Sedation and analgesia in the intensive care unit: evaluating the role of dexmedetomidine

Comparative efficacy of various pharmacologic treatments for alcohol withdrawal syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

This study was to compare multiple classes of medications and medication combinations to find alternatives or additives for patients not applicable to benzodiazepines (BZDs). We performed a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative effect of 11 pharmacologic treatments in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Forty-one studies were included, comprising a total sample size of 4187 participants. The pooled results from the randomized controlled trials showed that there was no significant difference in the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment-Alcohol, revised (CIWA-Ar) reduction with other medications or medication combinations compared to BZDs. Compared to BZDs, the mean difference in ICU length of stay of anticonvulsants + BZDs was -1.71 days (95% CI = -2.82, -0.59). Efficacy rankings from cohort studies showed that anticonvulsant + BZDs were superior to other treatments in reducing CIWA-Ar scores and reducing the length of stay in the ICU. Synthesis results from randomized controlled trials indicate that there are currently no data suggesting that other medications or medication combinations can fully replace BZDs. However, synthetic results from observational studies have shown that BZDs are effective in the context of adjuvant anticonvulsant therapy, particularly with early use of gabapentin in combination with BZDs in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome, which represents a promising treatment option.

Comparison between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine for attenuation of cough response during tracheal extubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aims

Tracheal extubation often causes cardiovascular and airway responses, potentially resulting in hazardous consequences. It remains unknown whether dexmedetomidine or lidocaine is more effective for cough suppression. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine in reducing cough response after tracheal extubation in adult patients.

Methods

A thorough search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify relevant studies (from inception to 31 January 2023). Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine versus IV lidocaine administration during emergence from anaesthesia to prevent tracheal extubation response in adult patients under general anaesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of post-extubation cough. Secondary outcomes included emergence time, extubation time, residual sedation, and incidences of bradycardia. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the potential risk for bias.

Results

In total, seven studies with 450 participants were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cough between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine groups [Risk Ratio = 0.76; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.46, 1.24]. Emergence and extubation times were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analysis revealed a higher incidence of bradycardia and residual sedation in dexmedetomidine compared to the lidocaine group.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis found no difference in cough, emergence, and extubation time between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine after tracheal extubation. However, residual sedation and bradycardia were more significant in dexmedetomidine than in lidocaine.

A Survey on Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Elements in Cleft Palate Repair

This study aims to characterize current use, knowledge, and attitude toward ERAS protocols by academic craniofacial surgeons.

Craniofacial surgeons were provided with electronic surveys.

Electronic survey; Institutional tertiary surgeons.

102 cleft palate surgeons surveyed and 31 completed the survey (30.4%).

None.

Respondents rated their knowledge, use, and willingness to implement perioperative interventions modeled after adult ERAS protocols.

Majority (67.7%) rated they were knowledgeable about ERAS. However, 61.3% "never use" a standardized protocol for cleft palate surgery. Only 3 ERAS elements are currently implemented by a majority of cleft surgeons: avoiding prolonged perioperative fasting (67.7%), using hypothermia prevention measures (74.2%), and minimizing use of opioids (62.5%). A large majority of respondents noted they never administer bolus (71.0%) or infusion (80.6%) dosing of tranexamic acid; most of these surgeons also indicated that administering tranexamic acid "would not be a valuable addition" (67.7% and 71.0%, respectively). Short-acting sedatives are used by 12.9% and by 16.1% of surgeons in all patients during extubation and postoperative recovery, respectively. By contrast, 22.6% never use such agents during extubation and 48.4% never use it during postoperative recovery. Overall, 67.7% of respondents replied that they would be willing to implement an ERAS protocol for cleft palate repair.

Many respondents report using interventions compatible with an ERAS approach and the majority are willing to implement an ERAS protocol for cleft palate repair.

Effects of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic, oxygenation, microcirculation, and inflammatory markers in a porcine model of sepsis

PURPOSE

To determine whether dexmedetomidine aggravates hemodynamic, metabolic variables, inflammatory markers, and microcirculation in experimental septic shock.

METHODS

Twenty-four pigs randomized into: Sham group (n = 8), received saline; Shock group (n = 8), received an intravenous infusion of Escherichia coli O55 (3 × 109 cells/mL, 0.75 mL/kg, 1 hour); Dex-Shock group (n = 8), received bacteria and intravenous dexmedetomidine (bolus 0.5 mcg/kg followed by 0.7 mcg/kg/h). Fluid therapy and/ornorepinephrine were administered to maintain a mean arterial pressure > 65 mmHg. Hemodynamic, metabolic, oxygenation, inflammatory markers, and microcirculation were assessed at baseline, at the end of bacterial infusion, and after 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes.

RESULTS

Compared to Shock group, Dex-Shock group presented a significantly increased oxygen extraction ratio at T180 (23.1 ± 9.7 vs. 32.5 ± 9.2%, P = 0.0220), decreased central venous pressure at T120 (11.6 ± 1 vs. 9.61 ± 1.2 mmHg, P = 0.0214), mixed-venous oxygen saturation at T180 (72.9 ± 9.6 vs. 63.5 ± 9.2%, P = 0.026), and increased plasma lactate (3.7 ± 0.5 vs. 5.5 ± 1 mmol/L, P = 0.003). Despite the Dex-Shock group having a better sublingual vessel density at T240 (12.5 ± 0.4 vs. 14.4 ± 0.3 mL/m2; P = 0.0003), sublingual blood flow was not different from that in the Shock group (2.4 ± 0.2 vs. 2.4 ± 0.1 mL/kg, P = 0.4418).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine did not worsen the hemodynamic, metabolic, inflammatory, or sublingual blood flow disorders resulting from septic shock. Despite inducing a better sublingual vessel density, dexmedetomidine initially and transitorily increased the mismatch between oxygen supply and demand.

Dexmedetomidine Reduces Incidences of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Adult Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To assess the antiarrhythmic properties of dexmedetomidine in patients in the intensive care unit.

Methods

A literature review was conducted with Ovid MEDLINE (R), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, and Scopus. Study Selection. Randomized controlled trials were included, examining the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, ventricular tachycardia, or ventricular fibrillation with dexmedetomidine compared to placebo or an alternative sedative agent. For each publication that met the selection criteria, the patient demographics, incidence of arrhythmias, mortality, and adverse events were collected. Data extraction was carried out by two authors independently.

Results

We identified 6 out of 126 studies that met the selection criteria for our meta-analysis, all of which focused on the perioperative cardiac surgery period. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine demonstrated a significant reduction of the overall incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16, 0.76). In particular, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the risk of ventricular tachycardia compared with control (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08, 0.80, I² 0%). Regarding adverse events, dexmedetomidine significantly increased the frequency of bradycardia (RR 2.78 95% CI 2.00, 3.87). However, there was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.12, 3.02).

Conclusion

From this meta-analysis, we report a decreased incidence of ventricular tachycardia with dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients. This result favors the use of dexmedetomidine for its antiarrhythmic properties.

Emerging Perspectives in the Management of Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease and Patients with Dementia

While Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia, is perhaps best characterized by cognitive decline, more than 90% of patients exhibit behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Agitation in patients with dementia is often difficult to manage, and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients and a heightened caregiver burden. Thus, effective management of dementia-related agitation (DRA) is vital. Care should first be taken to consider and address causes of agitation and aggression, after which non-pharmacological interventions should be employed. If non-pharmacological measures are unsuccessful in reducing DRA then medications should be considered, although none are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. Electroconvulsive therapy may be a promising option for patients with treatment-refractory DRA, although more studies are needed. While there are several drugs in the pipeline for DRA treatment, results from robust randomized clinical trials are necessary before they can be administered to patients. Thus, clinicians should employ current strategies to manage DRA to ensure holistic care for patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Comparison of Intra and Post-operative Sedation efficacy of Dexmedetomidine-Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine-Propofol for Major Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and side effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with midazolam and propofol have not been comparatively studied in a single clinical trial as sedative agents to general anesthesia before.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare intra and post-operative sedation between DEX-Midazolam and DEX-Propofol in patients who underwent major abdominal surgery on the duration of general anesthesia, hemodynamic and sedation effect.

METHOD

This prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial included 50 patients who were 20 to 60 years of age and admitted for major abdominal surgery. The patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated random numbers table to sedation with DEX plus midazolam (DM group) (n=25) or DEX plus propofol (DP group) (n=25). In the DM group, patients received a bolus dose of 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam and immediately initiated the intravenous (i.v.) infusion of DEX 1 µg/kg over a 10 min and 0.5 µg/kg/hr by continuous i.v. infusion within operation period. In the DP group, patients received pre-anesthetic i.v. DEX 1 µg/kg over 15 min before anesthesia induction and 0.2-1 µg/kg/hr by continuous i.v. infusion during the operative period. After preoxygenation for at least 2 min, during the surgery, patients received propofol infusion dose of 250 μg/kg/min for 15 min then a basal infusion dose of 50 μg/kg/min. The bispectral index (BIS) value, as well as mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SaO2), percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension (ETCO2) were recorded before anesthesia (T0), during anesthesia (at 15-min intervals throughout the surgical procedure), by a blinded observer. Evidence of apnea, hypotension, hypertension and hypoxemia were recorded during surgery.

RESULTS

The hemodynamic changes, including HR, MAP, BIS, VT, SaO2, and RR had a downward tendency with time, but no significant difference was observed between the groups (P>0.05). However, the two groups showed no significant differences in ETCO2 and SPO2 values in any of the assessed interval (P>0.05). In this study, the two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, coughing, apnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia and hypoxemia (P>0.05). Respiratory depression and serious adverse events were not reported in either group. Extubation time after surgery was respectively 6.3 ± 1.7 and 5.8 ± 1.4 hr. in the DM and DP groups and the difference was not statistically significant (P= 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed no significant differences between the groups in hemodynamic and respiratory changes in each of the time intervals. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of complication intra and post-operative. Further investigations are required to specify the optimum doses of using drugs which provide safety in cardiovascular and respiratory system without adverse disturbance during surgery.

Efficacy of perioperative intravenous dexmedetomidine administration for the prevention of postoperative sore throat: a meta-analysis

Objective

Postoperative sore throat (POST) is an undesirable intubation-related complication after surgery. Several studies have investigated the efficacy of perioperative intravenous dexmedetomidine administration for the prevention of POST, but the results have been inconsistent. We aimed to summarize all existing evidence and draw a more precise conclusion to guide future clinical work.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were comprehensively searched for all randomized controlled trials published before 1 February 2021 that investigated the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for the prevention of POST.

Results

Nine studies involving 400 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with the control groups (i.e., saline and anesthetic drugs), perioperative intravenous use of dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of POST [risk ratio (RR): 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40–0.77; I² = 0%) and coughing on the tube during extubation (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.41–0.82; I² = 0%). Additionally, patients in the dexmedetomidine group were more likely to develop bradycardia (RR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.28–4.71; I² = 0%) and hypotension (RR: 3.26; 95% CI: 1.14–9.33; I² = 0%) during the administration of dexmedetomidine than those in the control group.

Conclusion

Perioperative intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine has a positive effect on the prevention of POST.

Adult sedation and analgesia in a resource limited intensive care unit - A Systematic Review and evidence based guideline

Background

Sedation and analgesia are essential in the intensive care unit in order to promote control of pain, anxiety, prevent loss of materials, accidental extubation and improve the synchrony of patients with ventilator. However, excess of these medications leads to an increased morbidity and mortality, and thus demands protocol.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and the Meta-Analysis Protocol have been used to undertake this review. Pub Med, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar search engines were used to find up-to-date evidence that helps to draw recommendations and conclusions.

Results

In this Guideline and Systematic Review, we have used 16 Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis, 3 Evidence-Based Guidelines and 10 RCT Meta-Analysis, 6 Systemic Reviews of Non-randomized Studies, 8 Randomized Clinical Trials, 11 Cohort Studies, 5 Cross-Sectional Studies and 1 Case Report with their respective study descriptions.

Discussion

Analgesia, which as a sedation basement can reduce sedative use, is key aspect of treatment in ICU patients, and we can also conclude that an analgesic sedation regimen can reduce the occurrence of delirium by reducing sedatives. The aim of this guideline and the systematic review is to write up and formulate analgesia-based sedation for limited resource settings.

Conclusions

Analgesia and sedation are effective in critically ill patients; however, too much sedation is associated with longer periods of mechanical ventilation and longer duration of ICU stay. Poorly managed ICU patients have a delirium rate of up to 80%, increased mortality, longer hospital stays, higher hospital costs and bad long-term outcomes.

•

Critically ill patients shall be awake, alert without pain, anxiety and delirium.

•

Analgesia and sedation in the ICU shall be given as per needed after determined they are in need of.

•

Sedation breaks are paramount important as equal as spontaneous breathing trials.

•

Unnecessary deep sedations will increase hospital and personnel costs by increasing length of ICU stay.

Dexmedetomidine protects against lidocaine-induced neurotoxicity through SIRT1 downregulation-mediated activation of FOXO3a

Lidocaine, a typical local anesthetic, has been shown to directly induce neurotoxicity in clinical settings. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an alpha-2-adrenoreceptor agonist that has been used as anxiolytic, sedative, and analgesic agent which has recently found to protect against lidocaine-induced neurotoxicity. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide-dependent deacetylase sirtuin-1 (SIRT1)/forkhead box O3 (FOXO3a) signaling is critical for maintaining neuronal function and regulation of the apoptotic pathway. In the present study, we designed in vitro and in vivo models to investigate the potential effects of lidocaine and DEX on SIRT1 and FOXO3a and to verify whether SIRT1/FOXO3a-mediated regulation of apoptosis is involved in DEX-induced neuroprotective effects against lidocaine. We found that in both PC12 cells and brains of mice, lidocaine decreased SIRT1 level through promoting the degradation of SIRT1 protein. Lidocaine also increased FOXO3a protein level and increased the acetylation of SIRT1 through inhibiting SIRT1. Upregulation of SIRT1 or downregulation of FOXO3a significantly inhibited lidocaine-induced changes in both cell viability and apoptosis. DEX significantly inhibited the lidocaine-induced decrease of SIRT1 protein level and increase of FOXO3a protein level and acetylation of FOXO3a. Downregulation of SIRT1 or upregulation of FOXO3a suppressed DEX-induced neuroprotective effects against lidocaine. The data suggest that SIRT1/FOXO3a is a potential novel target for alleviating lidocaine-induced neurotoxicity and provide more theoretical support for the use of DEX as an effective adjunct to alleviate chronic neurotoxicity induced by lidocaine.

Role of dexmedetomidine infusion after coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

Postoperative pain has negative consequences on patients' outcomes after cardiac surgery. Routine management with opioid and or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications has several disadvantages. Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 agonist used for sedation and analgesia. The use of dexmedetomidine for postoperative pain management and decreasing delirium and agitation in cardiac surgery patients is a matter of debate. Our objective was to determine the role of an early administration of dexmedetomidine in decreasing opioid use post-cardiac surgery and its effects on the quality of postoperative recovery.

Results

Medical records of 120 patients admitted to the cardiac surgery intensive care unit (CSICU) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in two cardiac centers between December 2015 and December 2016 were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups. Group A included 55 patients who received dexmedetomidine in a dose of 0.2-0.4 mcg/kg/h on admission to CSICU, and group B included 65 patients who did not receive dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was the pain score immediately after extubation, and the secondary outcomes included post-extubation sedation and pain scores for 12 h.There were significant decrease of the pain scores in dexmedetomidine group that continues through the 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 12th hour readings after surgery with mean modified Ramsay scores 0.1 ± 0.0, 0.89 ± 2.05, 0.35 ± 0.1, and 0.12 ± 1.1 respectively compared to 0.46 ± 1.15, 3.46 ± 2.93, 0.98 ± 1.90, and 0.12 ± 1.1 in group B (p < 0.001), significant decrease in cumulative morphine received (p < 0.001, OR = 909, 95% CI 0.05-0.19), favorable reduction in heart rate in dexmedetomidine group (80 ± 1.9 b/min) compared to 96 ± 8.8 b/min in the other group (p = 0.017), and smoother recovery from general anesthesia.

Conclusion

Administration of dexmedetomidine in the early postoperative period can be safe. It may reduce the use of opioids, has sedative, analgesic, and sympatholytic effects that could play a useful role during the management of coronary artery bypass patients, and may improve postoperative recovery.

Comparision of Vital Surgical Parameters, after Administration of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine for Conscious Sedation in Minor Oral Surgery

Aim:

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy between midazolam and dexmedetomidine in relation to vital parameters, sedation score, pain score, cognitive judgment, and postoperative amnesia to the event in conscious sedation for minor oral surgical procedure.

Materials and Methods:

A sample size of 30 patients were selected in each group: Group M (midazolam) and Group D (dexmedetomidine).

Results:

The mean heart rate (HR) and systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements were significantly higher in Group M after the 20^th min when compared to Group D. The visual analog scale (VAS) scores of pain were not statistically significant between the two groups during the procedure, but at the time of discharge, statistically significant VAS scores were found between the two groups. Nine (30%) patients in Group D and 21 (70%) patients in Group M showed cognitive judgment impairment with the Stroop Color and Word Test at the 30^th min.

Conclusion:

The dexmedetomidine group of patients had reduced blood pressure and HR. No significant differences were noted in oxygen saturation or in respiratory rate between the two drugs. Patients had better sedation, analgesia, lesser cognitive impairment, and amnesia in the dexmedetomidine group.

Pharmacology of Common Analgesic and Sedative Drugs Used in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

In this review of analgesic and sedation medication in neonates, important classes of old and newer medications commonly used in the neonatal intensive care unit setting are discussed. In addition to drug metabolism, efficacy, and safety for individual drugs, new insights into multimodal analgesic approaches suggest ways in which multiple analgesic drug classes can be combined to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity. Opiate pharmacogenetics and the potential for a precision therapeutics approach is explored, with a final description of gaps in knowledge and a call for future research of pain and sedation control in the neonatal population.

[Pain therapy in intensive care patients]

After intensive care unit (ICU) treatment, the recollection of experienced pain is one of the most burdensome aftermaths. In addition, pain has several negative physiological consequences. The majority of patients report moderate to severe pain while being treated on an ICU, often caused by diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Pain and its functional consequences during ICU treatment should therefore be systematically recorded and treated. Due to their high analgesic potency, pharmacological pain therapy focuses on opioids; however, gastrointestinal motility disturbance and development of tolerance are disadvantages. When applying non-opioids, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and paracetamol, attention should be paid to their possible organ toxicity. Ketamine and α₂-antagonists can complement the analgesic concept. Analogous to its perioperative administration, intravenous lidocaine in intensive care seems acceptable because of a favorable impact on opioid requirements and gastrointestinal motility. When using regional anesthesia the positive therapeutic effect and the possible complications need to be carefully weighed. Non-pharmaceutical procedures, especially transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), have proven successful in postoperative pain management. Even if only limited data from intensive care are available, a therapeutic attempt seems justifiable because of the low risk of complications.

The Impacts of Some Sedative Drugs on α -Glycosidase, Acetylcholinesterase and Butyrylcholinesterase Enzymes-potential Drugs for Some Metabolic Diseases

Background:

The present paper focuses on the in vitro inhibition of some sedative drugs such as Midazolam, Propofol, Hipnodex, Ketamine, and Pental sodium on acetylcholinesterase (AChE), Butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), and α-glycosidase (α-Gly) enzymes.

Methods:

These drugs were tested in diverse concentrations, which showed positive effects in vitro AChE, BChE, and α-Gly activities. Ki values were 20.14, 94.93, 636.78, 416.42, and 953.75 µM for AChE, 17.52, 32.03, 88.02, 93.48, and 91.84 µM for BChE, and 10.87, 156.68, 48.21, 37.88, 151.01 µM for α-glycosidase, respectively.

Results:

An enhancing number of experiential observations show potentially harmful effects of sedative drugs on the extension of brain.

Conclusion:

Midazolam exhibited effective inhibitory activity compared with the other drugs for these enzymes.

A comparative study on the prophylactic effects of paracetamol and dexmedetomidine for controlling hemodynamics during surgery and postoperative pain in patients with laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Today, the ever-expanding technology is inevitably shadowing on all aspects of human life. This study was aimed to compare the prophylactic effects of paracetamol and dexmedetomidine for controlling hemodynamics during surgery and postoperative pain.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 132 patients aged 18 to 70 years and from both genders, who were candidates for emergency cholecystectomy or elective surgery. Group A consisted of 66 patients who received dexmedetomidine, and Group B included 66 patients with paracetamol administration. The amount of postoperative pain was measured on the basis of visual analog scale, arterial blood pressure, as well as heart rate at recovery and 4, 12, and 24 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

The mean age in the 2 groups was similar and almost equal to 52 years; there was no difference in the sex ratios in both groups (P > .05). Pain score in the paracetamol group was significantly lower than that in the dexmedetomidine group (P = .04); nevertheless, there were no group differences in the mean scores of pain during these hours (P > .05). The median opioid use in 24 hours after operation in the paracetamol group was lower when compared with that in the dexmedetomidine group, and the mean duration of analgesia in the paracetamol group was higher when comparing with dexmedetomidine group. Furthermore, in both groups, mean arterial pressure and preoperative PR interval were similar at various times.

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrated that both regimens of drugs can control the hemodynamic status of patients during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which provides effective postoperative analgesia for pain management.

Effect of perioperative infusion of Dexmedetomidine combined with Sufentanil on quality of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy: a CONSORT-prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Background

Postoperative pain is one of the most common symptoms after surgery, which brings physical discomfort to patients. In addition, it may cause a series of complications, and even affect the long-term quality of life. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial is to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with sufentanil to attenuate postoperative pain in patients after laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Methods

Ninety patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy were randomized into three groups: the control (sufentanil 0.02 μg/kg/h, Group C), sufentanil plus low dose of dexmedetomidine (0.02 μg/kg/h each, Group D1), and sufentanil plus high dose of dexmedetomidine (0.04 μg/kg/h, Group D2). The patient-controlled analgesia was programmed to deliver a bolus dose of 0.5 ml, followed by an infusion of 2 ml/h and a lockout time of 10 min. The primary goal was to calculate the cumulative amount of self-administered sufentanil; the secondary goals were to estimate pain intensity using the numerical rating scale (NRS), level of sedation, the first bowel movement, concerning adverse effects as well as duration of postoperative hospital stay.

Results

The total consumption of sufentanil in group D1 and D2 were significantly lower than in group C during the first 8 h after surgery (P < 0.05), whereas there were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) between group D1 and D2. Compared with group C, the NRS scores at rest during first 8 h after surgery were significantly lower in group D1 (P < 0.05). The NRS scores, neither at rest nor with movement, show statistically significant differences between group D1 and D2 at each time point following surgery (P > 0.05). The time to first flatus was shorter in group D1 compared with the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, compared with group C, group D1 and D2 had a shorter time for first defecation (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine combined with sufentanil showed better postoperative analgesia without adverse effects, as well as facilitated bowel movements for patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Trial registration

We registered this study in a Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) centre on Dec 23 2015 and received the registration number: ChiCTR-IPR-15007628.

Dexmedetomidine in prevention and treatment of postoperative and intensive care unit delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To determine the preventive and therapeutic effect of dexmedetomidine on intensive care unit (ICU) delirium.

METHODS

The literature search using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed (August 1, 2018) to detect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult ICU patients receiving dexmedetomidine. Articles were included if they assessed the influence of dexmedetomidine compared to a sedative agent on incidence of ICU delirium or treatment of this syndrome. Accordingly, relevant articles were allocated to the following two groups: (1) articles that assessed the delirium incidence (incidence comparison) or articles that assessed the treatment of delirium (treatment comparison). Incidence of delirium and delirium resolution were the primary outcomes. We combined treatment effects comparing dexmedetomidine versus (1) placebo, (2) standard sedatives, and (3) opioids in random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias for each included RCT was assessed following Cochrane standards.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 28 articles (25 articles/4975 patients for the incidence comparison and three articles/166 patients for the treatment comparison). In the incidence comparison, heterogeneity was present in different subgroups. Administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly lower overall incidence of delirium when compared to placebo (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.70; I² = 37%), standard sedatives (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.86; I² = 69%), as well as to opioids (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; I² = 0%). Use of dexmedetomidine significantly increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension. Limited data were available on circulatory insufficiency and mortality. In the treatment comparison, the comparison drugs in the three RCTs were placebo, midazolam, and haloperidol. The resolution of delirium was measured differently in each study. Two out of the three studies indicated clear favorable effects for dexmedetomidine (i.e., compared to placebo and midazolam). The study comparing dexmedetomidine with haloperidol was a pilot study (n = 20) with high variability in the results.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that dexmedetomidine reduces incidence and duration of ICU delirium. Furthermore, our systematic searches show that there is limited evidence if a delirium shall be treated with dexmedetomidine.

The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in cardiac surgery patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus any other treatment without dexmedetomidine in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched without limitations of language and publication time. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus any other treatment without dexmedetomidine in patients that have undergone cardiac surgery were selected. Endpoints such as hemodynamic indexes and adverse events in eligible studies were extracted by two researchers, independently. The data was analyzed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 11.0 software. A total of 18 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 1730 patients. Compared to control (any treatment without dexmedetomidine), dexmedetomidine showed a pooled mean difference (MD) of -14.46 [95% confidence interval(CI): -24.69, -4.23; p<0.01] for systolic arterial pressure, a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.74 for mean arterial blood pressure (95% CI: -2.80, -0.68; P < 0.01), -2.12 (95%CI: -3.23, -1.00; p<0.01) for heart rate, and combined odds ratio (OR) of 0.22 (95%CI: 0.11, 0.44; p<0.01) for tachycardia, 3.44 (95%CI: 1.95, 5.96; p<0.01) for bradycardia, 0.74 (95%CI: 0.49, 1.12; p>0.05) for atrial fibrillation, and 0.99 (95%CI: 0.51, 1.90; p>0.05) for hypotension. In addition, dexmedetomidine could reduce time of surgery and stay in intensive care units, improve delirium with good safety. Our study shows clinical application of dexmedetomidine in cardiac surgery patients can reduce risks of abnormal hemodynamics with good safety.

Reduced mitochondrial response sensitivity is involved in the anti‑apoptotic effect of dexmedetomidine pretreatment in cardiomyocytes

Dexmedetomidine is a commonly used α2-adreno-ceptor agonist, which affects various organs, including providing beneficial effects on the heart. However, the mechanism underlying the cardiac benefit remains to be fully elucidated. In the present study, it was demonstrated that dexmedetomidine pretreatment on primary cultured rat cardiomyocytes protected against reactive oxygen species (ROS)‑induced apoptosis. In terms of the potential mechanism, it was demonstrated that dexmedetomidine inhibited mitochondrial biogenesis and mitochondrial respiratory complexes, but with increased coupling efficiency. However, dexmedetomidine upregulated mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψm) and resisted against the loss of Δψm induced by carbonilcyanide p‑triflouromethoxyphenylhydrazone. Due to the importance of mitochondria affecting ROS, the present study investigated the dexmedetomidine‑suppressed mitochondrial response to H2O2 stimulation, which was explained by suppressed ROS levels and the suppression of the increased oxygen consumption rate. Results demonstrated for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, a novel protective mechanism for dexmedetomidine on cardiomyocytes through the attenuated response of mitochondria towards H2O2, which had a protective effect against ROS‑induced apoptosis.

Dexmedetomidine-Associated Hyperthermia: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Intensive Care Unit Admissions between 2009 and 2016

Dexmedetomidine-associated hyperthermia has not been previously studied. Analysis is warranted to determine whether this potentially dangerous complication is more prevalent than previously realised. We aimed to examine the association between dexmedetomidine and temperature ≥39.5°C, including patient characteristics, temporality and potential risk factors. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all intensive care unit (ICU) admissions between 1 July 2009 and 31 May 2016 in a tertiary ICU in Australia. Temperature data was available for 9,782 ICU admissions. Dexmedetomidine was given intravenously to 611 (6.3%) patients at a dose of 0 to 1.5 g/kg/hour. Temperatures ≥39.5°C were recorded in 341 (3.5%) patients. Overall hospital mortality was 10.8% for all admissions and 29.3% for patients with temperatures ≥39.5°C. Dexmedetomidine exposure was more frequent in patients with temperature recordings ≥39.5°C compared to those with temperatures <39.5°C, 11.94% versus 2.94% (odds ratio [OR] 4.49; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 3.37, 5.92; P <0.001). The association was stronger for patients post-open heart surgery (OHS) with temperatures ≥39.5°C (OR 12.9; 95% CI 5.01, 31.62; P <0.001). Multivariate analysis showed an independent association between dexmedetomidine and a temperature ≥39.5°C in two particular patient groups: OHS (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.1, 6.9; P <0.001), and obesity (OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.5, 7.9; P <0.001). Dexmedetomidine exposure is associated with an increased risk of hyperthermia. Possible risk factors are open heart surgery and obesity.

Risk Factors of Delirium in Sequential Sedation Patients in Intensive Care Units

Background

Delirium is a primary adverse event in ventilated patients who receive long-term monosedative treatment. Sequential sedation may reduce these adverse effects. This study evaluated risk factors for delirium in sequential sedation patients.

Methods

A total of 141 patients who underwent sequential sedation were enrolled. Delirium was diagnosed using Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) scale. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to predict risk factors.

Results

Older age (≥51) (RR = 2.432, 95% CL 1.316–4.494, p = 0.005), higher SOFA score (≥14) (RR = 2.022, 95% CL 1.076–3.798, p = 0.029), regular smoking (RR = 2.366, 95% CL 1.277–4.382, p = 0.006), and higher maintenance dose of midazolam (RR = 1.052, 95% CL 1.000–1.107, p = 0.049) and fentanyl (RR = 1.045, 95% CL 1.019–1.072, p = 0.001) when patients met sequential criteria, were independent risk factors of delirium. Sequential sedation with dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.448, 95% CL 0.209–0.963, p = 0.040) was associated with a lower risk of delirium.

Conclusions

Older age, higher SOFA score, regular smoking, and higher maintenance dose of midazolam and fentanyl when patients met sequential criteria were independent risk factors of delirium in sequential sedation patients. Sequential sedation with dexmedetomidine reduced risk of delirium.

Dexmedetomidine Protects PC12 Cells from Lidocaine-Induced Cytotoxicity Through Downregulation of COL3A1 Mediated by miR-let-7b

Safety concerns of some local anesthetics, such as lidocaine, have been raised in recent years due to potential neurological impairment. Dexmedetomidine may protect humans from neurotoxicity, and miR-let-7b is activated by nerve injury; however, the roles of miR-let-7b and its target gene in lidocaine-induced cytotoxicity are not well known. Through bioinformatics and a luciferase reporter assay, COL3A1 was suggested as a direct target gene of miR-let-7b. Here, we confirmed by measuring mRNA and protein levels that miR-let-7b was downregulated and COL3A1 was upregulated in lidocaine-treated cells, an observation that was reversed by dexmedetomidine. Similar to miR-let-7b mimics or knockdown of COL3A1, dexmedetomidine treatment reduced the expression of COL3A1, suppressed cell apoptosis and cell migration/invasion ability, and induced cell cycle progression and cell proliferation in PC12 cells, effects that were reversed by the miR-let-7b inhibitor. Meanwhile, proteins involved in cell apoptosis, such as Bcl2 and caspase 3, were impacted as well. Taken together, dexmedetomidine may protect PC12 cells from lidocaine-induced cytotoxicity through miR-let-7b and COL3A1, while also increasing Bcl2 and inhibiting caspase 3. Therefore, miR-let-7b and COL3A1 might play critical roles in neuronal injury, and they are potential therapeutic targets.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine as a Sedative Agent for Performing Awake Intubation: A Meta-analysis

To compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine with other alternative sedative agents used for performing awake intubation. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of dexmedetomidine with other alternative sedative agents used during awake intubation. The biomedical databases PubMed, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant RCTs with no restriction on the language of publication. The efficacy (level of sedation, success rate for intubation at the first attempt, intubation time, intubation conditions, and patient satisfaction) and safety (incidence of hypertension, hypotension, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypoxia, postsurgical memory, hoarseness, and sore throat) were assessed. Thirteen RCTs with a combined subject population of 591 patients came within the purview of this meta-analysis. Use of dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher Ramsay sedation scale score [mean difference (MD): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.77-1.28, P < 0.00001], vocal cord movement score (MD = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.20-1.24, P = 0.007), coughing scores (MD = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.10-1.22, P = 0.02), limb movement scores (MD = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.47-0.91, P < 0.00001); increased risk of bradycardia [relative risk (RR): 3.03, 95% CI, 1.38-6.68, P = 0.006] and hypotension (RR: 2.87, 95% CI, 1.44-5.75, P = 0.003); and lower risk of hypoxia (RR: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P = 0.004) and postsurgical memory (RR: 0.50, 95% CI, 0.35-0.72, P = 0.0002). As indicated by our results, dexmedetomidine appears to be an effective and well-tolerated agent for performing awake intubation. Its use was associated with better intubation conditions, preservation of airway patency, and reduced recall of intubation, as compared with the traditional sedative agents. The risk of bradycardia and hypotension was significantly higher with dexmedetomidine as compared with that with other sedatives. However, these were easily managed with atropine and vasoactive agents.

Analgesia in the surgical intensive care unit

Critically ill patients are a heterogeneous group with diverse comorbidities and physiological derangements. The management of pain in the critically ill population is emerging as a standard of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Pain control of critically ill patients in the ICU presents numerous challenges to intensivists. Inconsistencies in pain assessment, analgesic prescription and variation in monitoring sedation and analgesia result in suboptimal pain management. Inadequate pain control can have deleterious effects on several organ systems in critically ill patients. Therefore, it becomes incumbent on physicians and nurses caring for these patients to carefully evaluate their practice on pain management and adopt an optimal pain management strategy that includes a reduction in noxious stimuli, adequate analgesia and promoting education regarding sedation and analgesia to the ICU staff. Mechanistic approaches and multimodal analgesic techniques have been clearly demonstrated to be the most effective pain management strategy to improve outcomes. For example, recent evidence suggests that the use of short acting analgesics and analgesic adjuncts for sedation is superior to hypnotic based sedation in intubated patients. This review will address analgesia in the ICU, including opioid therapy, adjuncts, regional anaesthesia and non-pharmacological options that can provide a multimodal approach to treating pain.

Dexmedetomidine is Associated with an Increased Incidence of Bradycardia in Patients with Trisomy 21 After Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease

This study aimed to evaluate adverse cardiac events using dexmedetomidine in infants with trisomy 21 and those without (controls) and examined potential risk factors in infants after cardiovascular surgery. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study. The medical records of 124 consecutive infants who had undergone cardiovascular surgery between April 1, 2013, and October 31, 2015, were enrolled. Clinical characteristics, usage of dexmedetomidine, and perioperative medications were analyzed. Adverse cardiac events were assessed with the Naranjo score and World Health Organization-The Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) criteria. In total, 124 consecutive infants (30 patients and 94 controls) met the inclusion criteria. Eight of 30 (26.7 %) patients with trisomy 21 and 12 of 94 (12.8 %) controls experienced adverse cardiac events (i.e., hypotension, transient hypertension, and bradycardia) during dexmedetomidine with median Naranjo score of 6, and causality categories of WHO-UMC criteria were "certain" or "probable." Of those, the incidence of bradycardia occurred at a higher rate in patients with trisomy 21 than in controls (P = 0.011). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence of trisomy 21 was an independent risk factor for adverse cardiac events of dexmedetomidine after cardiovascular surgery (odds ratio 4.10, 95 % CI 1.17-11.19, P = 0.006). Dexmedetomidine is associated with an increased incidence of bradycardia in patients with trisomy 21 after surgery for congenital heart disease. Physicians using dexmedetomidine should know a great deal about the characteristics of patients with trisomy 21, and hemodynamic monitoring should be closely observed.

The Influence of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine on Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The use of dexmedetomidine may have benefits on the clinical outcomes of cardiac surgery. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the postoperative complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine versus other perioperative medications to determine the influence of perioperative dexmedetomidine on cardiac surgery patients.

Methods

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes in patients who underwent cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine, another medication, or a placebo were retrieved from EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index.

Results

A total of 1702 patients in 14 studies met the selection criteria among 1,535 studies that fit the research strategy. Compared to other medications, dexmedetomidine has combined risk ratios of 0.28 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15, 0.55, P = 0.0002) for ventricular tachycardia, 0.35 (95% CI 0.20, 0.62, P = 0.0004) for postoperative delirium, 0.76 (95% CI 0.55, 1.06, P = 0.11) for atrial fibrillation, 1.08 (95% CI 0.74, 1.57, P = 0.69) for hypotension, and 2.23 (95% CI 1.36, 3.67, P = 0.001) for bradycardia. In addition, dexmedetomidine may reduce the length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis revealed that the perioperative use of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing cardiac surgery can reduce the risk of postoperative ventricular tachycardia and delirium, but may increase the risk of bradycardia. The estimates showed a decreased risk of atrial fibrillation, shorter length of ICU stay and hospitalization, and increased risk of hypotension with dexmedetomidine.

Evaluation of the impact of a prescribing guideline on the use of intraoperative dexmedetomidine at a tertiary academic medical center

Objective: To evaluate usage patterns of dexmedetomidine in the operating room after implementation of a prescribing guideline. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of a prescribing guideline on usage patterns of dexmedetomidine in the operating room at a tertiary, academic medical center during one-month period pre- (July 2010) and post-guideline (July 2011 and July 2012) implementation. Results: A total of 267 patients received intraoperative dexmedetomidine during the study period. Dexmedetomidine use in surgical procedures decreased post-guideline implementation [5.7% (pre) vs. 1.9% and 3.3% (post)]. The most common guideline-based indication for intraoperative dexmedetomidine was for anesthesia during bariatric surgery (41% and 38% in 2011 and 2012, respectively). We estimated a cost-avoidance of $308,856 over the two-year period after guideline implementation. Conclusion: Our results suggest that implementation of a prescribing guideline for the use of dexmedetomidine in the operating room is feasible and associated with improved utilization patterns.

Inhibition of the cardiac Na⁺ channel α-subunit Nav1.5 by propofol and dexmedetomidine

Propofol and dexmedetomidine are very commonly used sedative agents. However, several case reports demonstrated cardiovascular adverse effects of these two sedatives. Both substances were previously demonstrated to quite potently inhibit neuronal voltage-gated Na(+) channels. Thus, a possible molecular mechanism for some of their cardiac side effects is an inhibition of cardiac voltage gated Na(+) channels. In this study, we therefore explored the effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine on the cardiac predominant Na(+) channel α-subunit Nav1.5. Effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine were investigated on constructs of the human α-subunit Nav1.5 stably expressed in HEK-293 cells by means of whole-cell patch clamp recordings. Both agents induced a concentration-dependent tonic inhibition of Nav1.5. The calculated IC50 value for propofol was 228 ± 10 μM, and for dexmedetomidine 170 ± 20 μM. Tonic block only marginally increased on inactivated channels, and a weak use-dependent block at 10 Hz was observed for dexmedetomidine (16 ± 2 % by 100 μM). The voltage dependencies of fast and slow inactivation as well as the time course of recovery from inactivation were shifted by both propofol and dexmedetomidine. Propofol (IC50 126 ± 47 μM) and dexmedetomidine (IC50 182 ± 27 μM) blocked the persistent sodium current induced by veratradine. Finally, the local-anesthetic (LA)-insensitive mutant Nav1.5-F1760A exhibited reduced tonic and use-dependent block by both substances. Dexmedetomidine was generally more potent as compared to propofol. Propofol and dexmedetomidine seem to interact with the LA-binding site to inhibit the cardiac Na(+) channel Nav1.5 in a state-dependent manner. These data suggest that Nav1.5 is a hitherto unrecognized molecular component of some cardiovascular side effects of these sedative agents.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiovascular surgery

Many cardiovascular surgeries are fast-tracked to extubation and require short-term sedation. Dexmedetomidine and propofol have very different mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic profiles that make them attractive sedative agents in this patient population. Recently, there has been increased use of dexmedetomidine in the intensive care unit (ICU), but few studies exist or have been published directly comparing both agents in this setting. We conducted a retrospective cohort study with patients admitted to the ICU after cardiovascular surgery from January through June 2011. Adult patients who underwent coronary artery bypass and/or cardiac valve surgery received either dexmedetomidine or propofol continuous infusion for short-term sedation after cardiovascular surgery. The primary end point was time (hours) on mechanical ventilation after surgery. Secondary end points included ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, incidence of delirium, and requirement of a second sedative agent. A total of 352 patients met study inclusion criteria, with 33 enrolled in the dexmedetomidine group and 319 in the propofol group. Time on mechanical ventilation was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (7.4 hours vs. 12.9 hours, P = .042). No difference was seen in ICU or hospital LOS. The need for a second sedative agent to achieve optimal sedation (24% vs. 27%, P = .737) and incidence of delirium (9% vs. 7.5%, P = .747) were similar between both groups. Sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in a significant reduction in time on mechanical ventilation. However, no difference was seen in ICU or hospital LOS, incidence of delirium, or mortality.

A comparative study of magnesium sulfate vs dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to epidural bupivacaine

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was undertaken to establish the effect of addition of magnesium or dexmedetomidine, as an adjuvant, to epidural bupivacaine in lower limb surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class I and II patients undergoing lower limb surgeries were enrolled to receive either magnesium sulfate (Group M) or dexmedetomidine (Group D) along with epidural bupivacaine for surgical anesthesia. All the study subjects received an epidural anesthesia with 14 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine along with either MgSO4 50 mg (Group M) or dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg (Group D) or saline (Group C). The onset of motor and sensory block, duration of block, hemodynamic parameters, and any adverse events were monitored.

RESULTS

Analgesia in the postoperative period was better in Group D, duration of sensory and motor blockade was significantly prolonged in Group D and incidence of sedation was more in Group D.

CONCLUSION

Hence, addition of dexemedetomidine to epidural bupivacaine can be advantageous with respect to increased duration of motor and sensory blockade and arousable sedation.

Current practices of mobilization, analgesia, relaxants and sedation in Indian ICUs: A survey conducted by the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine

Background and Aim:

Use of sedation, analgesia and neuromuscular blocking agents is widely practiced in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Our aim is to study the current practice patterns related to mobilization, analgesia, relaxants and sedation (MARS) to help in standardizing best practices in these areas in the ICU.

Materials and Methods:

A web-based nationwide survey involving physicians of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) and the Indian Society of Anesthesiologists (ISA) was carried out. A questionnaire included questions on demographics, assessment scales for delirium, sedation and pain, as also the pharmacological agents and the practice methods.

Results:

Most ICUs function in a semi-closed model. Midazolam (94.99%) and Fentanyl (47.04%) were the most common sedative and analgesic agents used, respectively. Vecuronium was the preferred neuromuscular agent. Monitoring of sedation, analgesia and delirium in the ICU. Ramsay's Sedation Scale (56.1%) and Visual Analogue Scale (48.07%) were the preferred sedation and pain scales, respectively. CAM (Confusion Assessment Method)-ICU was the most preferred method of delirium assessment. Haloperidol was the most commonly used agent for delirium. Majority of the respondents were aware of the benefit of early mobilization, but lack of support staff and safety concerns were the main obstacles to its implementation.

Conclusion:

The results of the survey suggest that compliance with existing guidelines is low. Benzodiazepines still remain the predominant ICU sedative. The recommended practice of giving analgesia before sedation is almost non-existent. Delirium remains an underrecognized entity. Monitoring of sedation levels, analgesia and delirium is low and validated and recommended scales for the same are rarely used. Although awareness of the benefits of early mobilization are high, the implementation is low.

Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to epidural analgesia after abdominal surgery in elderly intensive care patients: A prospective, double-blind, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The ideal postoperative analgesia management of elderly surgical patients in intensive care units (ICUs) is continually being investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of IV administration of dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to a low-dose epidural bupivacaine infusion for postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery in elderly patients in the ICU.

METHODS

ICU patients aged >70 years undergoing abdominal surgery were eligible for the study. A lumbar epidural catheter was inserted at the beginning of the surgery with no medication. On arrival at the ICU, the catheter was loaded with 0.25% bupivacaine 25 mg at the T8 to T10 sensory level, and a continuous infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine was started at 4 to 6 mL/h in combination with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) of fentanyl (4 μg/bolus) for pain treatment. Patients in the treatment group received dexmedetomidine as an IV loading dose of 0.6 pg/kg for 30 minutes followed by continuous infusion at 0.2 μg/kg · h(-1). Patients in the control group were not administered dexmedetomidine. The effectiveness of the pain relief was determined using a visual analog scale (VAS) (0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain imaginable) at rest. VAS score, heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, and arterial blood gases were monitored periodically for 24 hours after surgery. If required, tenoxicam (20-mg IV bolus) was used to ensure a VAS score of ≤3. The number of times PCEA and tenoxicam were administered and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were also recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (34 men, 26 women; mean [SD] age, 75.96 [4.25] years; mean [SD] weight, 74.13 [10.62] kg) were included in the study. VAS scores were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the control group at hours 1, 2, and 12 (VAS [hour 1]: 2.8 [0.4], P < 0.001; VAS [hour 2]: 2.7 [0.5], P < 0.001; and VAS [hour 12]: 0.9 [0.7], P 0.044). The mean number of administrations of fentanyl via PCEA was significantly greater in the control group compared with the dexmedetomidine group (2.20 vs 6.63 times; P < 0.001). The mean number of administrations of tenoxicam was significantly lower in the treatment group than the control group (0.27 vs 1.07 times; P < 0.001). In the control group, the decreases in sedation at 0, 8, 12, 16, and 20 hours were significant compared with baseline (P = 0.024, P = 0.001, P = 0.020, P < 0.001, and P = 0.005, respectively). Mean HR, SBR and AEs (eg, bradycardia [HR <60 beats/min], respiratory depression [respiratory rate <8 breaths/min], hypotension \SBP <90 mm Hg], oversedation, hypoxia, and hypercapnia) decreased significantly in the dexmedetomidine group (all, P < 0.05). Significantly more patients in the dexmedetomidine group rated their satisfaction with postoperative pain control as excellent compared with the control group (12 vs 6 patients; P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous dexmedetomidine was effective and generally well tolerated as an analgesic adjunct to epidural low-dose bupivacaine infusion for pain treatment, with lower need for opioids after abdominal surgery in these elderly intensive care patients than in the control group.

Clinical and economic impact of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol due to a US drug shortage: examination of coronary artery bypass graft patients at an urban medical centre

BACKGROUND

Propofol has reduced healthcare costs in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery patients by decreasing post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation. However, the US shortage of propofol necessitated the use of alternative agents.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate clinical and economic implications of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol in patients undergoing CABG surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing isolated, elective CABG surgery and sedated with either propofol or dexmedetomidine during the study period were included. The cohorts were matched 1:1 based on important characteristics. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving a post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation ≤6 h. Secondary outcomes were post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) ≤48 h, total post-operative LOS ≤5 days, the need for adjunctive opioid therapy and associated cost savings. Variables recorded included patient demographics, co-morbid medical conditions, health risks, sedation drug doses, post-operative medical complications and sedation-related adverse events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed to examine the relationship between these covariates and post-operative LOS. The cost analysis consisted of examination of the net financial benefit (or cost) of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol in the study population, with utilisation observed in the study converted to costs using institutional data from the Premier database.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included, with 42 patients per cohort. Mechanical ventilation duration ≤6 h was achieved in 24 (57.1 %) versus 7 (16.7 %) in the dexmedetomidine and propofol cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). More patients treated with dexmedetomidine achieved ICU LOS ≤48 h (p < 0.05) and total hospital LOS ≤5 days (p < 0.05), as compared with the propofol group. Multivariate analysis revealed that having one or more post-operative medical complication was the most significant predictor of increased post-operative LOS, whereas choosing dexmedetomidine was also significant in terms of reduced post-operative LOS. The estimated net financial benefit of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol was US$2,613 per patient (year 2012 value).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that use of dexmedetomidine as an alternative to propofol for sedation of CABG patients post-operatively contributes to reduced mechanical ventilation time, ICU LOS and post-operative LOS. Higher drug costs resulting from the propofol shortage were offset by savings in post-operative room and board costs. Additional savings may be possible by preventing medical complications to the extent possible.

Role of dexmedetomidine in adults in the intensive care unit: an update

PURPOSE

The role of dexmedetomidine for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is reviewed and updated.

SUMMARY

Searches of MEDLINE (July 2006-March 2012) and an extensive manual review of journals were performed. Relevant literature with a focus on data published since our last review in 2007 was evaluated for topic relevance and clinical applicability. Optimal management of pain, agitation, and delirium in ICUs requires a systematic and multimodal approach aimed at providing comfort while maximizing outcomes. Dexmedetomidine is among multiple agents, including opioids, propofol, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics, used to facilitate and increase patients' tolerability of mechanical ventilation. This article reviews the newest evidence available for dexmedetomidine use for sedation and analgesia in medical-surgical ICUs. Adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were similar among the studies examined herein. The most common adverse effects with dexmedetomidine were bradycardia and hypotension, in some cases severe enough to warrant the use of vasoactive support. Due to the adverse events associated with rapid dosage adjustment and bolus therapy, dexmedetomidine may not be the best agent for treating acute agitation.

CONCLUSION

In medical-surgical ICUs, dexmedetomidine may be a viable non-benzodiazepine option for patients with a need for light sedation. In cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine appears to offer no advantage over propofol as the initial sedative. The role of dexmedetomidine in unique patient populations such as neurosurgical, trauma, and obstetrics is yet to be established.

Interpatient variability in dexmedetomidine response: a survey of the literature

Fifty-five thousand patients are cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU) daily with sedation utilized to reduce anxiety and agitation while optimizing comfort. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) released updated guidelines for management of pain, agitation, and delirium in the ICU and recommended nonbenzodiazepines, such as dexmedetomidine and propofol, as first line sedation agents. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist, offers many benefits yet its use is mired by the inability to consistently achieve sedation goals. Three hypotheses including patient traits/characteristics, pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients, and clinically relevant genetic polymorphisms that could affect dexmedetomidine response are presented. Studies in patient traits have yielded conflicting results regarding the role of race yet suggest that dexmedetomidine may produce more consistent results in less critically ill patients and with home antidepressant use. Pharmacokinetics of critically ill patients are reported as similar to healthy individuals yet wide, unexplained interpatient variability in dexmedetomidine serum levels exist. Genetic polymorphisms in both metabolism and receptor response have been evaluated in few studies, and the results remain inconclusive. To fully understand the role of dexmedetomidine, it is vital to further evaluate what prompts such marked interpatient variability in critically ill patients.

Dexmedetomidine infusion for analgesia up to 48 hours after lung surgery performed by lateral thoracotomy

Patients undergoing a lateral thoracotomy for pulmonary resection have moderate to severe pain postoperatively that is often treated with opioids. Opioid side effects such as respiratory depression can be devastating in patients with already compromised respiratory function. This prospective double-blinded clinical trial examined the analgesic effects and safety of a dexmedetomidine infusion for postthoracotomy patients when administered on a telemetry nursing floor, 24 to 48 hours after surgery, to determine if the drug's known early opioid-sparing properties were maintained. Thirty-eight thoracotomy patients were administered dexmedetomidine intraoperatively and overnight postoperatively and then randomized to receive placebo or dexmedetomidine titrated from 0.1 to 0.5 μg·kg·h(-1) the day following surgery for up to 24 hours on a telemetry floor. Opioids via a patient-controlled analgesia pump were available for both groups, and vital signs including transcutaneous carbon dioxide, pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, and pain and sedation scores were monitored. The dexmedetomidine group used 41% less opioids but achieved pain scores equal to those of the placebo group. The mean heart rate and systolic blood pressure were lower in the dexmedetomidine group but sedation scores were better. The mean respiratory rate and oxygen saturation were similar in the two groups. Mild hypercarbia occurred in both groups, but periods of significant respiratory depression were noted only in the placebo group. Significant hypotension was noted in one patient in the dexmedetomidine group in conjunction with concomitant administration of a beta-blocker agent. The placebo group reported a higher number of opioid-related adverse events. In conclusion, the known opioid-sparing properties of dexmedetomidine in the immediate postoperative period are maintained over 48 hours.

Prevention of perioperative and anesthesia-related complications in facial cosmetic surgery

Although office-based anesthesia for facial cosmetic surgery remains remarkably safe, no anesthesia or sedation performed outside the operating room should be considered minor. Proper organization, preparation, and patient selection, close collaboration with the surgeon, and expert and effective anesthesia care will increase patient safety and improve perioperative outcomes and patient satisfaction. This article presents a comprehensive overview of anesthesia in terms of facial plastic surgery procedures, beginning with a broad review of essentials and pitfalls of anesthesia, followed by details of specific anesthetic agents, their administration, mechanism of action, and complications.

Dexmedetomidine for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome: rationale and current status of research

Dexmedetomidine is currently used in the US in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, although data to support this practice are limited. Dexmedetomidine targets the noradrenergic system, an important but frequently overlooked secondary mechanism in the development of AWS, and, in doing so, may reduce the need for excessive benzodiazepine use which can increase the risk of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-mediated deliriogenesis and respiratory depression. The purpose of this narrative review is to evaluate available literature reporting on the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine for AWS in the ICU setting. An English-language MEDLINE search (1966 to July 2013) was performed to identify articles evaluating the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine for AWS. Case series, case reports and controlled trials were evaluated for topic relevance and clinical applicability. Reference lists of articles retrieved through this search were reviewed to identify any relevant publications. Studies focusing on the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine for AWS in humans were selected. Studies were included if they were published as full articles; abstracts alone were not included in this review. Eight published case studies and case series were identified. Based on a limited body of evidence, dexmedetomidine shows promise as a potentially safe and possibly effective adjuvant treatment for AWS in the ICU. Prospective, well-controlled studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of the use of dexmedetomidine in AWS.