A Comparative Evaluation of Nebulized Dexmedetomidine, Nebulized Ketamine, and Their Combination as Premedication for Outpatient Pediatric Dental Surgery

Effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine and ketamine combination in paediatric dental sedation: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pain and anxiety can be considerable obstacles while treating paediatric dental patients. Moderate sedation is needed to treat uncooperative patients.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine.

DESIGN

Fifty-six uncooperative children were randomly assigned into two groups: Group I received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg) (DEX-KET), whereas Group II received buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg) (DEX). The effects of drugs were evaluated based on changes in vital signs, onset and duration of sedation, sedation level, analgesia, ease of treatment and procedural adverse effects.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in vital signs or sedation onset between the two groups. DEX-KET group showed shorter recovery time than DEX group (p < .0001). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding sedation level at optimum sedation and during operative procedure (p = .064, p = .069 respectively). The ease of treatment was significantly better in DEX-KET group than in DEX group (p = .048). Procedural side effects and analgesic effects of the sedative drugs were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine delivered buccally provided a better method of delivering care to uncooperative children with more rapid recovery than dexmedetomidine.

Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine and ketamine for paediatric premedication: A randomized study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Paediatric patients are given premedication in order to decrease preoperative anxiety, allow smooth induction, and prevent postoperative psychological insult and behavioural changes. A child friendly method of administration is desirable. We compared intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine and ketamine in the operating room environment, to evaluate the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) score at the time of establishing intravenous access for induction of general anaesthesia.

METHODS

This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary care center. One hundred patients, 2-10 years of age, ASA physical status 1 & 2, scheduled for general anaesthesia were enrolled. Patient's presedation behaviour was assessed by the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale Short Form (mYPAS-SF). Patients in Group D received Dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg intranasally, and patients in Group K received Ketamine 5 mg/kg intranasally. After 45 min, patients were transferred to the operating table where intravenous cannulation was carried out and the response to needle insertion was assessed by FLACC scale. Vital signs, including the pulse-oximetry, heart rate and respiratory rate were monitored. Side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and agitation were also recorded.

RESULTS

A significantly higher FLACC score was seen in Group D as compared to Group K (p = 0.001). The mean heart rate between two groups was found to be significantly (p = 0.001) lower in Group D compared to Group K. However, the proportion of adverse events was 8% in patients who received ketamine.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal ketamine in a dose of 5 mg/kg is clinically more effective as premedication in children aged 2-10 years in comparison with intranasal dexmedetomidine in a dose of 1 mcg/kg.

Clinical usefulness of nebulized dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation in daycare flexible bronchoscopy in Southern India

BACKGROUND

Sedative agents used in bronchoscopy require trained personnel to administer and monitor the patient. This increases the procedure cost, duration, and inpatient stay. Inhalational administration of sedative agents can be a practical solution to the issue. Dexmedetomidine in the inhalational form could give results similar to the intravenous form without significant adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study is prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. Patients needing bronchoscopy were randomized to receive the nebulized form of either dexmedetomidine or saline (0.9%) before bronchoscopy. The study parameters are assessed and recorded before, during, and after bronchoscopy. Data collected are analyzed using the SPSS software.

DISCUSSION

The side effects limit using commonly administered sedation agents in bronchoscopy, such as midazolam, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine. The nebulized dexmedetomidine is safe with proven efficacy when compared to the placebo. Proceduralist-administered conscious sedation reduces the overall cost and shortens inpatient stays. Attenuation of hemodynamic parameters by dexmedetomidine could be an advantage for the physician in reducing an untoward cardiac event.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine in the nebulized form improves the comfort of patients during the procedure. It blunts the pressure response during bronchoscopy and could be a safer and cost-effective agent in its nebulized form for conscious sedation in bronchoscopy. The study is approved by the institutional ethics committee (IEC KMC MLR 10-2021-310).

Nebulized Versus Intravenously Administered Dexmedetomidine for Obtunding Hemodynamic Responses to Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Double-Blind Comparative Study

Introduction Intravenous dexmedetomidine is known to cause major adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart block when used as premedication for attenuation of the laryngoscopy and intubation response, limiting its routine use. Thus, it is important to study other routes of administration of dexmedetomidine. Objectives To compare the hemodynamic response and sedation score between intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine as premedication for the attenuation of the laryngoscopy and intubation response. Materials and methods In this study, 60 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria undergoing surgeries under general anesthesia (ASA Grade I and II) were randomly allocated into two groups of 30 patients each. Group IV received intravenous 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine in 100 mL normal saline, and Group IN received nebulization with 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine diluted to a total volume of 5 cc of normal saline, 30 minutes prior to the induction of general anesthesia. Sedation scores were calculated using the Ramsay sedation score at 20 minutes after the administration of the drug; patients were induced by the standard protocol, and laryngoscopy was performed. Vitals were recorded before the administration of the drug and after intubation at stipulated time intervals. Results The median heart rate becomes significantly lower at 15 minutes (70 vs. 76.5) and 20 minutes (66 vs. 76) after induction among Group IV as compared to Group IN. The median systolic blood pressure was significantly lower at 20 minutes in Group IV (110 mmHg) than in Group IN (119 mmHg). The median diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower at 10 minutes (76 vs. 79), 15 minutes (70 vs. 77), and 20 minutes (69 vs. 78.5) in Group IV than in Group IN. The median of mean arterial pressure was significantly lower at 15 minutes (84.8 vs. 91.5) and 20 minutes (83 vs. 92) in Group IV than in Group IN. A comparison of vitals after induction shows that the median heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure were significantly lower statistically among Group IV as compared to Group IN at 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 30 minutes after induction (except for systolic blood pressure at 3 minutes). The median sedation score was lower in Group IN (0) than in Group IV (1); this difference is statistically significant. Conclusion The obtundation of hemodynamic responses following laryngoscopy and maintaining hemodynamics intraoperatively is statistically better with nebulized dexmedetomidine compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine.

Comparative evaluation of nebulised dexmedetomidine vs fentanyl for the treatment of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) in parturients after caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia: A randomised controlled study

Background and Aims

The incidence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) following spinal anaesthesia in the obstetric population is around 0.5%-2%. Hydration, bed rest, caffeine, paracetamol, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs, epidural blood patches, etc., are the various modalities used for its management. This study aims to compare nebulised dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl for the treatment of PDPH in parturients after caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.

Methods

Ninety obstetric patients aged 18-35 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II/III and suffering from PDPH as per the criteria of the International Headache Society after caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia were recruited in this double-blinded randomised study. Patients were randomised to Group D (dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg nebulisation), Group F (fentanyl 1 µg/kg nebulisation), and Group S (saline nebulisation 4mL). The nebulisation was done 12 hourly for 72 hours. Assessment parameters included pain score and the requirement of additional treatment such as paracetamol, caffeine, and epidural blood patch. Analysis of variance test was used for continuous quantitative variables, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for quantitative discrete data.

Results

The pain scores at 1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours following nebulisation were significantly lower in Group D in comparison to groups F and S (P < 0.001). The number of patients requiring additional analgesic therapy was lower in Group D in comparison to patients in other groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine nebulisation resulted in effective reduction in PDPH symptoms and pain scores. Nebulisation with fentanyl did not alleviate PDPH symptoms when compared to the control group.

Effect of different doses of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to lignocaine nebulization: A comparative study during awake flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy

Background and Aims

Mild to moderate sedation during bronchoscopy is essential for patient safety, comfort during and after the procedure, and to facilitate the performance of the bronchoscopist. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective, centrally acting α-2 agonist used to provide conscious sedation during various procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three different doses of dexmedetomidine nebulization as an adjuvant to lignocaine during bronchoscopy.

Material and Methods

Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II patients, aged from 18 to 60 years, scheduled for an elective bronchoscopy, were recruited. They were divided into three groups: 30 patients in each group. Group I: The patient was nebulized with a mixture of 4 ml of 4% lignocaine and dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg. Group II: The patient was nebulized with a mixture of 4% lignocaine, 4 ml, and dexmedetomidine, 1 μg/kg. Group III: The patient was nebulized with 4% lignocaine 4 ml and dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg.

Results

The mean cough score was (1.17 ± 0.37), (1.40 ± 0.49), and (1.70 ± 0.75) in group III, group II, and group I, respectively. A significant difference was found between the groups. Patients were more comfortable with a statistically significant difference in the comfort score in group III as compared to group II and group I.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine nebulization in a dose of 1.5 μg/kg (compared to 1 μg/kg or 0.5 μg/kg) as an adjuvant to lignocaine, provides better bronchoscopy conditions and patient satisfaction.

Comparison of nebulized ropivacaine (0.75%) with nebulized dexmedetomidine on the hemodynamic response on intubation in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia: A comparative randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

Background

Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation lead to sympathetic stimulation resulting in hemodynamic fluctuations. We compared local anesthetic ropivacaine 0.75% with alpha agonist dexmedetomidine through ultrasonic nebulization for direct local action of the drug in the airway.

Methods

In our randomized study, 180 patients were prospectively assigned to three groups of 60 each: group R (0.75%), group D (1 microgram/kg), and group C (control). The primary objective was to determine whether nebulized ropivacaine or nebulized dexmedetomidine can cause a reduction in stress response to laryngoscopy and intubation. The secondary objectives were to compare the hemodynamic parameters at extubation, cough response at extubation, and postoperative sore throat.

Results

A total of 165 patients were analyzed. Demographically, all the groups were similar. Group R and group D were found to significantly attenuate the heart rate (HR) at intubation and extubation when compared to group C (P < 0.05). A significant reduction in mean arterial pressure (MAP) was seen (P < 0.05; group D: 90 ± 18.4 mmHg, group C: 99.5 ± 15.9 mmHg, group R: 92.4 ± 16.1 mmHg). There was a significant reduction in cough response in both groups in comparison with group C at 0 minutes (P value; group C vs group D: <.0001; group C vs group R:.01) and 5 minutes (P value; group C vs group D: <.0001; group C vs group R: <.0001).

Conclusion

Preinduction topical use of ropivacaine or dexmedetomidine, through the nebulization route, effectively attenuated the pressor responses when compared to placebo.

A prospective-randomized placebo-controlled trial comparing the effects of nebulized dexmedetomidine v/s dexmedetomidine-lignocaine mixture on intraoperative hemodynamics and surgical field quality in patients undergoing endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal pituitary tumor surgery

Background

During transnasal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery (TNTSS), the primary objective is to maintain stable hemodynamics while ensuring ideal surgical conditions. This study aimed to investigate the effect of nebulized dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic parameters and the quality of the surgical field during TNTSS.

Methods

Seventy-five patients scheduled for TNTSS were randomized into three groups of 25 each and received preoperative nebulization with 5 mL of nebulizing fluid consisting of 1.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine with saline in dexmedetomidine (D) group; 1.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine with 2% lignocaine in dexmedetomidine-lignocaine (DL) group and normal saline in the control (S) group. Heart rate (HR), mean blood pressure, Formmers score, anesthetic requirement, and emergence were evaluated for each group.

Results

Group S had significantly higher HR and mean arterial pressure than the other two groups across various time points during surgery (P < 0.01). The total requirements for fentanyl, propofol, sevoflurane, and labetalol and the incidence of delayed emergence were significantly higher in the S group compared to the other two groups (P < 0.01). The D and DL groups exhibited significantly better surgical field conditions than the S group. In all the parameters assessed, patients in the D group outperformed those in the DL group.

Conclusion

The administration of nebulized dexmedetomidine, both alone and in combination with lignocaine, resulted in stable hemodynamics, favorable operative conditions, reduced anesthetic requirement, and facilitated prompt emergence during TNTSS. Nebulized dexmedetomidine proved superior to its combination with lignocaine across all evaluated parameters.

Nebulized dexmedetomidine for attenuating hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing surgeries under general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Sympathetic stimulation associated with laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation (ETI) may lead to adverse cardio-/cerebro-vascular events in susceptible patients. Nebulization is a novel route for dexmedetomidine administration providing a large surface area for absorption while avoiding bradycardia and hypotension associated with intravenous route. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine nebulization for attenuating hemodynamic response to ETI in adult patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered prospectively in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023403624). PubMed, Embase (OvidSP), Cochrane library, Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate) and Google Scholar were systematically searched from database inception until March 31, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and then full text against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effect of dexmedetomidine nebulization on hemodynamic response to ETI in adult patients undergoing surgeries under general anaesthesia were included. All studies reporting heart rate and systolic blood pressure at baseline and various time points after ETI were included. A pre-piloted data extraction form, Cochrane revised risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) tool, GRADE approach and RevMan 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) were used for data extraction, risk of bias assessment, rating certainty of evidence and data synthesis respectively. Mean difference and relative risk with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were used for continuous and dichotomous variables respectively.

RESULTS

Six RCTs randomized 480 patients with ASA I/II patients aged < 60 years of age and undergoing elective surgeries to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 240) or saline nebulization (n = 240). Except for one RCT which used 2 μg/kg, all other RCTs used dexmedetomidine dose of 1 μg /kg. Heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group at all the measured time points after laryngoscopy and ETI with the only exception being systolic blood pressure at 3 min [mean difference -13.86 (95% CI -30.01 to 2.99), p = 0.09]. Bradycardia and hypotension as adverse effects were absent across the included studies. However, only one-third of the included studies had a low risk of bias and strength of evidence was very low according to the GRADE assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, premedication with dexmedetomidine nebulization was associated with lower HR and BP following ETI without any risk of bradycardia and hypotension. However, the strength of evidence was very poor and came from just one country. Future well designed and conducted studies in different populations are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023403624.

Comparison of the effects of ketamine via nebulization versus different pharmacological approaches in pediatric sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Nebulized drug delivery is commonly used in pediatric clinical practice. The growing number of literatures have reported the application of nebulized ketamine in pediatric sedation in recent years. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of nebulized ketamine versus different pharmacological approaches was conducted to estimate the effects of this technique in pediatric sedation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to Feb 2023. All randomized controlled trials used nebulized ketamine as presurgical and pre-procedural sedatives in children were included. Sedative effects and various adverse events were considered as the outcomes.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 727 pediatric patients were enrolled. Compared to nebulized dexmedetomidine, using of ketamine via nebulization showed similar sedation satisfaction (54.79% vs. 60.69%, RR = 0.88, with 95%CI [0.61, 1.27]), success rate of parental separation (57.27% vs. 73.64%, RR = 0.81, with 95%CI [0.61, 1.08]), and mask acceptability (37.27% vs. 52.73%, RR = 0.71, with 95%CI [0.45, 1.10]). However, the using of combination of two medications (nebulized ketamine plus nebulized dexmedetomidine) was associated with better sedative satisfaction (33.82% vs. 68.11%, RR = 0.50, with 95%CI [0.27, 0.92]) and more satisfactory mask acceptance (45.59% vs. 71.01%, RR = 0.69, with 95%CI [0.56, 0.86]). Compared with nebulized ketamine, using of nebulized dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of emergence agitation (18.18% vs. 3.33%, RR = 4.98, with 95%CI [1.88, 13.16]).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidences, compared to nebulized dexmedetomidine, nebulized ketamine provides inconspicuous advantages in pediatric sedation, and it has a relatively high incidence of emergence agitation. Combination of nebulized ketamine and dexmedetomidine might be considered as one preferred option in pediatric sedation as it can provide more satisfactory sedative effects. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding nebulized ketamine versus ketamine administered through other routes and nebulized ketamine versus other sedatives. The overall low or moderate quality of evidence evaluated by the GRADE system also calls for more high-quality studies with larger sample sizes in future.

RESEARCH REGISTRATION

The protocol of present study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023403226).

Remimazolam for Pediatric Procedural Sedation: Results of an Institutional Pilot Program

Remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative, was first approved in 2020 in Japan as a general anesthetic for adults. However, its utilization in pediatric settings remains unexplored and, to date, is confined to isolated case reports due to a lack of specific pediatric labeling. The primary objective of our study was to evaluate the safety profile of remimazolam when used for procedural sedation in children following dosages established in adult protocols. Additional parameters, including dosage per kg of body weight, duration of the procedure, efficacy (measured as successful completion of the procedure), the necessity for supplemental medications, and changes in physiological parameters, such as the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), were assessed. Our study encompassed 48 children with an average age of 7.0 years. The objective Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation tool indicated no adverse events. In our cohort, propofol and ketamine were used as adjunctive treatments in 8 and 39 patients, respectively, with successful completion of all procedures. Notable hemodynamic variability was observed, with 88.4% of patients experiencing a ≥20% change (increase or decrease) and 62.8% experiencing a ≥30% change in MAP. Additionally, a ≥20% change in HR was observed in 54.3% of patients, and a ≥30% change was observed in 34.8% of patients. Nevertheless, none of the patients required pharmacological intervention to manage these hemodynamic fluctuations. Our findings suggest that remimazolam, when supplemented with propofol or ketamine, could offer a safe and effective pathway for administering procedural sedation in pediatric populations.

Magnesium Sulfate in Pediatric Abdominal Cancer Surgery: Safety and Efficacy in Ultrasound-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane (US-TAP) Block in Conjugation with Levobupivacaine

Purpose

Magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) may enhance the effects of local anesthetics when used as an adjuvant in peripheral nerve blocks. Our objective was to evaluate efficiency and safety of utilizing MgSO4 alongside levobupivacaine in bilateral ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (US-TAP) block for postoperative pain in pediatric cancer patients who underwent abdominal surgery.

Methodology

A randomized double-blinded controlled trial at South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, included that 40 pediatric patients with Wilms' tumor or neuroblastoma were randomly allocated to get bilateral (US-TAP) block and divided into two groups; M group: received US-TAP with 0.6 mL/kg levobupivacaine 0.25% + 2 mg/kg MgSO4 and C group: received with 0.6 mL/kg levobupivacaine 0.25% only. FLACC scores (Face, Leg, Activity, Cry, Consolability) were used to evaluate post-operative pain, first analgesic request, total analgesic consumption, adverse effects, as well as hemodynamics were monitored for 24 h and recorded at time points (2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 18, and 24h). Parent's satisfaction at discharge, also, was evaluated.

Results

FLACC score in M group was significantly lower than in C group from 4 h to 24 h with the first analgesic request being longer (15.95 ± 1.99 vs 7.70 ± 0.80 (h); p < 0.001) and lower total analgesic consumption (231.75 ± 36.57 vs 576.00 ± 170.71 (mg); p < 0.001) when comparing M group to C group, respectively. Both groups had insignificant differences regarding hemodynamics, parent satisfaction, postoperative agitation, and side effects except vomiting occurred in two patients in the C group and one patient in the M group.

Conclusion

We conclude that adding magnesium sulphate as an adjuvant to local anaesthetic in US-TAP block for pain management in pediatric abdominal cancer surgeries resulted in better and longer analgesia, with less consumption of rescue analgesics with no serious side effects.

Two-center randomized controlled trial comparing oral chloral hydrate and intranasal combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for procedural sedation in children: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Oral chloral hydrate is widely used in pediatric sedation. Intranasal dexmedetomidine has been increasingly used for pediatric sedation; however, its improvement is warranted. The combination of dexmedetomidine with ketamine can improve onset and hemodynamic stability while maintaining sedative efficacy. This study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of intranasal combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine compared to oral chloral hydrate.

METHODS

This is a prospective, parallel-arm, single-blinded, two-center, superiority randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation, designed to compare the effects of intranasal combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine with those of oral chloral hydrate. We shall enroll 136 patients aged < 7 years old in this study. Prior to the procedure, we shall randomize each patient into the control group (oral chloral hydrate 50 mg/kg) or study group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg and ketamine 3 mg/kg). The primary outcome will be the rate of achieving an adequate sedation level (6-point Pediatric Sedation State Scale 1, 2, or 3) within 15 min. In addition, we shall measure the sedation time, sedation failure rate, completion of procedure, adverse events, patient acceptance, and physician satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of the intranasal combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine in comparison with oral chloral hydrate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04820205. Registered on 19th March 2021.

Comparison of single-shot nebuliser protocol between dexmedetomidine and ketamine in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

Sedation for magnetic resonance imaging mandates deep sedation to ensure patient immobility. The nebulised route of drug delivery carries the advantage of good bioavailability and safety profile. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nebulised dexmedetomidine and ketamine for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging.

METHODS

A total of 71 children, aged two to eight years scheduled for outpatient magnetic resonance imaging were randomly allocated to receive nebulised dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg (group D) or nebulised ketamine 2 mg/kg (group K) 30min before magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Nebulised dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) resulted in faster onset and significantly better sedation scores with rapid clear-headed recovery. Ketamine resulted in better venepuncture scores but was associated with more neuropsychological events at recovery.

CONCLUSION

Nebulised dexmedetomidine at 2 μg/kg provides rapid onset of satisfactory sedation, with good parental separation and a quicker and more clear-headed recovery, allowing for a smooth magnetic resonance imaging experience.

What Is the Role of Dexmedetomidine in Modern Anesthesia and Critical Care?

Dexmedetomidine's unique sedative properties have led to its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine has a beneficial pharmacologic profile including analgesic sparing effects, anxiolysis, sympatholysis, organ-protective effects against ischemic and hypoxic injury, and sedation which parallels natural sleep. An understanding of predictable side effects, effects of age-related physiologic changes, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine is crucial to maximize its safe administration in adults and children. This review focuses on the growing body of literature examining advances in applications of dexmedetomidine in children and adults.

Efficacy and safety of intranasal ketamine compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine as a premedication before general anesthesia in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal ketamine with intranasal dexmedetomidine as a premedication in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery or other procedures.

SOURCE

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, LILACS, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intranasal ketamine with intranasal dexmedetomidine as preanesthetic medication in elective surgery or other procedures in pediatric patients. We used Review Manager software version 5.4.1 for statistical analysis and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies with the RoB 2 risk of bias tool. All outcomes were pooled using the Mantle-Haenszel method and a random-effects model. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Out of 2,445 full texts assessed, we included ten RCTs in the analysis. The efficacy outcomes did not fulfill the comparability criteria between intranasal ketamine and intranasal dexmedetomidine for sedation at parental separation (risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.04; I2 = 89%; GRADE evidence, low), mask acceptance (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.13; I2 = 50%; GRADE evidence, low), and iv canulation (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.69; I2 = 69%; GRADE evidence, very low). Intranasal ketamine-treated patients showed a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.91; I2 = 0; GRADE evidence, moderate). Significantly more bradycardia was observed in the intranasal dexmedetomidine group (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.70; I2 = 40%; GRADE evidence, moderate) than in the ketamine group.

CONCLUSION

The low to very low-quality evidence in this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs neither confirmed nor refuted comparable premedication efficacy of intranasal ketamine and dexmedetomidine in terms of parental separation, mask acceptance, and iv cannulation in a pediatric population. Clinical decision-making is likely to be influenced by differences in gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profiles.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021262516); registered 22 July 2021.

Comparison of Intravenous Versus Nebulized Dexmedetomidine for Laryngoscopy and Intubation-Induced Sympathoadrenal Stress Response Attenuation

Background

Nebulized dexmedetomidine has been used for procedural sedation and allaying separation anxiety in children. Literature regarding its use in the attenuation of laryngoscopy and intubation response via the nebulized route is scarce. We evaluated preoperative dexmedetomidine nebulization on the hemodynamic response arising from laryngoscopy/intubation, hemodynamics, analgesic consumption, and postoperative sore throat.

Objectives

The primary objective was to evaluate/compare the hemodynamic effects of preoperative intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine on laryngoscopy/intubation and compare the efficacy of the two routes in blunting the sympathoadrenal response. The secondary objective was to evaluate their effects on intraoperative analgesic consumption and incidence and sore throat postoperatively.

Methods

120 ASA I & II adult patients undergoing elective surgeries requiring tracheal intubation were randomized to receive intravenous dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg over 10 minutes) and nebulized dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg in 3 - 4 mL of 0.9% saline), 30 min before anesthesia induction. Heart rate and non-invasive blood pressure were monitored for 10 min following laryngoscopy and then throughout the surgery. Intraoperative analgesic consumption, postoperative sore throat, and recovery from anesthesia were assessed.

Results

No significant hemodynamic difference was found between the two groups till three minutes. Then, the difference turned significant owing to a greater fall in the heart rate and mean arterial pressure in the intravenous group. Nebulized dexmedetomidine exhibited a lesser tendency of hypo/hypertension and brady/tachycardia, while hemodynamics was more stable. There was lesser sore throat and sedation in the nebulized group. Intraoperative analgesic and propofol consumption was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions

Nebulized dexmedetomidine attenuated laryngoscopy and intubation response, although to a lesser extent than the intravenous group in equivalent doses. However, the nebulized route provided greater hemodynamic stability in the intraoperative period and lesser sedation/sore throat postoperatively without an increase in adverse effects. Nebulized dexmedetomidine may provide a more holistic and viable alternative in patients who poorly tolerate hypotension, bradycardia, and sedation.

Comparison of intranasal and nebulized dexmedetomidine for premedication in pediatric patients: A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α-2 adrenoreceptor agonist and has been found to be an effective premedication agent when administered via the intranasal route. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine premedication administered via intranasal route and through nebulization in pediatric patients.

Material and Methods

This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted after getting approval from institutes ethics committee and informed written parental consent. Sixty-four children aged 2-8 years scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled and were divided into two groups. Group I (Intranasal, n = 33) received 2 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine via intranasal route and group N (Nebulized, n = 31) received 2 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine through nebulization. The primary outcome was number of patients with satisfactory sedation 30 minutes after premedication at separation from parent. The secondary outcome included ease of medication acceptance, anxiety at parental separation, acceptance of anesthesia mask, perioperative hemodynamics, emergence agitation during recovery and adverse effects. Data collected was analyzed using Chi-square test, Student "t" test and Mann-Whitney U test with the help of SPSS 22. A one tailed P value < 0.025 was considered significant.

Results

Demographic profile was comparable between groups. On arrival in OR 27 (81.8%) patients in group I and 21 (67.7%) patients in group N had satisfactory sedation score (P = 0.19). The median (IQR) sedation score was comparable between group I and group N (P = 0.057). Patients in Group I showed significantly better medication and mask acceptance scores (P < 0.0001, P = 0.001 respectively), parental separation anxiety score (P < 0.0001) and emergence agitation score (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in hemodynamic parameters and adverse effects between the groups.

Conclusion

Although nebulized dexmedetomidine is non-inferior to intranasal dexmedetomidine in providing desired level of sedation but intranasal administration had better acceptance of medication and anesthesia mask with lesser anxiety at parental separation and postoperative emergence agitation.

Dexmedetomidine and perioperative analgesia in children

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an anaesthetic agent that mimics natural deep sleep and produces minimal cardiorespiratory depression. As such, it is a very valuable option in the management of such a challenging population as paediatric patients. The main objective of this mini review was to evaluate the role of DEX as a perioperative analgesic in children receiving anaesthesia. We searched Google, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2010 and 2021, and reviewed various of aspects of DEX, such as pharmacology, effectiveness, safety, and the most recent evidence on its clinical use as an analgesic in paediatric anaesthesia. We also include a cost estimate of perioperative analgesia with DEX.

Comparative evaluation of nebulized ketamine and its combination with dexmedetomidine as premedication for paediatric patients undergoing surgeries under general anaesthesia

Background

Various drugs have been endorsed but no standardised premedication protocol exists for paediatric patients. Nebulised form of drug not only results in better patient acceptability but also has improved clinical effectiveness. The present study delineates and evaluates the efficacy and safety of nebulised ketamine and combination of nebulised dexmedetomidine and ketamine for premedication in paediatric patients.

Methods

Prospective randomised controlled study was planned in patients, 3-10 years of age, undergoing surgeries. Patients received either nebulised ketamine (2 mg/kg) (group X, n = 23) or dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg plus ketamine (1 mg/kg) (group Y; n = 24), 30 min before shifting inside the operation theatre. The sedation level, haemodynamic response and ill-effects were recorded for 30 min.

Results

The baseline haemodynamic (HR, MAP, RR and SpO2) parameters were normal and comparable in both the groups. There was no significant variation noticed in terms of HR, MAP, RR and SpO2% in either of the groups at 15 min (p < 0.15, p < 0.20, p < 0.85, p < 0.46) and 30 min (p < 0.21, p < 0.97, p < 0.75, p < 0.61) respectively, after receiving premedication. The level of sedation in group Y (score of 4 or less) was found to be better than that achieved by group X patients (p < 0.001). Face mask acceptance was satisfactory in group Y (score of 2 or less) as compared to group X patients (p < 0.001). The parental separation was comparable in both groups (p = 0.46).

Conclusion

Nebulisation is a satisfactory method of premedication for children. A combination of nebulised ketamine with a dose of 1 mg/kg and dexmedetomidine with a dose of 1 μg/kg is capable of producing a satisfactory level of sedation in a more effective manner than sedation induced by nebulised ketamine alone (2 mg/kg).

Comparison of different sedatives in children before general anaesthesia for selective surgery: A network meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

It is estimated that 60% of children undergoing anaesthesia develop severe preoperative anxiety. The anxiety is associated with adverse reactions. Sedatives such as dexmedetomidine, midazolam, clonidine, ketamine, and melatonin can be used as premedication against preoperative anxiety. However, no consensus has been reached on the choice of pre-anaesthetic sedatives in children before selective surgery. Therefore, the current network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out to evaluate different sedatives in children aged between 1 and 7 before general anaesthesia for selective surgery.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were retrieved from Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases from inception to October 22, 2021. Primary outcomes showed satisfactory sedation at parent separation and also at induction or mask acceptance. Secondary outcomes were those related to added benefits and side effects. The present NMA was conducted using the R software. Results of the study were reported as Relative Risk (RR) or Mean Difference (MD) at a 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 48 trials were included in the present study. It was found that the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine, midazolam, clonidine, and ketamine were superior to that of placebo in satisfactory sedation at parent separation and induction or mask acceptance. There was no significant difference between melatonin and placebo in satisfactory sedation at induction or mask acceptance. Dexmedetomidine, ketamine, clonidine, and melatonin were superior to placebo in reducing emergence delirium (ED). In addition, midazolam prolonged the length of stay in the post anaesthesia care unit (PACU) as compared with placebo. Dexmedetomidine caused a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR). Nevertheless, it was noted that the hemodynamic changes were roughly within safety limits.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

It was evident that the studied drugs can provide effective sedation with exception of melatonin and placebo. However, it was found that midazolam, ketamine, and clonidine lead to several side effects. The findings of the present study supported that dexmedetomidine, especially intranasal administration, has potential in the optimal selection of the sedatives for premedication in children. This is because the drug has effective sedation, reduced incidence of ED, side effects, and onset time.

Comparative Study of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Versus Intranasal Ketamine as Premedicant in Children

Background: Pre-operative anxiety in children not only makes induction difficult but it is also associated with an increase in the requirement of analgesics, the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), emergence delirium (ED), and postoperative maladaptive behavioral changes. It can be reduced effectively by pharmacological interventions. In a quest to find the ideal premedicant and non-invasive way of its administration, we decided to compare intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine with IN ketamine as a premedicant in pediatric patients.

Aims and objectives: To compare sedation score, mask acceptance score (MAS) during induction, the incidence of ED, and other adverse events in both groups.

Material and methods: Some 60 children, between 1 and 8 years of age of either sex undergoing surgical procedures were included in this study and randomly divided into two groups (Group D and Group K). Thirty minutes prior to induction of anesthesia, patients of Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg kg^-1 in 1 mL of 0.9% saline intranasally and patients of Group K received ketamine 5 mg kg^-1 in 1 mL of 0.9% saline intranasally through calibrated dropper (0.5 mL in each nostril) in a recumbent position. Incidences of sneezing or coughing after IN administration of study drugs were recorded. The subsequent sedation scores were assessed using MOASS at 15 min, then at 30 min following premedication at the time of parental separation. After shifting patients to operation theater inhalation induction was done. MAS at induction and any adverse effects were recorded.

Results: Children in Group K were found to be significantly more sedated at 30 min after administration of premedication and mask acceptance was also better (p value < 0.0001 with a confidence interval, CI=95%). But the incidence of ED and PONV was high.

Conclusion: Intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 mcg kg^-1) is clinically less effective as a premedicant in terms of sedation and mask acceptance in older children as compared to ketamine (5 mg kg^-1), but associated with fewer incidence of ED and PONV. We recommend the usage of IN dexmedetomidine in a higher dose (1.5-2 mcg kg^-1), through nebulization/atomizer for the desired level of sedation and mask acceptance.

Evaluation of Nebulised Dexmedetomidine Given Pre-operatively to Attenuate Hemodynamic Response to Laryngoscopy and Endotracheal Intubation: A Randomised Control Trial

Background and aim

A variety of medications have been studied to reduce the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation. Dexmedetomidine has been used intravenously in many studies to reduce the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation. In high-risk patients, this pressor response can increase morbidity and mortality. As dexmedetomidine has a good bioavailability via the nebulisation route, we formulated this study to evaluate the effect of nebulised dexmedetomidine on the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomised controlled trial conducted on 100 patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I and II. The primary objective of the study was to see if nebulised dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 microgram/kg could reduce the stress reaction to laryngoscopy and intubation. The secondary objective was to study the dose sparing effect of nebulised dexmedetomidine on the amount of propofol used during induction of general anaesthesia. The study population was randomly divided into two groups: group A (n = 50) included patients nebulised with dexmedetomidine 1 microgram/kg and group B (n = 50) included patients nebulised with 5 ml saline 30 minutes before induction of anaesthesia in a sitting position.

Results

The demographics were similar in both groups. Following laryngoscopy and intubation, the systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate showed a significant increase in the control group B as compared to the treatment group A. In group A, there was attenuation in SBP (one minute = 113.2 ± 14.503, P < 0.001; five minutes = 109.86 ± 8.342, P < 0.001; 10 minutes = 114.24 ± 7.797, P = 0.010), DBP (one minute = 73.72 ± 10.986, P = 0.011; five minutes = 71.62 ± 9.934, P = 0.005; 10 minutes = 76.1 ± 8.006, P = 0.009), MAP (one minute = 86.80 ± 11.86, P = 0.001; five minutes = 84.44 ± 8.97, P = 0.006; 10 minutes = 88.72 ± 7.44, P = 0.018), and heart rate (one minute = 83.34 ± 12.325, P = 0.001; five minutes = 81.56 ± 13.33, P = 0.003; 10 minutes = 80.16 ± 14.086, P = 0.013) following laryngoscopy and intubation. Induction dose of propofol was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group (73 ± 19.509, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Nebulised dexmedetomidine effectively blunts the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation and also has a dose sparing effect on the induction dose of propofol.

Recent advances in drug delivery to the central nervous system by inhalation

INTRODUCTION

Drugs need to enter the systemic circulation efficiently before they can cross the blood-brain barrier and reach the central nervous system. Although the respiratory tract is not a common route of administration for delivering drugs to the central nervous system, it has attracted increasing interest in recent years for this purpose.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we compare pulmonary delivery to three other common routes (parenteral, oral, and intranasal) for delivering drugs to the central nervous system, followed by summarising the devices used to aerosolise neurological drugs. Recent studies delivering drugs for different neurological disorders via inhalation are then discussed to illustrate the strengths of pulmonary delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent studies provide strong evidence and rationale to support inhaling neurological drugs. Since inhalation can achieve improved pharmacokinetics and rapid onset of action for multiple drugs, it is a non-invasive and efficient method to deliver drugs to the central nervous system. Future research should focus on delivering other small and macro-molecules via the lungs for different neurological conditions.

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.

Intranasal versus sublingual route of dexmedetomidine sedation in paediatric dentistry: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Many children experience dental anxiety during dental treatment. Conscious sedation is used to alleviate anxiety and enhance a child's cooperation.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intranasal versus sublingual dexmedetomidine.

DESIGN

Forty-two healthy, uncooperative children participated in the study. They were divided randomly into two groups: In the first visit, Group I received intranasal dexmedetomidine and group II received sublingual dexmedetomidine, whereas at the second visit, the alternate route was implemented in a crossover design. The child's acceptance of drug administration method was assessed using a 4-point rating scale. Time until optimum sedation was measured. Anxiety during local anesthesia administration was scored using Venham's rating scale. Postoperative response was recorded through Vernon et al's questionnaire.

RESULTS

The sublingual dexmedetomidine route was better accepted than the intranasal route (P=0.01), while the latter acted faster (P>0.001). No significant difference in anxiety scores was found between groups at baseline (P=0.84) or during local anesthetic administration (P=0.44). No negative effect was recorded by the parents who answered the Modified Vernon et al questionnaire 24 hour after the dental visit compared to before the dental visit (P=1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Both routes prevented the increase in anxiety scores equally during local anesthesia and do not have negative effect on postoperative behavior of children. However, the sublingual route showed better acceptance with longer onset time of action than the intranasal route.

The Sedative Effects of Inhaled Nebulized Dexmedetomidine on Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Children that need surgery and medical examinations are often uncooperative, and preoperative sedation is necessary. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine in children for sedation that underwent medical examinations or surgery.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library, for randomized controlled trials of Intranasal dexmedetomidine using a spray or a mucosal atomization device in children undergoing examination or elective surgery. We included all studies that analyzed the sedation efficiency of intranasal dexmedetomidine in children.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1,233pediatric patients were included. Compared to other sedation treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine showed similar sedation satisfaction [risk ratio RR: 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.18; P = 0.83; I² = 72%]. there was also no statistical difference in the success rate of separation from parents (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82-1.12; P = 0.58; I² = 67%), and mask acceptability (RR: 1; 95% CI: 0.83-1.20; P = 0.99; I² = 35%). But it is worth mentioning that nebulized dexmedetomidine combined with ketamine provided better sedation satisfaction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.96; I² = 49%) and more satisfactory separation from parents (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; I² = 0%). Moreover, nebulized dexmedetomidine reduced the occurrences of nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.51; P < 0.01; I² = 10%) and emergence agitation (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18-0.49; P < 0.01; I² = 0%). There are no hypotension or arrhythmia reported that required intervention in all articles.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other premedication treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine provided equivalent sedation satisfaction for the examination or preoperative sedation of children, but it reduced the occurrences of emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Compared to a Combination of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine with Ketamine for Sedation of Children Requiring Dental Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Outpatient pediatric sedation is challenging. This study aimed to test intranasal dexmedetomidine efficacy as a single drug or combined with ketamine (DK) to sedate children undergoing dental treatment. Children < 7 years were randomized into dexmedetomidine 2 mcg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg (DK) or dexmedetomidine 2.5 mcg/kg (D) groups. Videos from the dental sedation allowed the systematic assessment of children's behavior (primary outcome) according to the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS). Secondary outcomes were parental and dentist satisfaction, adverse events, and recovery time. The data were analyzed descriptively and through regression models. Participants were 88 children (44 per group; 50 boys). The duration of quiet behavior (OSUBRS) was higher than 50% (DK mean 58.4 [standard deviation 38.1]; D 55.2 [39.1]; p = 0.225). Parents (DK 78.0 [32.2]; D 72.7 [35.1]; p = 0.203) and dentists (KD 62.7 [41.0]; D 62.8 [40.1]; p = 0.339) were overall satisfied. Adverse events occurred in 16 cases (DK n = 10, 62.5%; D n= 6, 37.5%; p = 0.104) and were minor. The median recovery time in the DK group was 1.3 times greater than in group D (p < 0.05). Intranasal sedation with dexmedetomidine alone is equally efficacious and satisfactory for pediatric sedation with fewer adverse events and faster recovery than the DK combination.

Dexmedetomidine & perioperative analgesia in children

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an anaesthetic agent that mimics natural deep sleep and produces minimal cardiorespiratory depression. As such, it is a very valuable option in the management of such a challenging population as paediatric patients. The main objective of this mini review was to evaluate the role of DEX as a perioperative analgesic in children receiving anaesthesia. We searched Google, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2010 and 2021, and reviewed various of aspects of DEX, such as pharmacology, effectiveness, safety, and the most recent evidence on its clinical use as an analgesic in paediatric anaesthesia. We also include a cost estimate of perioperative analgesia with DEX.

Nebulized ketamine for managing acute pain in the pediatric emergency department: A case series

Administration of sub-dissociative doses of ketamine is used via intranasal (IN) and intravenous routes in the pediatric emergency department for managing acute pain. Due to difficulties in both obtaining intravenous access and compliance with IN medications in children, administration of ketamine via breath-actuated nebulizer can serve as a valuable modality for timely analgesia in children where dosing titration is patient controlled. We describe five pediatric patients who received ketamine via breath-actuated nebulizer at 0.75 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, and 1.5 mg/kg, with all patients experiencing a decrease in pain score. This case series introduces ketamine inhalation as a modality for managing pain in children.

Preanesthetic nebulized ketamine vs preanesthetic oral ketamine for sedation and postoperative pain management in children for elective surgery: A retrospective analysis for effectiveness and safety

Preoperative anxiety is a major problem in children leading to a poor outcome. Preanesthetic oral ketamine is generally used in children but has less bioavailability due to the first-pass effect. Even ketamine has an unpleasant taste. Preanesthetic inhaled ketamine is also reported effective and safe in children. The objectives of the study were to compare the effectiveness and safety of preanesthetic nebulized ketamine against preanesthetic oral ketamine for sedation and postoperative pain management in children.Children received 10 mg/kg oral ketamine (children received preanesthetic oral ketamine [OK cohort], n = 142), or nebulized with 3 mg/kg ketamine (children were preanesthetic nebulized with ketamine [NK cohort], n = 115), or received apple juice (children suspectable to preoperative ketamine and received apple juice only [OA cohort], n = 126) before anesthesia for elective surgery. Data regarding preoperative hemodynamic parameters, sedation score measurements, postoperative pain management, postoperative nausea and vomiting management, and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed.Preoperative hemodynamic parameters for oral and nebulized ketamine administration were stable. Nebulized ketamine was provided higher sedation than apple juice (P = .002, q = 4.859) and oral ketamine (P = .002, q = 3.526). Children of NK cohort had required fewer fentanyl consumption until discharge than those of OA (55.45 ± 7.19 μG/ child vs 65.15 ± 15.24 μG/ child, P < .0001, q = 9.859) and OK (55.45 ± 7.19 μG/child vs 60.19 ± 8.12 μG/child, P < .0001, q = 4.953) cohorts. Children of the NK cohort had consumed higher ondansetron syrup than those of the OA cohort but fewer than those of the OK cohort until discharge. Gastrointestinal side effects were reported in the OK cohort, and nose irritation and drowsiness were reported in the NK cohort.Like preanesthetic oral ketamine, preanesthetic inhaled ketamine also has safety for children. Preanesthetic inhaled ketamine can provide effective sedation in low doses during operation than preanesthetic oral ketamine.Level of evidence: III.

Evaluation of nebulised dexmedetomidine in blunting haemodynamic response to intubation: A prospective randomised study

Background and Aim:

The process of laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation is associated with intense sympathetic activity, which may precipitate intra-operative complications. Taking the advantage of dexmedetomidine's good bioavailability and rapid absorption through nasal mucosa; we contemplated this study to evaluate the effects of nebulised dexmedetomidine as a premedication in blunting the haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation.

Methods:

This prospective, randomised, comparative study was conducted in 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I, II patients. The primary outcome was to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine nebulisation in blunting the stress response to laryngoscopy and intubation. The secondary outcome was to study its adverse effects. The study population was divided randomly into two groups. Control group C (n = 50) received nebulisation with 5 ml of normal saline and group D (n = 50) received 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine 5 ml 10 min before induction in sitting position.

Results:

Demographics were comparable. Following laryngoscopy and intubation, systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP), response entropy (RE) and state entropy (SE) were markedly increased in the control group whereas in group D there was a fall in SBP (at 1 min-126.64 ± 26.37; P 0.01, 5 min-109.50 ± 16.83; P 0.02, 10 min-106.94 ± 17.01; P 0.03), DBP (at 1 min-83.18 ± 17.89; P 0.001, 5 min-66.40 ± 13.88; P 0.001, 10 min- 62.56 ± 14.91; P 0.01) and MAP (at 1 min-99.68 ± 19.22; P 0.001, 5 min- 84.08 ± 13.66; P 0.003, 10 min- 81.74 ± 14.79; P 0.008), RE and SE which was statistically significant (P 0.002). There was a dose sparing effect of propofol in group D; sedation score was comparable.

Conclusion:

Nebulised dexmedetomidine effectively blunts the stress response to laryngoscopy and intubation with no adverse effects.

Ketamine Enhances Intranasal Dexmedetomidine-Induced Sedation in Children: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine and dexmedetomidine-ketamine premedication in preschool children undergoing tonsillectomy.

Patients and Methods

We enrolled 66 children with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, aged 3–7 years undergoing tonsillectomy. Patients were randomly allocated to receive intranasal premedication with either dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg⁻¹ (Group D) or dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg⁻¹ and ketamine 2 mg kg⁻¹ (Group DK). The primary outcome was the sedation level assessed by the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) 30 min after intervention. The minimal clinically relevant difference in the MOAA/S score was 0.5. Secondary outcomes included sedation onset time, parental separation anxiety, acceptance of mask induction, emergence time, emergence delirium, postoperative pain intensity, length of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and adverse effects.

Results

At 30 min after premedication, the MOAA/S score was lower in Group DK than in Group D patients (median: 1.0, interquartile range [IQR]: 1.0–2.0 vs median: 3.0, IQR: 2.0–3.0; P<0.001), with a median difference of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0–2.0, P<0.001). Patients in Group DK showed considerably faster onset of sedation (15 min, 95% CI: 14.2–15.8 min) than Group D (24 min, 95% CI: 23.2–24.8 min), with a median difference of 8.0 min (95% CI: 7.0–9.0 min, P<0.001). Both parental separation and facemask acceptance scores were lower in Group DK than in Group D patients (P=0.012 and P=0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in emergence time, incidence of emergence delirium, postoperative pain scores, and length of stay in the PACU between the two groups.

Conclusion

Intranasal premedication with a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine produced better sedation for pediatric tonsillectomy than dexmedetomidine alone.

Nebulized dexmedetomidine improves pulmonary shunt and lung mechanics during one-lung ventilation: a randomized clinical controlled trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine (Dex), a selective a₂-adrenergic receptor agonist, has been previously reported to attenuate intrapulmonary shunt during one-lung ventilation (OLV) and to alleviate bronchoconstriction. However, the therapeutic effects of nebulized Dex on pulmonary shunt and lung mechanics during OLV have not been evaluated. Here we determine whether nebulized dexmedetomidine improved pulmonary shunt and lung mechanics in patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-eight patients undergoing elective thoracoscopic surgery were included in this study and randomly divided into four groups: 0.9% saline (Placebo group), 0.5 µg/kg (Dex_0.5 group), 1 µg/kg (Dex₁ group) and 2 µg/kg (Dex₂group) dexmedetomidine. After bronchial intubation, patients received different nebulized doses of dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg, 1 µg/kg and 2 µg/kg) or 0.9% saline placebo during two-lung ventilation(TLV). OLV was initiated 15 min after bronchial intubation. Anesthesia was maintained with intravenous infusion of cisatracurium and propofol. Bispectral Index values were maintained within 40–50 by adjusting the infusion of propofol in all groups. Arterial blood gas samples and central venous blood gas samples were taken as follows: 15 min after bronchial intubation during two-lung ventilation (TLV₁₅), after 30 and 60 min of OLV (OLV₃₀and OLV₆₀, respectively) and 15 min after reinstitution of TLV (ReTLV). Dynamic compliance was also calculated at TLV₁₅, OLV₃₀, OLV₆₀ and ReTLV.

Results

Dex decreased the requirement of propofol in a dose-dependent manner(P = 0.000). Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) displayed no significant difference among groups (P = 0.397 and 0.863). Compared with the placebo group, Dex administered between 0.5 and 2 µg/kg increased partial pressure of oxygen (P_aO₂) significantly at OLV₃₀ and OLV₆₀(P = 0.000); however, Dex administered between 1 and 2 µg/kg decreased pulmonary shunt fraction (Q_s/Q_t) at OLV₃₀ and OLV₆₀(P = 0.000). Compared with the placebo group, there were significant increases with dynamic compliance (Cdyn) after OLV in Dex_0.5, Dex₁ and Dex₂group(P = 0.000). Conclusions. Nebulized dexmedetomidine improved oxygenation not only by decreasing pulmonary shunt but also by improving lung compliance during OLV, which may be effective in managing OLV.

Effect of preoperative dexmedetomidine nebulization on the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation: a randomized control trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist, has been used for attenuation of hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy but not through the nebulized route. We evaluated the effects of preoperative dexmedetomidine nebulization on the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation and examined the intraoperative anesthetic-analgesic requirements and recovery outcomes.

Methods

Overall, 120 American Society of Anesthesiologists I & II adult patients (of either gender) undergoing elective surgeries and requiring tracheal intubation, were randomized to receive nebulized dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg in 3–4 ml of 0.9% saline) or 0.9% saline (3–4 ml), 30 min before anesthesia induction. Heart rate (HR) and non-invasive systolic blood pressure (SBP) were monitored for 10 min following laryngoscopy.

Results

After laryngoscopy, linear mixed effect modelling showed significantly lower trend of increase in HR in the dexmedetomidine group versus saline (P = 0.012); however, there was no difference in the SBP changes between the two groups (P = 0.904). Induction dose of propofol (P < 0.001), intraoperative fentanyl consumption (P = 0.007), and isoflurane requirements (P = 0.013) were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group. There was no difference in the 2 h incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (P = 0.612) or sore-throat (P = 0.741).

Conclusions

Nebulized dexmedetomidine at 1 µg/kg attenuated the increase in HR but not SBP following laryngoscopy and reduced the intraoperative anesthetic and analgesic consumption. There was no effect on early PONV, sore-throat, or increase in incidence of adverse effects. Nebulized dexmedetomidine may represent a favorable alternative to the intravenous route in short duration surgeries.

Nebulized dexmedetomidine-lidocaine inhalation as a premedication for flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine plus opioid infusion after topical anaesthesia with nebulized lidocaine for cough suppression is a commonly used method for flexible bronchoscopy. Recently, the use of dexmedetomidine as an additive to local anaesthetics has been reported to have several advantages over conventional intravenous administration. However, there are no data regarding the use of nebulized dexmedetomidine-lidocaine for topical anaesthesia as a premedication for flexible bronchoscopy. Therefore, this study compared the tolerability and safety of nebulized dexmedetomidine with that of conventional intravenous administration in patients undergoing bronchoscopy with moderate sedation.

Methods

Sixty patients requiring flexible bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to three groups: (I) nebulized dexmedetomidine + lidocaine, n=20; (II) intravenous dexmedetomidine + nebulized lidocaine, n=20; and (III) nebulized lidocaine alone (no dexmedetomidine), n=20. The patients' coughing scores were assessed and graded. Our primary hypothesis was that nebulized dexmedetomidine-lidocaine could reduce the incidence of moderate to severe coughing. The secondary endpoints were the rates of glottis closure, complete jaw relaxation and limb movement during the procedure; the elapsed time until recovery; and the dosages of vasoconstrictors and atropine.

Results

The incidence of moderate to severe coughing was 15% in the nebulized dexmedetomidine group, 50% in the intravenous dexmedetomidine group and 55% in the no dexmedetomidine group. The nebulized dexmedetomidine group had the lowest incidence of moderate to severe coughing (P=0.019). Nebulized dexmedetomidine showed a protective effect for reducing coughing compared with intravenous dexmedetomidine [P=0.008, odds ratio (OR): 0.273, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.089-0.833]. No differences in the rates of complete jaw relaxation and limb movement during the procedure were observed among the three groups (all P>0.05). The rates of glottis closure were similar (20%, 25%, and 35%; P>0.05). The elapsed time until recovery in the nebulized dexmedetomidine group was significantly shorter than that in the intravenous dexmedetomidine group (10.60±1.39 vs. 15.10±1.45, P<0.001). The vasoconstrictor dosages were significantly lower in the nebulized dexmedetomidine group than in the intravenous dexmedetomidine group (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Nebulized dexmedetomidine-lidocaine inhalation as a premedication for flexible bronchoscopy was well tolerated during bronchoscopies performed under moderate sedation and was associated with a reduced incidence of moderate to severe coughing, a shorter recovery time and reduced vasoconstrictor consumption.

Randomised Comparison between the Efficacy of Two Doses of Nebulised Dexmedetomidine for Premedication in Paediatric Patients

Objective

Nebulised dexmedetomidine can be an easy alternative for preoperative sedation in paediatric patients, but data regarding its efficacy are very limited.

Methods

This prospective, randomised, double-blind study included 66 patients aged between 1 and 8 years. Patients were divided into two groups as D2 and D3. The D2 group received 2 μg kg⁻¹ of nebulised dexmedetomidine, and the D3 group received 3 μg kg⁻¹ of nebulised dexmedetomidine preoperatively. All the patients received general anaesthesia and caudal epidural analgesia with 0.75 mL kg⁻¹ of 0.2% ropivacaine. Parental Separation Anxiety Scale at 30 min after the end of nebulisation, Mask Acceptance Score (MAS) during induction, haemodynamic variables, emergence agitation and duration of caudal analgesia were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was done using Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test. A p-value <0.05 was accepted as significant.

Results

All the parameters were comparable between the D2 and D3 groups; however, significantly more number of younger children was observed in the D3 group. Hence, further analysis was done after division into the lower age (1–3 years) and higher age (4–8 years) groups. In lower age group children, satisfactory parental separation was achieved in 100% of the patients in the D3 group compared to 20% of those in the D2 group (p=0.00). MAS was significantly better in the D3 group in both the lower (p=0.019) and higher (p=0.036) age groups.

Conclusion

We conclude that nebulised dexmedetomidine in a dose of 3 μg kg⁻¹ provides better parental separation and mask acceptance in younger children.

Pre-medication before dental procedures: A randomized controlled study comparing intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral midazolam

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine if intranasal dexmedetomidine is a superior pre-medication to oral midazolam in older, difficult children.

METHODS

This was conducted as a prospective, single-blind randomized control trial in a tertiary care center. Seventy-five children, age >5 years and weight >20 kg, who needed general anesthesia for dental procedures were randomly assigned to be pre-medicated with either oral midazolam at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (max 15 mg) or intranasal dexmedetomidine at a dose of 2 mcg/kg (max 100 mcg). The primary outcome studied was the patients' level of sedation when separated from their parents, which was assessed using a 5-point University of Michigan Sedation Scale. Secondary outcome studied was the level of anxiolysis assessed by the acceptance of mask induction using a 4-point scale. All assessments were made by one research person blinded to the study drug.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in age, sex, weight, pre-anesthetic behavior, time from pre-medication to anesthesia induction, and surgical time. A significantly higher proportion of patients who received dexmedetomidine had satisfactory sedation at separation from parents (69.4% vs 40.5%, P = .03) compared to those who received midazolam. There were no significant differences in the rate of acceptance of mask induction (80.6% vs 78.4%, P = 1.00). Intranasal dexmedetomidine was tolerated well when administered using a mucosal atomizer and without any clinically significant effect on heart rate or systolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal dexmedetomidine provides higher success rate in sedation and parental separation compared to oral midazolam, in older, difficult children.

[Preemptive nebulized ketamine for pain control after tonsillectomy in children: randomized controlled trial]

OBJECTIVES

The administration of ketamine as nebulized inhalation is relatively new and studies on nebulized ketamine are scarce. We aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of nebulized ketamine (1 and 2mg.kg^-1) administered 30min before general anesthesia in children undergoing elective tonsillectomy in comparison with intravenous ketamine (0.5mg.kg^-1) and saline placebo.

METHODS

One hundred children aged (7-12) years were randomly allocated in four groups (n=25) receive; Saline Placebo (Group C), Intravenous Ketamine 0.5mg.kg^-1 (Group K-IV), Nebulized Ketamine 1mg.kg^-1 (Group K-N1) or 2mg.kg^-1 (Group K-N2). The primary endpoint was the total consumption of rescue analgesics in the first 24h postoperative.

RESULTS

The mean time to first request for rescue analgesics was prolonged in K-N1 (400.9±60.5min, 95% CI 375.9-425.87) and K-N2 (455.5±44.6min, 95% CI 437.1-473.9) groups compared with Group K-IV (318.5±86.1min, 95% CI 282.9-354.1) and Group C (68.3±21.9min, 95% CI 59.5-77.1; p<0.001), with a significant difference between K-N1 and K-N2 Groups (p<0.001). The total consumption of IV paracetamol in the first 24h postoperative was reduced in Group K-IV (672.6±272.8mg, 95% CI 559.9-785.2), Group K-N1 (715.6±103.2mg, 95% CI 590.4-840.8) and Group K-N2 (696.6±133.3mg, 95% CI 558.8-834.4) compared with Control Group (1153.8±312.4mg, 95% CI 1024.8-1282.8; p<0.001). With no difference between intravenous and Nebulized Ketamine Groups (p=0.312). Patients in intravenous and Nebulized Ketamine Groups showed lower postoperative VRS scores compared with Group C (p<0.001), no differences between K-IV, K-N1 or K-N2 group and without significant adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive nebulized ketamine was effective for post-tonsillectomy pain relief. It can be considered as an effective alternative route to IV ketamine.

Preemptive nebulized ketamine for pain control after tonsillectomy in children: randomized controlled trial

Objectives

The administration of ketamine as nebulized inhalation is relatively new and studies on nebulized ketamine are scarce. We aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of nebulized ketamine (1 and 2 mg.kg⁻¹) administered 30 min before general anesthesia in children undergoing elective tonsillectomy in comparison with intravenous ketamine (0.5 mg.kg⁻¹) and saline placebo.

Methods

One hundred children aged (7–12) years were randomly allocated in four groups (n = 25) receive; Saline Placebo (Group C), Intravenous Ketamine 0.5 mg.kg⁻¹ (Group K-IV), Nebulized Ketamine 1 mg.kg⁻¹ (Group K-N1) or 2 mg.kg⁻¹ (Group K-N2). The primary endpoint was the total consumption of rescue analgesics in the first 24 h postoperative.

Results

The mean time to first request for rescue analgesics was prolonged in K-N1 (400.9 ± 60.5 min, 95% CI 375.9–425.87) and K-N2 (455.5 ± 44.6 min, 95% CI 437.1–473.9) groups compared with Group K-IV (318.5 ± 86.1 min, 95% CI 282.9–354.1) and Group C (68.3 ± 21.9 min, 95% CI 59.5–77.1; p < 0.001), with a significant difference between K-N1 and K-N2 Groups (p < 0.001). The total consumption of IV paracetamol in the first 24 h postoperative was reduced in Group K-IV (672.6 ± 272.8 mg, 95% CI 559.9–785.2), Group K-N1 (715.6 ± 103.2 mg, 95% CI 590.4–840.8) and Group K-N2 (696.6 ± 133.3 mg, 95% CI 558.8–834.4) compared with Control Group (1153.8 ± 312.4 mg, 95% CI 1024.8–1282.8; p < 0.001). With no difference between intravenous and Nebulized Ketamine Groups (p = 0.312). Patients in intravenous and Nebulized Ketamine Groups showed lower postoperative VRS scores compared with Group C (p < 0.001), no differences between K-IV, K-N1 or K-N2 group and without significant adverse effects.

Conclusion

Preemptive nebulized ketamine was effective for post-tonsillectomy pain relief. It can be considered as an effective alternative route to IV ketamine.

The pearls of pediatric sedation: polish the old and embrace the new

Over the past decade, as the complexity and breadth of pediatric procedures increases, the actual choices of approved sedatives have remained relatively stagnant. Since the introduction of midazolam, there has not been a sedative approved for pediatric labelling until December 2018. This December, the European approval of ADV6209 (Ozalin) for pediatric usage marked the newest addition to the pediatric sedative armamentarium in over a decade. This review is timely and significant because it will provide a balanced evaluation of the most common sedatives in use today, the most recent sedative to be approved and, most importantly, a critical look at the literature supporting the latest approaches to the most commonly performed procedures.

[Effect of dexmedetomidine on emergence agitation after general anesthesia in children undergoing odontotherapy in day-surgery operating room]

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine used for general anesthesia maintenance in children undergoing odontotherapy in day-surgery operating room in reducing the incidence of emergence agitation (EA).

METHODS

Eighty children undergoing odontotherapy and under general anesthesia in day-surgery operating room were randomized into two groups, group A (n=40) and group B (n=40). Each patient in group A was administered with a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg·kg⁻¹, saline diluted to 10 mL) pump-infused after intubation and a maintenance dose of 0.1-0.4 mL·(kg·h)⁻¹ followed-up until 45 min before the end of operation. Each patient in group B was administered with a bolus dose of normal saline 10 mL pump-infused after intubation and maintenance dose of 0.1-0.4 mL·(kg·h)⁻¹ followed-up until 45 min before the end of operation. Gender, age, weight, physical status according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists, perioperative heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂), sufentanil dosage, duration of surgery, time of extubation, time of regaining consciousness, and time to reach modified Aldrete's score≥12 were recorded. Behavior in postanesthesia care unit was rated on the four-point agitation scale.

RESULTS

Compared with group B, decreases were observed in HR and MAP at the beginning of operation, in 10 and 30 min, 1 and 2 h after the beginning of operation, and after extubation of group A (P<0.05). Sufentanil dosage and incidence of EA during recovery of group A were also lower than those of group B (P<0.05). Time to regain consciousness and time to reach modified Aldrete's score≥12 of group A were longer than those of group B (P<0.05). No statistical difference was observed between other indexes of the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As an anesthetic used for general anesthesia maintenance in children undergoing odontotherapy in day-surgery operating room, dexmedetomidine results in low incidence of EA during recovery and more stable vital signs.