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

Comparative evaluation of nebulized versus intravenous dexmedetomidine on intubating conditions during awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation

BACKGROUND

There is a search for an ideal agent to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 agonist which can be administered through intravenous, intramuscular, buccal, intranasal & inhalational routes. It provides good intubation conditions without oxygen desaturation but may cause hypotension and bradycardia when administered intravenously. Hence, alternative routes of administering dexmedetomidine which may improve its safety profile are worth exploring.

METHODS

In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 46 ASA I/II adult participants scheduled for elective ENT surgery were randomly allocated to Group ND (Nebulised Dexmedetomidine) (n = 23) to receive nebulisation with dexmedetomidine 1μg.kg-1 and Group ID (Intravenous Dexmedetomidine) (n = 23) to receive intravenous dexmedetomidine 1μg.kg-1 before AFOI. All the patients received injection midazolam 1 mg i.v. as premedication before anaesthesia was initiated. The primary outcome was the cough score. The secondary outcomes were the RSS, SAYGO boluses, post-intubation score, hemodynamic parameters, recall of the procedure, patient satisfaction score and any side effects.

RESULTS

The cough score was significantly lower in nebulized group (2.43 ± 0.992 vs 3.52 ± 1.082) with p = 0.001. RSS(3.30 ± 0.926 vs 4.22 ± 1.126; p = 0.004), number of SAYGO boluses required (2.74 ± 0.864 vs 3.57 ± 1.161; p = 0.009) & the post intubation score (1.48 ± 0.593 vs 2.17 ± 0.778; p = 0.001) were also significantly lower in nebulized group.

CONCLUSIONS

Nebulisation with dexmedetomidine results in desirable degree of sedation and better tolerance of the procedure with adequate attenuation of the haemodynamic responses to intubation.

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).

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.

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.

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.

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate Versus Dexmedetomidine in Outpatients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate-remifentanil (RT-RF) vs dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (Dex-RF) for outpatients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FB).

Patients and methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, prospective study involving a total of 146 outpatients undergoing FB divided into two groups. The RT-RF (RR) group (n = 73) received an initial dose of 12 mg/kg/h of RT for 10 min followed by a maintenance dose of 1–2 mg/kg/h, while the Dex-RF (DR) group (n = 73) received an initial dose of 0.5 μg/kg of Dex for 10 min followed by a maintenance dose of 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h. All outpatients also received 0.05–0.2 μg/kg/min RF to maintain the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale <3. The primary outcome was rate of successful FB completed. Secondary outcomes were time metrics, hemodynamics, intubating conditions, oxygen saturation, coughing severity, number of remedies, total dose of fentanyl, RF, RT, and Dex, incidence of dreaming, patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction, willingness to repeat bronchoscopy, and adverse events.

Results: The FB successful completion rate was 94.52% (95% CI: 89.20–99.90) in the RR group and 91.78% (95% CI: 85.30–98.20) in the DR group. Compared with patients in the DR group, the onset time, time to fully alert, and hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the RR group (p < 0.01), and hemodynamics were more stable in the RR group. Intubating conditions, clinically acceptable intubating conditions, lowest oxygen saturation, coughing severity, consumption of fentanyl and RF, number of remedies, and patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction were similar between the groups (p > 0.05), as were demographic characteristics, incidence of dreaming, willingness to repeat bronchoscopy, and adverse events (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: RT-RF has non-inferior efficacy, better time metrics and hemodynamic stability for outpatients undergoing FB than Dex-RF.

Systematic Review Registration: [http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=66673], identifier [ChiCTR2000041524].

Impact of topical airway anesthesia on immediate postoperative cough/bucking: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative cough may occur after tracheal intubation, but it is indistinct which drug is best at diminishing these events. Additionally, airway reflexes are commonly accompanied by severe hemodynamics responses during emergence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of topical airway anesthesia on immediate post-extubation cough/bucking and extubation time.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and LILACS published until December 23, 2020 were included. Our primary outcome was postoperative cough/bucking incidence which was compared between local anesthetics and controls. Extubation times were likewise considered. Predisposition appraisal and subgroup, affectability investigations were likewise performed.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis found a 45% reduction in cough incidence after treatment with topical airway local anesthetic (RR.á=.á0.55; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.72; p.á<.á0.001). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 4.61. The intervention showed no differences in reduction of the extubation time (mean difference = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.28; p.á=.á0.49).

CONCLUSION

Topical airway anesthesia demonstrated better than placebo or no medication in reducing immediate post-extubation cough/bucking. Further studies could have this objective to combine the different ways to perform better outcomes for patients.