Dexmedetomidine vs. lidocaine for postoperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing craniotomy: a protocol for a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Intraoperative application of low-dose dexmedetomidine or lidocaine for postoperative analgesia in pediatric patients following craniotomy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Background

Postoperative pain is a common occurrence in pediatric patients following craniotomy, often leading to negative outcomes. Intravenous dexmedetomidine and lidocaine are commonly used adjuvant medicines in general anesthesia to reduce perioperative opioid consumption and relieve postoperative pain in adults. While they show promise for use in pediatrics, the evidence of their application in pediatric craniotomy patients is limited. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on postoperative pain in pediatric patients following craniotomy.

Methods

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, single-center trial on children scheduled for craniotomy. The 255 recruited participants aged 1-12 years were randomly assigned to intraoperatively receive a loading intravenous dose of either dexmedetomidine 1 μg·kg-1 or lidocaine 2 mg·kg-1 or normal saline for 15 min followed by dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg·kg-1·h-1 or lidocaine 1 mg·kg-1·h-1 or normal saline until the sutures of endocranium were completed. The primary outcome was the cumulative sufentanil consumption within 24 h post-surgery.

Results

A total of 241 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The primary outcome did not show any significant differences among the three groups (median (IQR) lidocaine group: 3.36 (1.32-5.64) μg vs. dexmedetomidine group: 3.12 (1.36-6.39) μg vs. control group 3.46 (1.77-7.62) μg, p = 0.485). Among the secondary outcomes, there was a statistically significant but small reduction in sufentanil consumption within 2 h, postoperative FLACC/WBFS/NRS pain scores within 4 h after surgery and postoperative Ramsay sedation scores in dexmedetomidine group (p < 0.05). Regarding postoperative complications, the incidence of electrolyte disturbance within 24 and 48 h after surgery was significantly higher in control group compared to the other two groups. There were no significant differences in intraoperative opioid consumption, postoperative frequency of remedy medication, or length of hospitalization among the three groups. No adverse events related to lidocaine or dexmedetomidine were observed.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in the primary outcome among the three groups. Although dexmedetomidine showed some benefits in reducing postoperative opioid consumption within the first 2 h and pain intensity within the first 4 h post-surgery, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to comprehensively assess the outcomes and determine the optimal administration strategy.

Clinical Trial Registration

[http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx], identifier [ChiCTR1800019411].

Prevention of Post-Operative Pain after Elective Brain Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objective: To analyze the effects of several drug for pain prevention in adults undergoing craniotomy for elective brain surgery. Material and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The inclusion criteria were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for preventing post-operative pain in adults (aged 18 years or older) undergoing craniotomies. The main outcome measures were represented by the mean differences in validated pain intensity scales administered at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h post-operatively. The pooled estimates were calculated using random forest models. The risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB2 revised tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE guidelines. Results: In total, 3359 records were identified through databases and registers' searching. After study selection, 29 studies and 2376 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall risk of bias was low in 78.5% of the studies included. The pooled estimates of the following drug classes were provided: NSAIDs, acetaminophen, local anesthetics and steroids for scalp infiltration and scalp block, gabapentinoids and agonists of adrenal receptors. Conclusions: High-certainty evidence suggests that NSAIDs and acetaminophen may have a moderate effect on reducing post-craniotomy pain 24 h after surgery compared to control and that ropivacaine scalp block may have a bigger impact on reducing post-craniotomy pain 6 h after surgery compared to control. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that NSAIDs may have a more remarkable effect on reducing post-craniotomy pain 12 h after surgery compared to control. No moderate-to-high-certainty evidence indicates effective treatments for post-craniotomy pain prevention 48 h after surgery.

Comparing the Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in Patients with Brain Injury

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that dexmedetomidine improves neurological function. Whether dexmedetomidine reduces mortality or improves quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) among patients post-craniotomy remains unclear.

METHODS

This single-center randomized study was conducted prospectively from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. Patients who were transferred to the ICU after craniotomy within 24 h were included. The analgesic was titrated to a Critical care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) score ≤2, and the sedative was titrated to a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ≤-3 for at least 24 h. The qEEG signals were collected by four electrodes (F3, T3, F4, and T4 according to the international 10/20 EEG electrode practice). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality and qEEG results on day 1 and day 3 after sedation.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-one patients were enrolled in this study, of whom 77 were in the dexmedetomidine group and 74 in the midazolam group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in mortality at 28 days (14.3% vs. 24.3%; p = 0.117) as well as in the theta/beta ratio (TBR), the delta/alpha ratio (DAR), and the (delta + theta)/(alpha + beta) ratio (DTABR) between the two groups on day 1 or day 3. However, both the TBR and the DTABR were significantly increased in the dexmedetomidine group. The DTABR in the midazolam group was significantly increased. The DAR was significantly increased on the right side in the dexmedetomidine group (20.4 (11.6-43.3) vs. 35.1 (16.7-65.0), p = 0.006) as well as on both sides in the midazolam group (Left: 19.5 (10.1-35.8) vs. 37.3 (19.3-75.7), p = 0.006; Right: 18.9 (10.1-52.3) vs. 39.8 (17.5-99.9), p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine did not lead to a lower 28-day mortality or better qEEG results in brain injury patients after a craniotomy.