Risk factor analysis of additional administration of sedative agent and patient dissatisfaction in intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam for third molar extraction

Efficacy and cost analysis of intravenous conscious sedation for long oral surgery procedures

The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (<10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with midazolam for third molar surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The analgesic sedation of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for third molar surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for third molar surgery.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through December 2022 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for third molar surgery. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam for third molar surgery, dexmedetomidine administration leads to comparable oxygen saturation (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.24 to 0.74; P = .31), heart rate (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.44; P = .37), SBP (SMD = -0.24; 95% CI = -0.57 to 0.09; P = .16), DBP (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.60 to 0.07; P = .12), as well as nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.05-6.61; P = .66).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine may obtain the comparable sedation efficacy with midazolam for third molar surgery.

Comparison of vital sign stability and cost effectiveness between midazolam and dexmedetomidine during third molar extraction under intravenous sedation

Objectives

To compare the vital sign stability and cost of two commonly used sedatives, midazolam (MDZ) and dexmedetomidine (DEX). Patients and.

Methods

This retrospective study targeted patients who underwent mandibular third molar extractions under intravenous sedation using MDZ or DEX. The predictor variable was the type of sedative used. The primary outcome variables were vital signs (heart rate and blood pressure), vital sign outliers, and cost of the sedatives. A vital sign outlier was defined as a 30% or more change in vital signs during sedation; the fewer changes, the higher the vital sign stability. The secondary outcome variables included the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale, level of amnesia, patient satisfaction, and bispectral index score. Covariates were sex, age, body mass index, sleeping time, dental anxiety score, and Pederson scale. Descriptive statistics were computed including propensity score matching (PSM). The P-value was set at 0.05.

Results

The study enrolled 185 patients, 103 in the MDZ group and 82 in the DEX group. Based on the data after PSM, the two samples had similar baseline covariates. The sedative effect of both agents was satisfactory. Heart rate outliers were more common with MDZ than with DEX (49.3% vs 22.7%, P=0.001). Heart rate was higher with MDZ (P=0.000). The cost was higher for DEX than for MDZ (29.27±0.00 USD vs 0.37±0.04 USD, P=0.000).

Conclusion

DEX showed more vital sign stability, while MDZ was more economical. These results could be used as a reference to guide clinicians during sedative selection.

Less stress, better success: a scoping review on the effects of anxiety on anesthetic and analgesic consumption

Preoperative anxiety has an incidence of 11-80% in patients undergoing surgical or interventional procedures. Understanding the role of preoperative anxiety on intraoperative anesthetic requirements and postoperative analgesic consumption would allow personalized anesthesia care. Over- or under-anesthetizing patients can lead to complications such as postoperative cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients, or procedural discomfort, respectively. Our scoping review focuses on the current evidence regarding the association between preoperative anxiety and intraoperative anesthetic and/or postoperative analgesic consumption in patients undergoing elective surgical or interventional procedures. Based on 44 studies that met the inclusion criteria, we found that preoperative anxiety has a significant positive correlation effect on intraoperative propofol and postoperative opioid consumption. The analysis of the literature is limited by the heterogeneity of preoperative anxiety tools used, study designs, data analyses, and outcomes. The use of shorter, validated preoperative anxiety assessment tools may help optimize the intraoperative anesthetic and postoperative analgesic regimen. Further research to determine the most feasible and clinically relevant preoperative anxiety tool and subsequent implementation has the potential to optimize perioperative care and improve patient outcomes.

Patient satisfaction with deep versus light/moderate sedation for non-surgical procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Deep sedation relieves a patient's anxiety and stress during the procedure by inducing patient unconsciousness. However, it remains unclear whether deep sedation actually improves patient satisfaction with the procedure. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the satisfaction of patients undergoing deep sedation with that of those undergoing light/moderate sedation during non-surgical procedures.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using electronic databases (search until September 2020). The primary outcome was whether patient satisfaction was higher after deep sedation or light/moderate sedation. The secondary outcome was the relative safety of deep sedation compared with light/moderate sedation in terms of oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate. The tertiary outcomes were the relative procedure and recovery times for deep versus light/moderate sedation.Data from each of the trials were combined, and calculations were made using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. The pooled effect estimates for patient satisfaction were evaluated using relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled effect estimates for continuous data are expressed as weighted mean difference with the 95% CI. We assessed heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q statistic and the I2 statistic. The risk of bias assessment and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used as the quality assessment method.

RESULTS

After removing unrelated studies and applying the exclusion criterion, 5 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in those who received deep sedation compared with light/moderate sedation (relative risk = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .003; Cochrane Q = 25.0; I2 = 76%).There was no significant difference in oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and procedure times according to whether the procedures were performed under deep or light/moderate sedation. However, the recovery time was significantly prolonged in patients under deep sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that deep sedation resulted in improved patient satisfaction compared with light/moderate sedation. Deep sedation is recommended for patients undergoing procedures because it improves patient satisfaction. However, respiration and circulation should be carefully monitored both intra-operatively and postoperatively.