Is dexmedetomidine an ideal sedative agent for neurosurgical patients?

Role of Dexmedetomidine for Sedation in Neurocritical Care Patients: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Evidence

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review appraises the clinical evidence on efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX), as a sole sedative or as sedative adjunct in adult neurocritical care (NCC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A database search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the use of DEX alone or as adjunct for sedation in NCC setting. The primary outcome was the occurrence of hemodynamic changes, whereas the secondary outcomes were sedative and analgesic efficacy, quality and time to awakening, and development of adverse events.

RESULTS

Eight trials including 3 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational studies, enrolling 650 patients, were selected. All the retrieved studies had a high risk of bias and a low to moderate quality. Dexmedetomidine provided a better sedation score and reduced analgesic requirements when compared to propofol or midazolam sedation. No statistically significant difference in the combined hemodynamic effect (hypotension or bradycardia) between DEX and controls (risk ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-3.48; P = 0.34; I = 56%) was identified. Adverse events were not consistently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Available clinical literature supporting the efficacy and safety of DEX use in adult NCC setting is of limited quantity and quality. However, from the current evidence on the use of DEX in NCC, as sole sedative agent or as an adjunct, seems to be both efficient and safe.

The Opioid-Sparing Effect of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine Plus Sufentanil Infusion during Neurosurgery: A Retrospective Study

Background: Approximately 60% of patients experience moderate-to-severe pain after neurosurgery, which primarily occurs in the first 24–72 h. Despite this, improved postoperative analgesia solutions after neurosurgery have not yet been devised. This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the effect of intra- and post-operative infusions of dexmedetomidine (DEX) plus sufentanil on the quality of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing neurosurgery.

Methods: One hundred and sixty-three post-neurosurgery patients were divided into two groups: Group D (DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min, then adjusted to 0.3 μg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹ until incision suturing) and Group ND (no DEX infusion during surgery). Patient-controlled analgesia was administered for 72 h after surgery (Group D: sufentanil 0.02 μg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹ plus DEX 0.02 μg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹, Group ND: sufentanil 0.02 μg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹) in this retrospective study. The primary outcome measure was postoperative sufentanil consumption. Hemodynamics, requirement of narcotic, and vasoactive drugs, recovery time and the incidence of concerning adverse effects were recorded. Pain intensity [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)], Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) and Bruggemann comfort scale (BCS) were also evaluated at 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery.

Results: Postoperative sufentanil consumption was significantly lower in Group D during the first 72 h after surgery (P < 0.05). Compared with Group ND, heart rate (HR) in Group D was significantly decreased from intubation to 20 min after arriving at post anesthesia care unit (PACU), while mean arterial pressure (MAP) in Group D was significantly decreased from intubation to 5 min after arriving at PACU (P < 0.05). The intraoperative requirements for sevoflurane, remifentanil, and fentanyl were approximately 35% less in Group D compared with Group ND. VAS at rest at 1, 4, and 8 h and with cough at 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery were significantly lower in Group D (P < 0.05). Compared with Group ND, patients in Group D showed lower levels of overall incidence of tachycardia, hypertension, nausea, and vomiting (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of baseline clinical characteristics, recovery time, RSS, and BCS (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: DEX (0.02 μg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹) plus sufentanil (0.02 μg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹) could reduce postoperative opioid consumption and concerning adverse adverse effects, while improving pain scores. However, it did not influence RSS and BCS during the first 72 h after neurosurgery.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam for short-term sedation in postoperatively mechanically ventilated neurosurgical patients

BACKGROUND

Effective management of analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit depends on the needs of the patient, subjective and/or objective measurement and drug titration to achieve specific endpoints.

AIM

The present study compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam for sedation in neurosurgical patients for postoperative mechanical ventilation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety patients aged 20-65 years, ASA physical status I to III, undergoing neurosurgery and requiring postoperative ventilation were included. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.4-0.7 mcg/kg/h. Group P received propofol 1 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 1-3 mg/kg/h. Group M received midazolam 0.04 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.08 mg/kg/h.

MEASUREMENTS

Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, sedation level, fentanyl requirement, ventilation and extubation time were recorded.

RESULTS

Adequate sedation level was achieved with all three agents. Dexmedetomidine group required less fentanyl for postoperative analgesia. In group D there was a decrease in HR after dexmedetomidine infusion (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference in HR between group P and group M. After administration of study drug there was a significant decrease in MAP comparison to baseline value in all groups at all time intervals (p<0.05), except postextubation period (p>0.05). Extubation time was lowest in group P (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine is safer and equally effective agent compared to propofol and midazolam for sedation of neurosurgical mechanically ventilated patients with good hemodynamic stability and extubation time as rapid as propofol. Dexmedetomidine also reduced postoperative fentanyl requirements.