Efficacy of Adding Low-Dose Ketamine to Dexmedetomidine Versus Low-Dose Ketamine and Propofol for Conscious Sedation in Patients Undergoing Awake Fiber-optic Intubation

Sedation for awake tracheal intubation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different sedation regimens have been used to facilitate awake tracheal intubation, but the evidence has not been synthesised robustly, particularly with respect to clinically important outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the sedation techniques most likely to be associated with successful tracheal intubation, a shorter time to successful intubation and a lower risk of arterial oxygen desaturation.

METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials of patients undergoing awake tracheal intubation for any indication and reporting: overall tracheal intubation success rate; tracheal intubation time; incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation; and other related outcomes. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis for these outcomes if two or more sedation regimens were compared between included trials. We also performed a sensitivity analysis excluding trials with a high risk of bias.

RESULTS

In total, 48 studies with 2837 patients comparing 33 different regimens were included. Comparing overall awake tracheal intubation success rates (38 studies, 2139 patients), there was no evidence suggesting that any individual sedation regimen was superior. Comparing times to successful tracheal intubation (1745 patients, 24 studies), any sedation strategy was superior to placebo. When we excluded trials with a high risk of bias, we found no evidence of a difference between any interventions for time to successful tracheal intubation. Thirty-one studies (1753 patients) suggested that dexmedetomidine and magnesium sulphate were associated with a reduced risk of arterial oxygen desaturation compared with other interventions, but excluding trials with a high risk of bias suggested no relevant differences between interventions. The quality of evidence for each of our outcomes was low.

CONCLUSIONS

To maximise effective and safe awake tracheal intubation, optimising oxygenation, topical airway anaesthesia and procedural performance may have more impact than any given sedation regimen.

Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine-Propofol Combination for Periprocedural Sedation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

RECENT FINDINGS

Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I2 = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I2 = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I2 = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I2 = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I2 = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Comparative review of airway anesthesia and sedation methods for awake intubation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Successful awake intubation hinges upon adequate airway anesthesia and sedation for patient comfort. This review will summarize relevant anatomy and regional anesthesia techniques to achieve airway anesthesia, and compare various airway anesthesia and sedation regimens.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall, nerve blocks consistently provided superior airway anesthesia, shorter time to intubation, higher patient comfort, and higher postintubation patient satisfaction. Additionally, ultrasound guidance can further provide benefit by reducing the amount of local anesthetic administered, leading to denser blockade, and proving invaluable in challenging clinical situations. Regarding sedation methods, numerous studies supported the use of dexmedetomidine, with or without the addition of supplemental sedation, such as midazolam, ketamine, or opioids.

SUMMARY

Emerging evidence has indicated that nerve blocks for airway anesthesia may be superior to other methods of topicalization. Additionally, dexmedetomidine can be useful, both as monotherapy and with supplemental sedatives, to safely provide anxiolysis for the patient and increase success. However, it is crucial to note that the method of airway anesthesia and sedation regimen should be adapted to each patient and clinical situation, and knowledge of multiple techniques and sedation regimens can best equip anesthesiologists to do so.

Comparison of midazolam and low-dose dexmedetomidine in flexible bronchoscopy: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is a clinically useful drug for providing sedation, but concern regarding its cardiovascular side effect profile can limit its widespread use during routine diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients between 18 and 65 years of age, who required diagnostic FB, were screened. Eligible patients were randomized to either receive 0.5 μg/kg intravenous dexmedetomidine over 10 min or intravenous midazolam 0.035 mg/kg over 1 min. If required, rescue medication (intravenous midazolam 0.5 mg bolus) was administered. The primary outcome measure was the composite score. Other parameters observed were numerical rating scale, hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, number of doses of rescue medication, visual analog scale score for cough, ease of bronchoscopy, Ramsay Sedation Score, and postprocedure patient response after 24 h of bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients were enrolled, 27 in each group. Total composite score (mean ± standard deviation) in dexmedetomidine and midazolam group at nasopharynx was 7.04 ± 2.19 and 6.59 ± 1.55 (P = 0.387), respectively. The corresponding values at the level of trachea were 9.22 ± 3.69 and 8.63 ± 2.13 (P = 0.475). In the dexmedetomidine group, patient response after 24 h of bronchoscopy showed the quality of sedation to be excellent in three patients, good in 10, fair in 11, and poor in 3 and discomfort to be nil in 14, mild 7, moderate in 3, and severe in 3. The corresponding values in the midazolam group for the quality of sedation were 0, 9, 18, 0 and for discomfort 10, 16, 1, 0. Other parameters did not reveal any statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine at a dose of 0.5 μg/kg may provide clinically useful conscious sedation, comparable to midazolam.