The addition of clonidine to bupivacaine in saphenous/sciatic nerve blocks in children

Clonidine in pediatric anesthesia: the new panacea or a drug still looking for an indication?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clonidine, an α2-receptor agonist is a widely used drug in pediatrics with a large scope of indications ranging from prevention of postoperative emergence agitation, analgesia, anxiolysis, sedation, weaning to shivering. In the era of 'opioid-free' medicine with much attention be directed toward increasing problems with opioid use, clonidine due to its global availability, low cost and safety profile has become an even more interesting option.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence from randomised clinical trials support the use of clonidine in healthy children in the perioperative setting. Clonidine appears to significantly reduce postoperative emergence agitation, opioid consumption, shivering, nausea and vomiting. In addition, emerging evidence support the use of clonidine for sedation of critically ill children in ICUs. In this review, the current evidence for clonidine in pediatrics is described and analyzed including a meta-analysis for prevention of emergence agitation.

SUMMARY

Clonidine appears a safe and beneficial drug with moderate to high-quality evidence supporting its use in pediatric anesthesia. However, for some indications and populations such as children younger than 12 months old and those with hemodynamic instability, there is an urgent need for high-quality trials.

Perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone as an adjuvant in regional anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Dexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.

Materials and methods

Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.

Results

Ten randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI –0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66–5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.

Conclusion

Our results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.