Dexmedetomidine ameliorates monitored anaesthesia care

Comparative evaluation of two different loading doses of dexmedetomidine with midazolam-fentanyl for sedation in vitreoretinal surgery under peribulbar anaesthesia

Background and Aims:

Midazolam-fentanyl (MDZ:FEN) combination has been routinely used for intravenous sedation in ophthalmic surgeries. Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a recent α₂ adrenoreceptor agonist indicated for sedation for ophthalmic use at a loading dose of 0.5 μg/kg over 10 min, can cause deeper plane of sedation and surgeon dissatisfaction. Therefore, we proposed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two different loading doses of DEX.

Methods:

In a prospective study, 60 patients aged 50-70 years, scheduled for retinal surgery under peribulbar block were divided equally to receive either MDZ:FEN or DEX 0.5 μg/kg (DEX full) or DEX 0.25 μg/kg (DEX half) loading dose over 10 min followed by titrated maintenance dose of DEX 0.25-0.4 μg/kg/h. Vital parameters, level of sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale 1–6), effect on respiration and surgeon satisfaction were assessed at regular intervals. Surgeon satisfaction score (0–3) was noted.

Results:

‘DEX half’ group patients had predominantly stable haemodynamics, level 3 sedation and surgeon satisfaction score of 2–3 (good to excellent operating conditions). This group had no vomiting and no respiratory depression. ‘DEX full’ group had a higher incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, level 4 sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale) and lower surgeon satisfaction. Incidence of nausea and vomiting was higher in MDZ:FEN group compared to other two groups.

Conclusion:

DEX 0.25 μg/kg loading dose over 10 min followed by titrated maintenance dose is an effective alternative to MDZ:FEN and provides controlled (level 3) sedation and stable haemodynamics maximising surgeon satisfaction. Avoiding narcotic analgesics with its associated post-operative nausea and vomiting is an additional benefit.

Perioperative dexmedetomidine for acute pain after abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Acute postoperative pain is still an issue in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Postoperative pain and side effects of analgesic treatment, in particular those of opioids, need to be minimized. Opioid-sparing analgesics, possibly including dexmedetomidine, seem a promising avenue by which to improve postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aim was to determine the analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effect of perioperative dexmedetomidine for acute pain after abdominal surgery in adults.Secondary aims were to establish effects of dexmedetomidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), gastrointestinal function and mobilization, together with the side effect profile of dexmedetomidine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and reference lists of articles to May 2014. We searched the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials, and we contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. We applied no language restrictions. We reran the search in May 2015 and found nine studies of interest. We will deal with the studies of interest when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, controlled trials of perioperative dexmedetomidine versus placebo or other drug during abdominal surgery in adults. Trials included one of the following outcomes: amount of 'rescue' opioid, postoperative pain, time to 'rescue' analgesia, participants requiring 'rescue' analgesia, postoperative sedation, PONV, time to first passage of flatus and stool or time to first out-of-bed mobilization.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. We retrieved full trial reports if necessary, and we extracted relevant data from the included studies using a data collection form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third review author. We sought additional information of relevance for risk of bias assessment or extraction of data by contacting study authors or, if necessary, co-authors from present or former studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Our systematic review included seven studies with a total of 492 participants. We included 422 participants in our analysis. Thirteen studies are awaiting classification. For the comparison dexmedetomidine versus placebo (six studies, 402 participants), most studies found a reduction in 'rescue' opioid consumption in the first 24 hours after surgery, together with in general no clinically important differences in postoperative pain (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 100 mm, where 0 = no pain and 100 = worst imaginable pain) in the first 24 hours after surgery - except for one study (80 participants) with a reduction in VAS pain at two hours after surgery in favour of dexmedetomidine, with a mean difference of -30.00 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -38.25 to -21.75). As the result of substantial heterogeneity, pooling of data in statistical meta-analyses was not appropriate. The quality of evidence was very low for our primary outcomes because of imprecision of results and risk of bias. Regarding our secondary aims, evidence was too scant in general to allow robust conclusions, or the estimates too imprecise or of poor methodological quality. Regarding adverse effects, low quality data (one study, 80 participants) suggest that the proportion of participants with hypotension requiring intervention was slightly higher in the high-dose dexmedetomidine group with a risk ratio of 2.50 (95% CI 0.94 to 6.66), but lower doses of dexmedetomidine led to no differences compared with control. Evidence for the comparison dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl was insufficient to permit robust conclusions (one study, 20 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine, when administered perioperatively for acute pain after abdominal surgery in adults, seemed to have some opioid-sparing effect together with in general no important differences in postoperative pain when compared with placebo. However the quality of the evidence was very low as the result of imprecision, methodological limitations and substantial heterogeneity among the seven included studies. The clinical importance for patients is uncertain, in as much as the influence of dexmedetomidine on patient-important outcomes such as gastrointestinal function, mobilization and adverse effects could not be satisfactorily determined. All included studies were relatively small, and publication bias could not be ruled out. Applicability of evidence was limited to middle-aged participants who were relatively free of co-morbidity and were undergoing elective abdominal surgery. A potential bias was a considerable quantity of unobtainable data from studies with mixed surgery. To detect and investigate patient-important outcomes, larger studies with longer periods of follow-up are needed.

A comparison of propofol vs. dexmedetomidine for sedation, haemodynamic control and satisfaction, during esophagogastroduodenoscopy under conscious sedation

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a common diagnostic procedure which requires sedation for most patients. We undertook a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study to compare the effect of propofol vs. dexmedetomidine on the sedation of outpatients during EGD.

METHODS

Prior to the procedure, outpatients received either propofol at 0·6 mg/kg, with additional doses of 10-20 mg until the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) score reached 2-4, or dexmedetomidine at a loading dose of 1 μg/kg over a 10-min period followed by a 0·5 μg/kg/h infusion until the OAA/S score reached 2-4. Vital signs, sedation level, adverse events, patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction score, and an evaluation of the recovery time were assessed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Negligible haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2 ) and respiratory rate variations were observed in both groups, although respiratory depression occurred in two cases (5·9%) in the propofol group. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the propofol group decreased during the procedure compared with baseline (P < 0·05) and was also lower in comparison with the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0·05). Heart rate (HR) decreased after the loading dose in the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0·05). More patients in the propofol group underwent deeper sedation at the beginning of the procedure (P < 0·05), although the recovery time was comparable between the two groups (P > 0·05). Three cases (9·1%) in the dexmedetomidine group were delayed because of dizziness, bradycardia and nausea. There was a higher satisfaction score among patients in the propofol group (P < 0·05), although the endoscopist's satisfaction score was comparable between the two groups (P > 0·05).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Propofol and dexmedetomidine provide a relatively satisfactory level of sedation without clinically notable adverse effects during EGD. In addition, patients preferred propofol administration for the deeper sedation and rapid recovery, and dexmedetomidine exhibited minimal adverse effects on respiratory function.