexmedetomidine was administered 40 minutes prior to dressing change and provided effective rousable sedation and analgesia for the duration of the procedure.

CASE OUTCOME

Dexmedetomidine provided rousable sedation, allowing the patient to follow commands and mobilise during the procedure. Pain was controlled. No adverse cardiovascular effects were noted with the use of intranasal dexmedetomidine.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal dexmedetomidine is a potentially useful medication for procedural sedation in the management of complex wound dressings. It provides rousable short-term sedation, anxiolysis and analgesia. Further research into the role of intranasal dexmedetomidine to facilitate challenging dressing changes in a community setting is warranted.

Comparison the Oral Premedication of Midazolam, Dexmedetomidine, and Melatonin for Children's Sedation and Ease of Separation from Parents before Anesthesia

Background:

Children’s fear of surgery and preoperative separation from parents can contribute to anxiety and distress in children undergoing surgery. The study addressed the comparable efficacy of oral premedication of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and melatonin to alleviate preoperative anxiety and easing the children’s separation from parents.

Materials and Methods:

A double-blinded trial enrolled three equal-sized groups of children (n = 153, aged 2–10 years) undergoing elective surgery who received oral midazolam, melatonin, and dexmedetomidine 30 min before induction. The observation sedation score, and ease of separation, acceptance of drug both preceding and following premedication administration were assessed and recorded every 5min till anesthesia induction.

Results:

A significant difference was observed in the mean scores of sedation before premedication and after separation from parents, as well as in the degree of the separation when comparing between the midazolam and melatonin groups and the dexmedetomidine and melatonin groups (P < 0.001). The scores were significantly lower in the melatonin group than the other two groups, whereas no significant difference was found in those between the midazolam and dexmedetomidine groups, as well as in the acceptance of anesthesia induction between the midazolam and melatonin groups (P = 0.250). The differences were significant between the midazolam and dexmedetomidine groups (P = 0.002) and melatonin and dexmedetomidine groups (P < 0.001) and anesthesia induction was effective in the dexmedetomidine group than that in the other two groups.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine is more effective in acceptance of anesthesia induction. Furthermore, the midazolam and dexmedetomidine groups indicated better ease of separation and sedation scores than melatonin.

The effect of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on the postoperative sore throat after thyroidectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative sore throat (POST) is an important concern in surgical patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Its prevalence after thyroidectomy is up to 80%. The current study aimed to assess the effect of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on postoperative sore throat.

METHODS

Seventy-four patients who underwent thyroidectomy were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine (group D) or remifentanil (group R). At anesthesia induction, group D received dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg over 10 minutes, followed by continuous dexmedetomidine infusion at 0.3 to 0.6 μg/kg/hour during surgery. Group R received remifentanil of 3 to 4 ng/ml during induction, followed by 1.5 to 2.5 ng/ml remifentanil infusion during surgery. POST at rest and swallowing was assessed during the first 24 hours in serial time periods (0-1, 1-6, and 6-24 hours). Hoarseness and postoperative pain score were also assessed.

RESULTS

POST incidence at rest (0-1, 1-6, and 6-24 hours) and swallowing (1-6 and 6-24 hours) was lower in group D than in group R. POST severity was significantly lower in group D than in group R during each time period. The incidence of postoperative hoarseness was also lower in group D than in group R at 1 to 6 and 6 to 24 hours. The postoperative pain score was lower in group D than in group R during each time period.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion reduced the incidence and severity of POST for 24 hours after thyroidectomy.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Midazolam Oral Solution for Sedative Hypnosis and Anti-anxiety in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Midazolam is recommended by health guidelines for sedation and hypnosis in children. Oral solution is a suitable dosage form for children. But there is no conclusive evidence for sedative-hypnosis and antianxiety effects by midazolam oral solution in children. Methods: Relevant studies were identified through searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, International Pharmaceuticals, four Chinese electronic databases, and relevant lists. Two reviewers independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted the data. Results: Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing midazolam oral solution with placebo or blank (n = 33), dexmedetomidine (n = 15), ketamine (n = 11), different midazolam doses (n = 10), midazolam injection (n = 8), chloral hydrate (n = 7), diazepam (n = 5), N2O (n = 5), triclofos (n = 4), butorphanol (n = 2), fentanyl (n = 2), hydroxyzine (n = 1), and thiopental (n = 1) were identified. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the success rate and duration of sedation and hypnosis between midazolam oral and injectable solution (P > 0.05). The success rate of sedation and hypnosis of midazolam was higher than that of ketamine [risk ratio (RR) = 1.32, 95% CI (1.07, 1.62), I 2 = 0%, P < 0.01]. No significant difference was found in the success rate of sedation and hypnosis, mask acceptance, and parental separation between midazolam oral solution and dexmedetomidine (P > 0.05), and the result of one cohort study was consistent. The results of RCTs and a prospective cohort study showed that the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADR) was 19.57% (189/966). Incidence of adverse reactions between dose groups of (0.25, 0.5] and (0.5, 1.0] mg/kg was similar [Pf (95% CI) = 0.10 (0.04, 0.24) and Pf (95% CI) = 0.09 (0.02, 0.39), respectively], higher than that of the dose group of (0, 0.25] mg/kg [Pf (95% CI) = 0.01 (0.00, 0.19)]. Conclusions: Available evidence suggests that midazolam oral solution is as good as midazolam injection and dexmedetomidine and is better than ketamine. Based on efficacy and safety results, an oral midazolam solution dose of 0.5-1 mg/kg is recommended for children.

Avoiding unnecessary bronchoscopy in children with suspected foreign body aspiration using computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopy is the standard of care for diagnosis and treatment of foreign body aspiration (FBA). Drawbacks of this approach include its invasiveness, the potential for exacerbation of reactive airway disease, and the need for general anesthesia. Computed tomography (CT) can potentially identify patients with FBA, thereby avoiding unnecessary bronchoscopies in patients with at-risk reactive airways.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify patients who underwent CT and/or bronchoscopy for suspected foreign body aspiration (FBA) from June 2012 to September 2018. Variables included clinical history, exam findings, radiographic findings, and operative findings. A telephone survey was performed for patients who had a CT without bronchoscopy. Three radiologists performed rereads of all CTs.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients were evaluated for FBA, and 84 were treated with bronchoscopy. For those with a CT demonstrating a foreign body, findings were confirmed on bronchoscopy in 17/18 (94.4%). For those with bronchoscopy alone, 39/64 (60.9%) were found to have a foreign body (p < 0.01). CT excluded FBA in 49 patients. Sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 98%, and interobserver reliability was excellent (κ = 0.88).

CONCLUSION

CT is an accurate and reliable diagnostic tool in the evaluation of FBA that can increase the rate of positive bronchoscopy.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective comparative study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Comparison of single minimum dose administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for prevention of emergence delirium in children: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Emergence delirium (ED) is common in children after sevoflurane anesthesia and should be prevented for patient safety. A prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled study was performed to compare the efficacy of minimal dosage of midazolam versus dexmedetomidine to prevent ED in children undergoing tonsillectomy.

METHODS

Seventy children aged 24 months to 12 years were allocated to receive midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) or dexmedetomidine (0.3 µg/kg) 5 min before the end of surgery. The incidence and severity of ED were assessed using a four-point scale and the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale, respectively. The emergence time and postoperative pain scores were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of ED was 31.3% in the midazolam group and 26.5% in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.668). The severity of ED was similar in both groups (9.6 ± 5.8 in the midazolam group, vs. 8.1 ± 5.9 in the dexmedetomidine group, P = 0.299). The emergence time was comparable in the two groups [11.0 (8.3-13.8) min in midazolam group vs. 12.0 (10.0-13.5) min in dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.218)]. Postoperative pain score was higher in the midazolam group [0 (0-1)] than in the dexmedetomidine group [0 (0-0)] (P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine and midazolam at single minimum dosages had equal effectiveness to prevent ED in children without delaying emergence time, when administered at the end of surgery. With regards to postoperative analgesic efficacy, although dexmedetomidine showed statistically significant higher analgesic effect than midazolam, further clinical investigations are needed to validate our findings.

Use of dexmedetomidine in pediatric cardiac anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years, ultrafast-track anesthesia with on-table extubation and concepts of accelerated postoperative care have gained increasing support in pediatric congenital cardiac surgery. It is believed that such approaches might ideally combine economic benefits with a striving for continuous improvement of patient outcomes. The present review summarizes the role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in this setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

DEX is a clinical multipurpose drug that mediates its diverse responses through the activation of α2-adrenoreceptors. In pediatric cardiac surgery it has various applications. Used as a premedication, DEX provides arousable sedation and anxiolysis. As an intraoperative adjunctive agent of balanced general anesthesia the primary objectives for its administration are attenuation of the neuro-humoral stress response and facilitation of early extubation. During ICU treatment DEX spares opioids, prevents the risk of postoperative delirium or emergence agitation and impacts on important patient-centered outcomes, such as duration of mechanical ventilation, restart of enteral nutrition or length of ICU stay.

SUMMARY

Due to a favorable mix of beneficial physiologic actions and a limited adverse effect profile, DEX is established in the perioperative pediatric cardiac surgery setting. However, evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials on the effects of supplemental DEX on meaningful patient outcomes is scarce, and research on the role of DEX in providing cardioprotection, neuroprotection, or renoprotection is still at its beginning. DEX has developed to one of the main agents in the armamentarium of cardiac anesthesiologists and pediatric intensivists, but it should not be regarded as the new 'magic bullet'.

Premedication and Induction of Anaesthesia in paediatric patients

Perioperative anxiety has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes such as emergence delirium, increased analgesic requirements and negative postoperative behavioural changes such as sleep disturbance, separation anxiety, eating problems and new-onset enuresis. Predictors of preoperative anxiety have been identified, and these include, among other factors, the age and temperament of the child. Any plan for anaesthetic induction in a child must take into account these factors. The anaesthetic plan must be individualised for special situations, for example, the child with behavioural disorder or at risk of aspiration. This article details the pharmacological and nonpharmacological methods to minimise preoperative anxiety and the techniques of anaesthetic induction in infants and children undergoing surgery. The benefits and limitations of inhalational and intravenous induction and the current status of rapid sequence induction in children are discussed. MEDLINE database was searched for this narrative review using the keywords including preoperative anxiety, child, premedication, paediatric and anaesthetic induction. Search was restricted to articles in English, but without any publication date restrictions.

Usefulness of dexmedetomidine to prevent emergence agitation in a patient with Krabbe disease: a case report

Background

We report the case of a child with Krabbe disease who underwent three repeated surgeries and anesthetic management, and we discuss the major concerns about Krabbe disease and the usefulness of a perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine to prevent emergence agitation and hypertension. The patient was scheduled to undergo bilateral orchiopexy, adenotonsillectomy, and knee flexor tendon lengthening under general anesthesia during a 2-year period.

Case presentation

Adenotonsillectomy was scheduled as the second operation when the patient was 4 years old. His height and body weight were 93 cm and 10.3 kg, respectively. Anesthesia was induced with 8% sevoflurane mixed with 6 L/min of O₂ and maintained with N₂O (3.5 L/min), O₂ (1.5 L/min), and sevoflurane (1.5–2.0%). Upon completion of the right tonsillectomy, 1 h before the end of the surgery, a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.2 μg/kg/h) was started to prevent emergence agitation, irritability, resultant hypertension, and postoperative bleeding. Fentanyl (25 μg) was administered intravenously to reduce postoperative pain. The surgery was uneventful, and the patient’s emergence from general anesthesia was prompt. He exhibited no symptoms of emergence agitation or irritability. During his stay in the intensive care unit, 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine and 6.25 μg/h of fentanyl were continuously administered. The patient was discharged to the ward the following morning without complications.

Conclusions

The perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine was useful to prevent emergence agitation, hypertension, and resultant postoperative bleeding in a pediatric patient with Krabbe disease. Three repeated anesthetic management using inhalation anesthesia were completed uneventfully without muscle relaxants.

Interventions for postoperative pain in children: An overview of systematic reviews

The aim of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews that summarizes the results about efficacy and safety from randomized controlled trials involving the various strategies used for postoperative pain management in children. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Database of Reviews of Effect, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO from the earliest date to January 24, 2016. This overview included 45 systematic reviews that evaluated interventions for postoperative pain in children. Out of 45 systematic reviews that investigated various interventions for postoperative pain in children, 19 systematic reviews (42%) presented conclusive evidence of efficacy. Positive conclusive evidence was reported in 18 systematic reviews (40%) for the efficacy of diclofenac, ketamine, caudal analgesia, dexmedetomidine, music therapy, corticosteroid, epidural analgesia, paracetamol, and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and transversus abdominis plane block. Only one systematic review reported conclusive evidence of equal efficacy that involved a comparison of dexmedetomidine vs morphine and fentanyl. Safety of interventions was reported as conclusive in 14 systematic reviews (31%), with positive conclusive evidence for dexmedetomidine, corticosteroid, epidural analgesia, transversus abdominis plane block, and clonidine. Seven systematic reviews reported equal conclusive safety for epidural infusion, diclofenac intravenous vs ketamine added to opioid analgesia, bupivacaine, ketamine, paracetamol, and dexmedetomidine vs intravenous infusions of various opioid analgesics, oral suspension and suppository of diclofenac, only opioid, normal saline, no treatment, placebo, and midazolam. Negative conclusive statement for safety was reported in one systematic review for caudal analgesia vs noncaudal regional analgesia. More than half of systematic reviews included in this overview were rated as having medium methodological quality. Of 45 included systematic reviews, 10 were Cochrane reviews and they had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. As evidence concerning efficacy and safety is inconclusive for most of the analyzed interventions, our review points out the need for more rigorous trials concerning pain management in children.

Imidazoline 1 receptor activation preserves respiratory drive in spontaneously breathing newborn rats during dexmedetomidine administration

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 (α₂ ) adrenoceptor and imidazoline 1 (I₁ ) receptor agonist that provides sedation without loss of respiratory drive.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to elucidate the involvement of α₂ -adrenoceptor and I₁ receptor in the cardiorespiratory changes induced by dexmedetomidine in spontaneously breathing newborn rats.

METHODS

An abdominal catheter to administer drugs and three subcutaneous electrodes to record electrocardiographic data were inserted into 2- to 5-day-old Wistar rats under isoflurane anesthesia. In individual chambers, each rat was intraperitoneally administered dexmedetomidine (50 μg·kg^-1 ) followed 5 min later by normal saline or 1, 5, or 10 mg·kg^-1 atipamezole (selective α₂ -adrenoceptor antagonist) or efaroxan (α₂ -adrenoceptor/I₁ receptor antagonist). Cardiorespiratory indices were recorded before and after drug administration.

RESULTS

The administration of dexmedetomidine alone resulted in significant changes to most of the cardiorespiratory indices examined. The addition of 5 or 10 mg·kg^-1 atipamezole or 1 mg·kg^-1 efaroxan completely ameliorated the dexmedetomidine-associated reduction in heart rate (HR). The addition of 1 mg·kg^-1 atipamezole or 1 or 5 mg·kg^-1 efaroxan completely ameliorated the dexmedetomidine-associated reduction in respiratory frequency. Mean inspiratory flow (V_T /T_I ; V_T is tidal volume and T_I is inspiratory time), which is an index of respiratory drive, was not significantly affected by the administration of dexmedetomidine alone (P = 0.273) or dexmedetomidine + atipamezole (P = 0.605, 0.153, 0.138 for 1, 5, 10 mg·kg^-1 atipamezole, respectively); however, it was significantly decreased after the administration of dexmedetomidine + efaroxan (P = 0.029, <0.001, <0.001 for 1, 5, 10 mg·kg^-1 efaroxan, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in newborn rats undergoing dexmedetomidine sedation, the α₂ -adrenoceptor, but not I₁ receptor, is involved in the regulation of HR and respiratory frequency, and that activation of the I₁ receptor plays a major role in the maintenance of respiratory drive.

Effects of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for premedication in paediatric anaesthesia with sevoflurane: A meta-analysis

Background Dexmedetomidine (DEX), an α₂-adrenergic receptor agonist, produces ideal sedation and early postoperative recovery for premedication in paediatric surgery, reducing preoperative anxiety and facilitating smooth induction of anaesthesia. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of DEX and midazolam (MDZ) in paediatric anaesthesia with sevoflurane. Methods PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and Public Health Management Corporation were searched through December 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX and MDZ in children undergoing sevoflurane anaesthesia. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% incidence interval (95%CI) was used for dichotomous variables. Results Twelve RCTs involving 422 patients in the DEX group and 448 patients in the MDZ group were included. Patients in the DEX group had a significantly lower incidence of unsatisfactory sedation (RR [95%CI] = 0.71 [0.57-0.89]), unsatisfactory parental separation (RR [95%CI] = 0.56 [0.35-0.87]), and rescue analgesia (RR [95%CI] = 0.52 [0.35-0.77]) than patients in the MDZ group. However, both groups had a similar incidence of unsatisfactory mask acceptance, emergence agitation, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Conclusion Compared with MDZ, DEX is beneficial in paediatric anaesthesia with sevoflurane because of its lower incidence of unsatisfactory sedation, parental separation, and rescue analgesia.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy: a comparison between dexmedetomidine and remifentanil as part of balanced anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the major complication related to general anesthesia, occurring in 60-80% of patients after thyroidectomy. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of an intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion with remifentanil, as anesthetic adjuvants of balanced anesthesia, on PONV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.

METHODS

Eighty patients scheduled for thyroidectomy were randomized into the following two groups: 1) The dexmedetomidine group (Group D), who received an initial loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg over 10 min) during the induction of anesthesia, followed by a continuous infusion at a rate of 0.3-0.5 µg/kg/h; 2) the remifentanil group (group R), who received remifentanil at an initial target effect site concentration of 4 ng/ml during the induction of anesthesia, followed by a target effect site concentration of 2-3 ng/ml. PONV was assessed during the first 24 hours in 2 time periods (0-2 h and 2-24 h). The pain intensity, sedation score, extubation time, and hemodynamics were also assessed.

RESULTS

During the 2 time periods, the incidence and severity of PONV in group D were significantly lower than in group R. In addition, the need for rescue antiemetics was significantly lower in group D than in group R. The effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain relief (2-24 h) was superior to that of remifentanil. The hemodynamics were similar in both groups, whereas eye opening and extubation time were delayed in group D.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant use of intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion may be effective for the prevention of PONV.

Comparison of Oral Clonidine, Oral Dexmedetomidine, and Oral Midazolam for Premedication in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery

Background:

Midazolam has been commonly used orally for premedication in children. A search for a better alternative continues to overcome its side effects. Recently alpha-2 agonists, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine have been used for premedication in children.

Aim:

To study and compare the efficacy of oral clonidine, oral dexmedetomidine, and oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric surgical patients.

Settings and Design:

This prospective, randomized, double blind study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted in ninety children of either sex, in the age group of 4–12 years and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical status I, posted for ophthalmic surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to one of the three groups of thirty patients each: Group M: Oral midazolam 0.5 mg/kg body weight, Group D: Oral dexmedetomidine 4 μg/kg body weight, and Group C: Oral clonidine 4 μg/kg body weight. Patients were assessed for sedation, anxiolysis, and change in heart rate and blood pressure in the preoperative area. Behavior of children at separation from parents, mask acceptance, and side effects if any were noted.

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.

Outcomes of dexmedetomidine treatment in pediatric patients undergoing congenital heart disease surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine decreases cardiac complications in adults undergoing cardiovascular surgery. This systematic review assessed whether perioperative dexmedetomidine improves congenital heart disease (CHD) surgery outcomes in children.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies that were published until 16 April 2015 and compared dexmedetomidine with placebo or an alternative anesthetic agent during pediatric CHD surgery. The assessed outcomes included hemodynamics, ventilation length, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays, blood glucose and serum cortisol levels, postoperative analgesia requirements, and postoperative delirium.

RESULTS

Five RCTs and nine observational studies involving 2229 patients were included. In pooled analyses, dexmedetomidine was associated with shorter length of mechanical ventilation (mean difference: -93.36, 95% CI: -137.45, -49.27), lower postoperative fentanyl (mean difference: -24.11, 95% CI: -36.98, -11.24) and morphine (mean difference: -0.07, 95% CI: -0.14, 0.00) requirements, reduced stress response (i.e., lower blood glucose and serum cortisol levels), and lower risk of delirium (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.74). The hemodynamics of dexmedetomidine-treated patients appeared more stable, but there were no significant differences in the ICU or hospital stay durations. Dexmedetomidine may increase the bradycardia and hypotension risk (OR: 3.14, 95% CI: 1.47, 6.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence indicates that dexmedetomidine improves outcomes in children undergoing CHD surgery. However, this finding largely relies on data from observational studies; high-quality RCTs are warranted because of the potential for subject selection bias.

Anaesthesia for the paediatric outpatient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review was to discuss recent developments in paediatric anaesthesia, which are particularly relevant to the practitioner involved in paediatric outpatient anaesthesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of a pharmacological premedication is still a matter of debate. Several publications are focussing on nasal dexmedetomidine; however, its exact place has not yet been defined. Both inhalational and intravenous anaesthesia techniques still have their advocates; for diagnostic imaging, however, propofol is emerging as the agent of choice. The disappearance of codeine has left a breach for an oral opioid and has probably worsened postoperative analgesia following tonsillectomy. In recent years, a large body of evidence for the prevention of postoperative agitation has appeared. Alpha-2-agonists as well as the transition to propofol play an important role. There is now some consensus that for reasons of practicability prophylactic antiemetics should be administered to all and not only to selected high-risk patients.

SUMMARY

Perfect organization of the whole process is a prerequisite for successful paediatric outpatient anaesthesia. In addition, the skilled practitioner is able to provide a smooth anaesthetic, minimizing complications, and, finally, he has a clear concept for avoiding postoperative pain, agitation and vomiting.

Oral Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam as Anesthetic Premedication in Children Undergoing Congenital Heart Surgery

Background:

Premedication is required for reducing anxiety and child’s struggling against mask acceptance on anesthesia in pediatric surgery for congenital heart disease. Midazolam has been widely used for this purpose, but because of its side effects, finding an effective replacement with less complication is necessary.

Objectives:

In the present study, we compared the efficacy of oral midazolam versus dexmedetomidine in terms of anxiolysis and mask acceptance behavior.

Patients and Methods:

Sixty children aged between 2 and 12 years, and scheduled for on-pump surgery due to a congenital heart disease were randomly assigned into two groups. Oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg up to 15 mg per patient) and dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) were administered 45 minutes pre-anesthesia. Children’s anxiety, mask acceptance behavior, hemodynamic measures, and cardiopulmonary outcomes were recorded and compared.

Results:

The mean age of patients was 3.96 ± 2.04 years. Twenty-eight (46.7%) patients were females. Two drugs have similar effects on cardiopulmonary outcomes and hemodynamic measures (P > 0.05). They equally relieved the children’s anxiety (mean sedation score 1.93 ± 0.63 and 2.0 ± 0.63 for midazolam and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively; P > 0.05), while dexmedetomidine showed a better effect on improving the mask acceptance behavior (mean mask acceptance score 2.58 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.67 for midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively; P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

It appears reasonable to apply oral premedication with dexmedetomidine 45 minutes before transferring the patient to the operating room when he or she is more prone to resist inhalation anesthesia induction.

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam as preanesthetic medication in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The preoperative period is a stressing occurrence for most people undergoing surgery, in particular children. Approximately 50-75% of children undergoing surgery develop anxiety which is associated with distress on emergence from anesthesia and with later postoperative behavioral problems. Premedication, commonly performed with benzodiazepines, reduces preoperative anxiety, facilitates separation from parents, and promotes acceptance of mask induction. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α2 -agonist with sedative and analgesic properties. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on dexmedetomidine versus midazolam was performed to evaluate its efficacy in improving perioperative sedation and analgesia, and in reducing postoperative agitation when used as a preanesthetic medication in children.

METHODS

Studies were independently searched in PubMed, BioMedCentral, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials and updated on August 15th, 2014. Primary outcomes were represented by improved sedation at separation from parents, at induction of anesthesia, and reduction in postoperative agitation. Secondary outcomes were reduction in rescue analgesic drugs, and duration of surgery and anesthesia. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison between dexmedetomidine and midazolam. Exclusion criteria were adult studies, duplicate publications, intravenous administration, and no data on main outcomes.

RESULTS

Data from 1033 children in 13 randomized trials were analyzed. Overall, in the dexmedetomidine group there was a higher incidence of satisfactory sedation at separation from parents (314 of 424 [74%] in the dexmedetomidine group vs 196 of 391 [50%] in the midazolam group, RR = 1.30 [1.05-1.62], P = 0.02), a reduced incidence of postoperative agitation (14 of 140 [10%] vs 56 of 141 [40%], RR = 0.31 [0.13-0.73], P = 0.008), and a significant reduction in the rescue doses of analgesic drugs (49 of 241 [20%] vs 95 of 243 [39%], RR = 0.52 [0.39-0.70], P < 0.001). There was no evidence of a higher incidence of satisfactory sedation at anesthesia induction or any reduction of duration of surgery and anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine is effective in decreasing anxiety upon separation from parents, decreasing postoperative agitation, and providing more effective postoperative analgesia when compared with midazolam.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on postoperative shivering: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

PURPOSE

Shivering is a frequent complication in the postoperative period. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine on postoperative shivering.

METHODS

Two researchers independently searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for controlled clinical trials. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine trials with 2,478 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Dexmedetomidine reduced postoperative shivering compared with placebo (risk ratio [RR] = 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20 to 0.34), with a minimum effective dose of 0.5 µg·kg(-1) (RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.60). The anti-shivering effect can be achieved both intravenously and epidurally when administered within two hours prior to the end of surgery. The efficacy of dexmedetomidine was similar to widely used anti-shivering agents, such as fentanyl, meperidine, tramadol, clonidine and so on; however, dexmedetomidine may increase the incidence of sedation, hypotension, bradycardia and dry mouth.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis indicates that dexmedetomidine shows superiority over placebo, but not over other anti-shivering agents. Therefore, considering its high price and potential adverse events, dexmedetomidine may not be appropriate solely for the purpose of the prevention of postoperative shivering.

Anesthetic premedication: new horizons of an old practice

The practice of anesthetic premedication embarked upon soon after ether and chloroform were introduced as general anesthetics in the middle of the 19(th) century. By applying opioids and anticholinergics before surgery, the surgical patients could achieve a less anxious state, and more importantly, they would acquire a smoother course during the tedious and dangerous induction stage. Premedication with opioids and anticholinergics was not a routine practice in the 20(th) century when intravenous anesthetics were primarily used as induction agents that significantly shorten the induction time. The current practice of anesthetic premedication has evolved into a generalized scheme that incorporates several aspects of patient care: decreasing preoperative anxiety, dampening intraoperative noxious stimulus and its associated neuroendocrinological changes, and minimizing postoperative adverse effects of anesthesia and surgery. Rational use of premedication in modern anesthesia practice should be justified by individual needs, the types of surgery, and the anesthetic agents and techniques used. In this article, we will provide our readers with updated information about premedication of surgical patients with a focus on the recent application of second generation serotonin type 3 antagonist, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants.

Routines for reducing the occurrence of emergence agitation during awakening in children, a national survey

Emergence agitation following anesthesia in children is not uncommon. It is, although generally self-limiting, associated with both patient and parents distress. We conducted a national survey around the management of behavioral and neurocognitive disturbances after surgery/anesthesia including a case scenario about a child at risk for emergence reaction. Premedication with clonidine or midazolam would have been used 58 and 37% of responders respectively. A propofol based anesthesia was the most common anesthetic technique, however sevoflurane or desflurane was an option for 45 and 8% of responders. Before awakening 65% would have administered an opioid, 48% a low-dose of propofol and 25% clonidine. Sign or symptoms of behavioral disturbance was not assessed by standardize assessment tools.

A majority of Swedish anesthesia personnel would undertake some preventive action when handling a child at risk for an emergence reaction, the preventive measure differed and it seems as there is an obvious room for further improvements.