Dexmedetomidine Versus Remifentanil for Monitored Anesthesia Care During Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-midazolam for patient sedation during flexible bronchoscopy: a prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sedation during flexible bronchoscopy (FB) should maintain an adequate respiratory drive, ensure maximum comfort for the patient, and warrant that the objectives of the procedure are achieved. Nevertheless, the optimal sedation method for FB has yet to be established. This study aimed to compare the standard recommended combination of midazolam-fentanyl (MF) with that of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) for patient sedation during FB.

METHODS

Patients subjected to FB were randomly assigned to a DK (n = 25) and an MF group (n = 25). The primary outcome was the rate of critical desaturation events (arterial oxygen saturation < 80% with nasal oxygen supply 2 L/min). Secondary outcomes included sedation depth, hemodynamic complications, adverse events, and patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction.

RESULTS

The incidence rates of critical desaturation events were similar between the two groups (DK: 12% vs. MF: 28%, p = 0.289). DK achieved deeper maximum sedation levels (higher Ramsay - lower Riker scale; p < 0.001) and was associated with longer recovery times (p < 0.001). Both groups had comparable rates of hemodynamic and other complications. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups, but bronchoscopist satisfaction was higher with the DK combination (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

DK demonstrated a good safety profile in patients subjected to FB and achieved more profound sedation and better bronchoscopist satisfaction than the standard MF combination without increasing the rate of adverse events.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Guidelines for endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA): Joint Indian Chest Society (ICS)/Indian Association for Bronchology (IAB) recommendations

Over the past decade, endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has become an indispensable tool in the diagnostic armamentarium of the pulmonologist. As the expertise with EBUS-TBNA has evolved and several innovations have occurred, the indications for its use have expanded. However, several aspects of EBUS-TBNA are still not standardized. Hence, evidence-based guidelines are needed to optimize the diagnostic yield and safety of EBUS-TBNA. For this purpose, a working group of experts from India was constituted. A detailed and systematic search was performed to extract relevant literature pertaining to various aspects of EBUS-TBNA. The modified GRADE system was used for evaluating the level of evidence and assigning the strength of recommendations. The final recommendations were framed with the consensus of the working group after several rounds of online discussions and a two-day in-person meeting. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations encompassing indications of EBUS-TBNA, pre-procedure evaluation, sedation and anesthesia, technical and procedural aspects, sample processing, EBUS-TBNA in special situations, and training for EBUS-TBNA.

Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine-remifentanil is safer than deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil for endobronchial ultrasound while providing comparable quality: a randomized double-blind trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared dexmedetomidine-remifentanil vs. propofol-remifentanil in terms of safety and quality during sedation for Endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS).

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind trial. Outpatients undergoing EBUS randomly received 1 μg/kg/hour dexmedetomidine or a target concentration of 2.5 μg/mL propofol, both combined with remifentanil initially targeted at 1.5 ng/mL and subsequently titrated. Additional sedatives were restricted. The primary outcome was the need for airway rescue interventions to treat oxygen desaturation.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients received dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and 27 received propofol-remifentanil. Airway rescue interventions were fewer in the dexmedetomidine group vs. the propofol one (23 vs. 76% patients, relative risk 3.21 (95% CI 1.55-6.64, P < 0.002)). Desaturation in the dexmedetomidine group was always resolved by increasing nasal oxygen flow, whereas additional interventions were needed in 60% of patients receiving propofol. Hypotension was more frequent in the propofol group, while hypertension, bradycardia and coughing were similar in both. Bronchoscopists' and patients' satisfaction were similar, although in the dexmedetomidine group two patients needed additional sedatives and two patients would not repeat the sedation technique.

CONCLUSION

Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine-remifentanil for EBUS is safer than deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil but it would occasionally need additional sedatives to ensure patient satisfaction.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols with the use of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects: a randomized clinical trial

Background

The study was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different sedation protocols of dexmedetomidine–remifentanil and propofol–remifentanil for percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects (ASD) under transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) guidance.

Material and methods

From March 2020 to January 2021, of 114 patients screened, 59 ASD patients scheduled for percutaneous closure under TTE guidance were randomly allocated into the dexmedetomidine–remifentanil (D–R) group (n = 29) and the propofol–remifentanil (P–R) group (n = 30). The incidence of hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events, arterial blood gas analysis, induction and recovery time, pain score, infusion rate of remifentanil, satisfaction of the surgeon and patient, additional sedatives were collected for analysis and comparison.

Results

The induction time was longer in the D–R group than that in the P–R group (17.66 ± 2.65 min vs 11.43 ± 1.48 min; difference, 6.22 min; 95% CI 5.10 to 7.35; P < 0.001). No differences were observed in the 2 groups in terms of the additional sedatives, infusion rate of remifentanil, pain score, recovery time (P > 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events (6 [20.7%] vs 4 [13.3%]; difference, 7.4%; 95% CI − 11.7 to 26.5%; P = 0.506). Respiratory adverse events occurred in 1 patient (3.4%) in the D–R group, and 8 patients (26.7%) in the P–R group (difference, 23.3%; 95% CI 6.2 to 40.5%; P = 0.026). The incidence of hypercapnia was significantly lower in the D–R group (4 [13.8%]) than in the P–R group (13 [43.3%]; difference, 29.5%; 95% CI 7.8 to 51.2%; P = 0.012).

Conclusions

Except for more rapid the induction time and higher the surgeon satisfaction score in the propofol–remifentanil protocol, the efficacy was similar between two sedation protocols. The hemodynamic stability was comparable, the dexmedetomidine–remifentanil protocol had superior airway security due to fewer hypercapnia and respiratory adverse events.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), is a highly selective alpha2 adrenoceptor (α2-AR) agonist, successfully used in various procedures including flexible bronchoscopy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DEX sedation during bronchoscopy report equivocal results regarding respiratory and hemodynamic outcomes.

Methods

We conducted an RCT to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine compared to propofol for sedation during bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was the number of desaturation events, secondary outcomes were transcutaneous Pco2 level, hemodynamic adverse events and physician and patient satisfaction.

Results

Overall, 63 patients were included, 30 and 33 in the DEX and propofol groups, respectively. The number of desaturation events was similar between groups, median (IQR) 1 (0–1) and 1 (0–2) in the DEX and control groups, respectively (P = 0.29). Median desaturation time was 1 (0–2) and 1 (0–3) minutes in the DEX and control groups, respectively (P = 0.48). Adverse events included hypotension, 33% vs 21.1% in intervention and control groups, respectively (P = 0.04), bradycardia, cough, and delayed recovery from sedation. Total adverse events were 22 and 7 in DEX and propofol groups, respectively (P = 0.009).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine sedation during bronchoscopy did not show differences in oxygen saturation and transcutaneous CO2 level in comparison to propofol. Moreover, DEX sedation required a significantly higher number of rescue boluses, due to inadequate sedation and was associated with a higher rate of adverse events.

Trial registration NCT04211298, registration date: 26.12.2019.

Anesthesia for interventional pulmonology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anesthesia for pulmonological interventions is a demanding challenge. This article discusses recent innovations and the implications for periinterventional anesthetic management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Interventional pulmonology is a rapidly expanding specialty with very complex diagnostic and therapeutic approaches that include oncological staging, treatment of obstructive and restrictive lung diseases, recanalization of endobronchial obstructions, and retrieval of foreign bodies. With the development of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, the application is extended to critically ill patients. Current evidence focusing on the anesthetic techniques is presented here.

SUMMARY

The development of new pulmonological methods requires a tailored anesthesiological approach. Their specific impact must be taken into account to ensure patient safety, goal-oriented outcome diagnostics and -quality, successful interventions, and patient comfort.

Fixed dexmedetomidine infusion versus fixed-dose midazolam bolus as primary sedative for maintaining intra-procedural sedation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a double blind randomized controlled trial

Objective: The utility and safety of fixed dexmedetomidine infusion was compared to fixed-dose midazolam bolus among patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA.Methods: In this randomized double-blind study, 197 patients were assigned to receive dexmedetomidine (Group D, 1 μg/kg before, and 0.6 μg/kg/hour during, procedure) or midazolam (Group M, 2 mg before procedure) sedation. The primary outcome was number of rescue midazolam boluses administered to achieve Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of two or more. We also studied sedation depth during procedure, adverse hemodynamic and hypoxemic events, bronchoscopist and patient satisfaction, and time-to-discharge from recovery room.Results: Rescue midazolam requirement was significantly lesser in 99 Group D (0.9 ± 1.2 boluses) than in 98 Group M (2.0 ± 2.4 boluses), subjects. Mean RSS score was significantly higher in Group D subjects (2.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.7). Significantly more subjects in Group D developed hypotension (46 vs. 27) or bradycardia (37 vs. 5), but none required specific intervention. Bronchoscopists reported significantly greater overall procedure satisfaction in Group D subjects.Conclusion: Fixed dexmedetomidine infusion reduced need for rescue sedation during EBUS-TBNA, and allowed slightly faster post-procedure recovery, as compared to fixed-dose midazolam bolus. However, it caused hypotension and bradycardia more frequently.Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT02713191.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine for awake fiberoptic endoscope intubation

BACKGROUND

Awake fiberoptic endoscope intubation (AFOI) is the primary strategy for managing anticipated difficult airways. Adequate sedation, most commonly being achieved with remifentanil and dexmedetomidine, is integral to this procedure. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of these 2 sedatives.

METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, Springer, and Web of Science with no language restrictions. Studies comparing safety and efficacy between the sole use of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine among patients who underwent AFOI were included. Eight randomized controlled trials, comprising 412 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were first attempt intubation success rate and incidence of hypoxia. The secondary outcomes were the Ramsay Sedation Scale score at intubation, memory recall of endoscopy, and unstable hemodynamic parameters during intubation.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia during AFOI (risk ratio: 2.47; 95% confidence [CI]: 1.32-4.64]) compared with remifentanil; however, the first intubation success rates were equivalent (risk ratio: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.87-1.46]. No significant differences between the 2 sedatives were found for the Ramsay Sedation Scale score at intubation (mean difference: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.66-0.38) or unstable hemodynamic parameters during intubation (risk ratio: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.59-1.17). Dexmedetomidine reduced memory recall of endoscopy (risk ratio: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.13-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

While both remifentanil and dexmedetomidine are effective for AFOI and well-tolerated, dexmedetomidine may be more effective in reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and memory recall of endoscopy.

PROSPERP REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020169612.