Dexmedetomidine decreases requirement of thiopentone sodium and pentazocine followed with improved recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Impact of female sex on anaesthetic awareness, depth, and emergence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Suggested anaesthetic dose ranges do not differ by sex, likely because of limited studies comparing sexes. Our objective was to systematically synthesise studies with outcomes of unintended anaesthesia awareness under anaesthesia, intraoperative connected consciousness, time to emergence from anaesthesia, and dosing to achieve adequate depth of anaesthesia, and to compare between females and males.

METHODS

Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases until August 2, 2022. Controlled clinical trials (randomised/non-randomised) and prospective cohort studies that reported outcomes by sex were included. Results were synthesised by random effects meta-analysis where possible, or narrative form.

RESULTS

Of the 19 749 studies identified, 64 (98 243 participants; 53 143 females and 45 100 males) were eligible for inclusion, and 44 citations contributed to meta-analysis. Females had a higher incidence of awareness with postoperative recall (33 studies, odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.75) and connected consciousness during anaesthesia (three studies, OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.04-4.23) than males. Time to emergence was faster in females, including time to eye-opening (10 studies, mean difference -2.28 min, 95% CI -3.58 to -0.98), and time to response to command (six studies, mean difference -2.84 min, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.62). Data on depth of anaesthesia were heterogenous, limiting synthesis to a qualitative review which did not identify sex differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Female sex was associated with a greater incidence of awareness under general anaesthesia, and faster emergence from anaesthesia. These data suggest reappraisal of anaesthetic care, including whether similar drug dosing for females and males represents best care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022336087.

Preoperative Dexmedetomidine and intraoperative bradycardia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background

While laparoscopic surgical procedures have various advantages over traditional open techniques, artificial pneumoperitoneum is associated with severe bradycardia and cardiac arrest. Dexmedetomidine, an imidazole derivative that selectively binds to α²-receptors and has sedative and analgesic properties, can cause hypotension and bradycardia. Our primary aim was to assess the association between dexmedetomidine use and intraoperative bradycardia during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis using the following PICOS: adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (P); intravenous dexmedetomidine before tracheal intubation (I); no intervention or placebo administration (C); intraoperative bradycardia (primary outcome), intraoperative hypotension, hemodynamics at intubation (systolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate), dose needed for induction of anesthesia, total anesthesia requirements (both hypnotics and opioids) throughout the procedure, and percentage of patients requiring postoperative analgesics and experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting and/or shivering (O); randomized controlled trials (S).

Results

Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis (980 patients). Compared to patients that did not receive dexmedetomidine, those who did had a higher risk of developing intraoperative bradycardia (RR: 2.81, 95% CI [1.34, 5.91]) and hypotension (1.66 [0.92, 2.98]); however, they required a lower dose of intraoperative anesthetics and had a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. In the trial sequential analysis for bradycardia, the cumulative z-score crossed the monitoring boundary for harm at the tenth trial.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy who receive dexmedetomidine during tracheal intubation are more likely to develop intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension.

Effect of dexmedetomidine on opioid consumption and pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The clinical evidence on dexmedetomidine (DEX) for postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption remains unclear in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Aim

To evaluate whether DEX could reduce opioid consumption and pain control after LC.

Material and methods

A meta-analysis search of EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DEX with control for adult patients undergoing LC were searched. The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after the operation. The secondary outcomes were the time of first request of analgesia, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores 24 h after the operation, the incidence of patients’ need for rescue analgesics, opioid-related adverse effects, DEX-related adverse effects and other complications.

Results

There were fourteen aspects of twelve trials and 967 patients included in the analysis. DEX use significantly reduced the opioid consumption in the first 24 h after the operation (weighted mean difference (WMD), –19.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), –30.29 to –8.04; p = 0.0007), lengthened the time of first request of analgesia (WMD = 38.90; 95% CI: 0.88–76.93; p = 0.04) and lowered post-operative nausea or vomiting (PONV) (odds ratio (OR) = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27–0.89; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Intravenous DEX infusion significantly improved the duration of the analgesic effect and reduced postoperative opioid consumption. Moreover, lower incidence of post-operative nausea or vomiting was found in the DEX group.

Effect of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation: A meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

An uncontrolled adrenergic response during tracheal intubation may lead to life-threatening complications. Dexmedetomidine binds to α2-receptors and may attenuate this response. The primary aim of our meta-analysis is to investigate dexmedetomidine efficacy in attenuating sympathetic response to tracheal intubation, compared with placebo or no dexmedetomidine, in terms of heart rate and blood pressure at intubation.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

SETTING

Systematic search from inception until December 1, 2020 in the following databases: Pubmed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and Google Scholar.

INTERVENTIONS

All randomized controlled trials investigating intravenous dexmedetomidine as premedication in adult patients undergoing tracheal intubation were included in our study. Studies were included without any language or publication date restriction. A trial sequential analysis and a post-hoc meta-regression were performed on the main outcomes.

MEASUREMENTS

Hemodynamic parameters and heart rate at tracheal intubation, dose of anesthetic needed for induction of anesthesia, total anesthetic requirement throughout the operative procedure, postoperative pain and percentage of patients requiring analgesics at 24 postoperative hours, postoperative nausea and vomiting, intraoperative and postoperative bradycardia, hypotension, dizziness, shivering and/or respiratory depression.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-nine included studies randomized 6833 patients. During laryngoscopy, all hemodynamic parameters were significantly greater in the no dexmedetomidine group. In particular, in the dexmedetomidine group, systolic blood pressure differed by -21.8 mm Hg (95% CI -26.6 to -17.1, p-value < 0.001, I² 97%), mean arterial pressure by -12.8 mm Hg (95% CI -15.6 to -10.0, p-value < 0.001, I² 98%), and heart rate by -16.9 bpm (95% CI -19.8 to -13.9, p-value < 0.001, I² 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving premedication with dexmedetomidine for tracheal intubation, compared with no dexmedetomidine, have a lower blood pressure and heart rate, however, the risk of bradycardia and hypotension is relevant and its use during daily practice should be cautiously evaluated for each patient.

Novel Opiate-Free Anesthetic Technique for Major Urologic Procedures

OBJECTIVES

We postulated that an opiate-free (OF) general anesthesia (GA) technique could adequately control a patient's pain without adversely affecting recovery. We compared patients undergoing major urologic procedures with and without opiate-based GA.

METHODS

A propensity-matched analysis was performed comparing hospital length of stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, ileus occurrence, postanesthesia care unit, and total opiate consumption, as well as sedation and hemodynamic variables. The data are expressed as medians and were analyzed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. P < 0.05 indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

In total, 166 patients were evaluated in both the OF group and the opiate-based treatment group. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification and age were comparable, with most surgeries being laparoscopic and confined to the bladder, kidney, and prostate gland. The median opiate consumption in morphine equivalents in the postanesthesia care unit was 7.7 mg (range 5-11.7 mg) for the OF cohort versus 11.7 mg (range 5-17.3 mg) for the control group (P < 0.001). Similarly, the median total postoperative opiate consumption in morphine equivalents was 23.9 mg (range 13.8-42.4 mg) for the OF group compared with 32.1 mg (range 17.38-57.51 mg) for the control group (P = 0.0081). The median hospital length of stay for the OF group was 1.4 days (range 1.2-2.3 days) versus 1.3 days (range 1.2-2.4 days) for the control group (P = 0.8466).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a statistically significant difference in opiate consumption postoperatively for patients who underwent an OF technique compared with a conventional opiate-based technique. This technique appears to be a possible alternative approach, without any apparent untoward consequences during admission.

Evaluation of postoperative analgesic efficacy and perioperative hemodynamic changes with low dose intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy - A randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Background and Aim:

Dexmedetomidine is a α2-agonist with sedative, sympatholytic and analgesic properties and hence, it can be a very useful adjuvant in anesthesia as stress response buster, sedative and analgesic. We aimed to evaluate the effects of low dose dexmedetomidine infusion (0.5 mcg/kg/h) on postoperative analgesic efficacy along with the perioperative hemodynamic changes in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Material and Methods:

Eighty patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical grades I and II undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated into two groups of 40 patients each. Group I (Normal Saline group) patients received normal saline and group II (Dexmedetomidine group) patients received dexmedetomidine infusion at 0.5 mcg/kg/h respectively, starting 15 min before induction and continued till the end of surgery. Parameters noted were heart rate, mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, post-operative pain was evaluated using VAS and analgesic requirement. Statistical tests such as ANOVA test for continuous variables, post-hoc test for intergroup comparison, and Chi-square test for discrete values were applied.

Results:

Post-operative efficacy was found to be limited in the dexmedetomidine group in terms of VAS score. The analgesic requirement in 24-hour was observed to be reduced in dexmedetomidine group when compared to the NS group; however, not statistically significant. In group NS, significant hemodynamic stress response was seen following laryngoscopy, tracheal intubation, creation of pneumoperitoneum and extubation. On intergroup comparison, the hemodynamic response was significantly attenuated in the dexmedetomidine group when compared to the NS group. No significant side effects were noted.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine IV in an infusion dose of 0.5 μg/kg/hr is effective in providing postoperative analgesia in terms of significant reduction in analgesic consumption in 24 hours and in addition to the effective obtundation of the pneumoperitoneum-induced hemodynamic changes.

Effect of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine During General Anesthesia on Acute Postoperative Pain in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine has been shown to have an analgesic effect. However, no consensus was reached in previous studies.

METHODS

Electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. The relative risk and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used to analyze the outcomes. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with the normal saline group, patients using DEX showed a significantly decreased pain intensity within 6 hours [WMD=-0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.34 to -0.53) and at 24 hours after surgery (WMD=-0.47; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.11). DEX usage significantly reduced the cumulative opioids consumption at 24 hours after surgery (WMD=-6.76; 95% CI, -10.16 to -3.35), decreased the rescue opioids consumption in postanesthesia care unit (WMD=-3.11; 95% CI, -5.20 to -1.03), reduced the risk of rescue analgesics (relative risk=0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71), and the interval to first rescue analgesia was prolonged (WMD=34.93; 95% CI, 20.27-49.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous DEX effectively relieved the pain intensity, extended the pain-free period, and decreased the consumption of opioids during postoperative recovery of adults in general anesthesia.

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine-Propofol versus Fentanyl-Propofol on Insertion Conditions of Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway

INTRODUCTION

Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) is a newer supraglottic airway device that requires adequate depth of anaesthesia and suppression of upper airway reflexes thereby providing optimal insertion conditions.

AIM

To compare dexmedetomidine and fentanyl for co-induction with propofol with respect to PLMA insertion conditions, haemodynamic variation and the total dose requirement of propofol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective randomized double-blinded study conducted in 60 cases of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class I/II undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. They were randomly divided into two equal groups, D and F, each receiving 1μg/kg of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl respectively followed by Propofol 2.5mg/kg as per protocol. The ease of PLMA insertion was Young's Criteria and Modified scheme of Lund and Stovener. The haemodynamic parameters (mean heart rate, mean arterial pressure, Respiratory rate, SPO₂) were monitored at: Baseline, Pre-medication, Pre PLMA, Post LMA (at insertion), 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes.

RESULTS

PLMA insertion conditions and haemodynamics were comparable between the dexmedetomidine-propofol and fentanyl-propofol groups according to the Young's criteria and Modified scheme of Lund and Stovener. Total induction dose of propofol and its increments were significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine group.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine and fentanyl when both used individually for co-induction with propofol for PLMA insertion give excellent overall insertion conditions with haemodynamic stability. Dexmedetomidine also significantly reduces the requirements of induction dose propofol for PLMA insertion.

Effects of dexmedetomidine on perioperative monitoring parameters and recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine, an α2 agonist, when used as an adjuvant in general anesthesia attenuates stress response to various noxious stimuli, maintains perioperative hemodynamic stability and provides sedation without adversely affecting recovery in postoperative period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each. In Group A, dexmedetomidine was given intravenously as loading dose of 1 μg/kg over 10 min, and normal saline was given in Group B patients. After induction with propofol, in Group A, dexmedetomidine was given as infusion at a dose of 0.2-0.8 μg/kg/h. Sevoflurane was used as inhalation agent in both groups. Perioperative monitoring parameters were recorded. Postoperative sedation and recovery were assessed.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Demographic data were analyzed using Pearson's Chi-square test. Changes in the heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (BP) and diastolic BP were analyzed using unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used to calculate "P" value wherever (Shapiro-Wilk)/normality test gave ambiguous results.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine significantly attenuates stress response at intubation with lesser increase in HR (86.00 ± 5.16 vs. 102.97 ± 7.07/min.), mean BP (95.78 ± 5.35 vs. 110.18 ± 5.35) as compared to the control group (P < 0.05). After pneumoperitoneum, HR was 85.07 ± 6.23 versus 107.10 ± 4.98, mean BP was 98.98 ± 10.16 versus 118.54 ± 6.27 (P < 0.05). Thus maintains intraoperative hemodynamic stability. Postoperatively, the test group showed no statistically significant difference in the extubation time (7.00 ± 0.58 vs. 6.74 ± 0.73) and response to oral commands (8.78 ± 0.72 vs. 8.66 ± 0.73) (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine attenuates various stress responses during surgery and maintains the hemodynamic stability when used as an adjuvant in general anesthesia and dexmedetomidine does not delay recovery.

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.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol versus fentanyl-propofol for insertion of laryngeal mask airway

Background and aims:

Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion requires anesthesia and suppression of airway reflexes. In search of an optimal drug, we compared dexmedetomidine and fentanyl, in combination with propofol for insertion of LMA.

Material and Methods:

This study was a prospective double blind randomized study. Eighty patients of ASA class 1&2 were randomly divided into two groups of 40 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg and group F received fentanyl 1 mcg/kg intravenously (IV) over 2 minutes. For induction, propofol 2mg/kg was given IV and 90 seconds later LMA was inserted. We observed apnea time, heart rate, respiratory rate, non invasive blood pressure and oxygen saturation before induction, 30 seconds after induction, 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 minutes after insertion of LMA. Patient's response to LMA insertion like coughing, gagging or any movement were noted and scored. Statistical analysis of data was done using student t test for parametric data, Chi-square test for non parametric data and SPSS 15.0 for windows software.

Results:

37 (92.5%) patients of group D and 35 (87.5%) patients of group F had LMA insertion score of <2 and 5 (12.5%) patients of group F had score >2. Adverse events to insertion of LMA and hemodynamic variables were comparable in both the groups. Number of patients developing apnoea was larger and apnoea times were longer in group F compared to group D. When compared to group F, group D showed an increased respiratory rate.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine can be a comparable alternative to fentanyl as an adjuvant to propofol for providing optimum insertion conditions for LMA and preservation of respiration.

Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and esmolol on hemodynamic responses during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The advent of laparoscopic surgery has benefited the patient and surgeon; however creation of pneumoperitoneum for same has bearings during the perioperative period. These effects of pneumoperitoneum are associated with significant haemodynamic changes, increasing the morbidity of the patient.

AIM

The present study compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and esmolol on hemodynamic responses during laparoscopic cholecystectomy Materials and Methods: A total of 90 patients aged 20-60 y, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II, of either sex, planned for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine loading dose 1 mcg/kg over a period of 15 min and maintenance 0.5 mcg/kg/h throughout the pneumoperitoneum. Group E received esmolol loading dose 1 mg/kg over a period of 5 min and maintenance 0.5 mg/kg/h throughout the pneumoperitoneum. Group C received same volume of normal saline.

MEASUREMENTS

Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded preoperative, after study drug, after induction, after intubation, after pneumoperitoneum at 15 min intervals, post pneumoperitoneum and postoperative period after 15 min. Propofol induction dose, intraoperative fentanyl requirement and sedation score were also recorded.

RESULTS

In group D, there was no statistically significant increase in HR and blood pressure after pneumoperitoneum at any time intervals, whereas in Group E, there was a statistical significant increase in MAP after pneumoperitoneum at 15, 45, and 60 min only and HR during the whole pneumoperitoneum period. There was a significant decrease in induction dose of propofol and intraoperative fentanyl requirement in Group D and E, compared to Group C (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine is more effective than esmolol for attenuating the hemodynamic response to pneumoperitoneum in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dexmedetomidine and esmolol also reduced requirements of anaesthetic agents.