Comparing Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam for Sedation of Children While Undergoing Computerized Tomography Imaging

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol: An effective combination with ketamine for adult procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Recently, drug combination protocols have been preferred over single drugs in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and hemodynamic profile of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketodex) and ketofol as drug combinations with ketamine as a single medication for PSA in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed among adult patients (≥18 years) requiring PSA for a painful procedure in the ED. 135 patients were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketodex, ketofol, or ketamine. Additional ketamine was used as a rescue agent for inadequate sedation in three groups. Oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded from baseline until 120 min after induction of PSA. Adverse events, hemodynamic variables, induction, and recovery time were recorded and compared between groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 38.16 ± 19.09 years and no differences were observed between the three groups in terms of demographic variables, pain scores, and procedures between the three groups. Respiratory events had similar incidences between the three groups. The O2 reduction was less in the Ketodex group in comparison with Ketofol and Ketamine groups (1.9%, 6.5%, and 3.8%, P = 0.015). No patient needed endotracheal intubation. Changes in mean arterial pressure from the baseline in Ketamine and Ketofol groups compared to Ketodex was higher (difference was 12.9 mmHg [95% CI, 9.5 to 20.3] and 8.6 mmHg [95% CI, 3.4 to 13.7]. Tachycardia in the Ketamine group had a significantly higher incidence. The recovery time was statistically shorter in the Ketofol group in comparison with other groups. The differences between Ketofol with Ketamine and Ketodex groups were 9.8 min (95% CI, [2.5 to 17.1]) and 8.3 min (95% CI, [1.5 to 15.1]).

CONCLUSION

Ketodex, as well as ketofol, were effective and safe combinations with good recovery profiles and hemodynamic stability for adult PSA in ED.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Use in Pediatric Patients for Anxiolysis in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, dexmedetomidine has gained traction as a treatment for anxiolysis in the emergency department (ED). When used with an atomizer, it may also be given intranasally for anxiolysis. The primary objective was to determine the level of ED provider satisfaction and comfort with intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine for anxiolysis in pediatric patients with behavioral agitation and/or acute psychosis. The secondary objectives included determining safety, rates of therapy failure, and ED length of stay compared with oral midazolam. The efficacy of IN dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam in patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was also evaluated.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective study in a pediatric ED from March 1 to December 31, 2021. Patients were included in the study if the ED provider requested IN dexmedetomidine anxiolysis and completed a postadministration survey. Safety and efficacy outcomes were assessed by chart review and compared with patients who received oral midazolam during the same study period. Efficacy was defined as the rate of treatment failure, as the need for procedural termination, progression to procedural sedation, or the requirement of additional medications for anxiolysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients received IN dexmedetomidine {median dose [interquartile range (IQR)] of 3.05 [2.04-4.00] μg/kg/dose} compared with 58 who received oral midazolam [median (IQR) dose of 0.29 (0.25-0.48) mg/kg/dose). Providers reported high comfort and satisfaction scores, with median (IQR) scores of 90 (75-100) and 88 (60-100) of 100. Twenty-nine percent of patients experienced treatment failure, most commonly because of the need for additional medications. Those who received IN dexmedetomidine had a longer ED length of stay (6.0 vs 4.4 hours, P = 0.010). Among the patients with ASD, those who received IN dexmedetomidine had a lower rate of treatment failure compared with oral midazolam (21.2% vs 66.7%, P = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that IN dexmedetomidine has high levels of provider comfort and satisfaction, moderately high success rate, and a promising safety profile. In addition, IN dexmedetomidine may be superior to oral midazolam in patients with ASD for anxiolysis, but additional studies are needed.

The use of dexmedetomidine in the emergency department: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a centrally acting alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly used for sedation in multiple clinical settings. Evidence from the intensive care unit and operative settings suggests DEX may have significant advantages over traditional GABAergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines. There has been limited research on the use of DEX in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the medical literature to identify all published evidence regarding the use of DEX in the ED. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies and studies reporting any use of DEX in the ED, even when it was not the primary focus of the study. Two authors reviewed studies for inclusion, and a single author assessed studies for quality and risk of bias and abstracted data.

RESULTS

We identified 35 studies meeting inclusion criteria, including 11 randomized controlled trials, 13 cohort and other nonrandomized studies, and 11 case reports and case series. Significant heterogeneity in interventions, comparators, indications, and outcomes precluded data pooling and meta-analysis. We found modest evidence that DEX was efficacious in facilitating medical imaging and mixed and limited evidence regarding its efficacy for procedural sedation and sedation of nonintubated medical and psychiatric patients. Our results suggested that DEX is associated with bradycardia and hypotension, which are generally transient and infrequently require medical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A limited body of generally poor- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that the use of DEX may be efficacious in certain clinical scenarios in the ED and that DEX use in the ED is likely safe. Further high-quality research into DEX use in the ED setting is needed, with a particular focus on clear and consistent selection of indications, identification of clear and clinically relevant primary outcomes, and careful assessment of the clinical implications of the hemodynamic effects of DEX therapy.

A comparative evaluation of intranasal α2-adrenoceptor agonists and intranasal midazolam as premedication in pediatric sedation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Midazolam and α2-adrenoceptor agonists have been widely used off-label as intranasal sedatives for children. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of two interventions in pediatric sedation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2022. All randomized controlled trials used intranasal α2-adrenoceptor agonists and midazolam as sedatives in children were enrolled. Parental separation, anesthesia induction or facemask acceptance, sedation level, different hemodynamic parameters and adverse events were considered as outcomes.

RESULTS

Totally 21 studies with 1,495 patients were included. Only one study reported comparison between midazolam and clonidine met the inclusion criteria, and patients in clonidine group had significantly better mask acceptance compared to midazolam group. Compared with midazolam, using of dexmedetomidine was associated with higher rate of satisfactory parental separation (52.88% vs 75.18%, RR = 0.70, with 95%CI [0.55, 0.90]), anesthesia induction or facemask acceptance (60.92% vs 81.47%, RR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.68, 0.84]) and less incidence of postoperative pain and nasal irritation.

CONCLUSION

Compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine should be considered as the preferred intranasal sedative option for pediatric patients, since it provides more satisfactory sedative level with less incidence of several side effects. But insufficient evidences about effects of intranasal clonidine and overall low and moderate quality evidences evaluated by GRADE system indicate that superiority of intranasal α2-adrenoceptor agonists in pediatric sedation needs to be validated by more studies with high quality and large sample size in future.

Clinicophysiological and hematobiochemical effect of dexmedetomidine or diazepam with ketamine and propofol in total intravenous anesthesia in goats

Background

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) is a well-documented anesthetic concept for some animal species, including dogs and horses; however, information about TIVA protocols in goats is currently inadequate. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinicophysiological and hematobiochemical effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) and diazepam premedication with ketamine and propofol.

Result

The DEX-treated group showed a significantly decreased heart rate compared with the diazepam-treated group. Onset of anesthesia and sedation in group I was significantly faster than that in group II (0.33 ± 0.08 and 0.25 ± 0.08 min vs. 3.33 ± 1.53 and 2.0 ± 1.0 min, respectively). Duration of anesthesia and sedation in group I was significantly longer than that in group II (66.67 ± 7.64 and 161.3 ± 43.3 min vs. 37.0 ± 5.19 and 60.33 ± 7.57 min, respectively). The total recovery period in group II was significantly shorter than that in group I (47.0 ± 7.21 vs. 98.33 ± 15.27 min).

Smooth induction and recovery occurred in all goats in group I, whereas most goats in group II exhibited slightly prolonged induction with mild excitation and presence of swallowing reflex and prolonged struggling during recovery.

Conclusion

In TIVA, premedication with DEX produces excellent quality anesthesia, analgesia, sedation, and muscle relaxation. Furthermore, it produces a longer duration of anesthesia, sedation, and analgesia than premedication with diazepam. For these reasons, DEX is more suitable for long surgical procedures, whereas diazepam can be used in minor surgical procedures in goats. Both drug combinations produce hemodynamic stability.

The Sedative Effects of Inhaled Nebulized Dexmedetomidine on Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Children that need surgery and medical examinations are often uncooperative, and preoperative sedation is necessary. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine in children for sedation that underwent medical examinations or surgery.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library, for randomized controlled trials of Intranasal dexmedetomidine using a spray or a mucosal atomization device in children undergoing examination or elective surgery. We included all studies that analyzed the sedation efficiency of intranasal dexmedetomidine in children.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1,233pediatric patients were included. Compared to other sedation treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine showed similar sedation satisfaction [risk ratio RR: 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.18; P = 0.83; I² = 72%]. there was also no statistical difference in the success rate of separation from parents (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82-1.12; P = 0.58; I² = 67%), and mask acceptability (RR: 1; 95% CI: 0.83-1.20; P = 0.99; I² = 35%). But it is worth mentioning that nebulized dexmedetomidine combined with ketamine provided better sedation satisfaction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.96; I² = 49%) and more satisfactory separation from parents (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; I² = 0%). Moreover, nebulized dexmedetomidine reduced the occurrences of nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.51; P < 0.01; I² = 10%) and emergence agitation (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18-0.49; P < 0.01; I² = 0%). There are no hypotension or arrhythmia reported that required intervention in all articles.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other premedication treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine provided equivalent sedation satisfaction for the examination or preoperative sedation of children, but it reduced the occurrences of emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Dexmedetomidine for patients with croup

Agitation exacerbates symptoms in patients with croup, but the reports on the therapeutic effects of sedation in these patients without intubation are scarce. We describe a typical case of croup wherein light sedation with dexmedetomidine was effective in treating and discuss how agitation exacerbates and sedation improves symptoms from the viewpoint of fluid dynamics theory in addition to the conventional explanation. The mechanism of dynamic airway collapse during inspiration in these patients supports the effectiveness of sedation with dexmedetomidine.

•

We describe a typical case of croup in which light sedation with dexmedetomidine was effective.

•

How agitation exacerbates symptoms of croup can be explained by fluid dynamics theory in addition to the conventional explanation.

•

The negative pressure produced by the patient's inspiration and the static pressure drop leads to dynamic airway collapse.

A comparative study of dexmedetomidine and propofol to prevent recovery agitation in adults undergoing procedural sedation with ketamine: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine and propofol on ketamine-induced recovery agitation in adults when used as co-administration with ketamine.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial, 93 patients aged 18 years or older who were candidates for painful procedures in the emergency department (ED) were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketadex (dexmedetomidine 0.7 μg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg), ketofol (propofol 0.5 mg/kg and ketamine 0.5 mg/kg) or ketamine alone (1 mg/kg) intravenously. Incidence and severity of recovery agitation were evaluated using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and compared between groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, procedures, pain scores, pre-sedation agitation, and duration of procedure between the three groups. The incidence of recovery agitation was 26% in the Ketadex group, 29% in the Ketofol group, and 58% in the Ketamine group. The difference in incidence of recovery agitation between Ketadex group and Ketamine group was 32% (95% confidence interval (CI), 9 to 56]) and between Ketofol group and Ketamine group was 29% (95% CI, 6 to 53). The severe agitation was significantly higher in Ketamine group, with a difference between Ketamine and Ketadex group of 19% (95% CI, 6 to 33), and a difference between Ketamine and Ketofol group of 16% (95% CI, 1 to 31).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a combination of ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-propofol reduced the incidence and severity of ketamine-induced recovery agitation in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED.