Comparative study between novel sedative drug (dexmedetomidine) versus midazolam–propofol for conscious sedation in pediatric patients undergoing oro-dental procedures

An evaluation of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam in pediatric sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.

METHODS

The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I2 = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I2 = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I2 = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I2 = 30%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.

Asystole in 2 Pediatric Patients During Dexmedetomidine Infusion

INTRODUCTION

Bradycardia is a known side effect of dexmedetomidine. Reports of sinus pauses or asystole, however, are rare. We present 2 cases of pediatric patients who developed asystole on a dexmedetomidine infusion.

SUMMARY OF CASES

An 8-week-old male with RSV bronchiolitis and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure was started on dexmedetomidine for sedation at 0.2 mcg/kg/h with a maximum dose of 0.7mcg/kg/h. On Hospital day (HD) 4, on dexmedetomidine at 0.7 mcg/kg/h, he developed intermittent episodes of bradycardia with heart rates in the 60 s. Echocardiogram on HD 6 showed normal function. On HD 7, he began having periods of asystole lasting up to 6 seconds. Dexmedetomidine was discontinued, with the resolution of episodes of asystole after 6 hours. A 27-month-old male with a congenital left diaphragmatic hernia and pulmonary hypertension who had been weaned off sildenafil 6 months earlier underwent re-repair of left diaphragmatic hernia. Postoperatively he remained intubated and paralyzed. Dexmedetomidine was started at 0.3 mcg/kg/h for sedation, with a maximum dose of 1.2 mcg/kg/h. An echocardiogram on HD 3 showed good function with mild to moderate pulmonary hypertension. That evening, with dexmedetomidine at 1.1 mcg/kg/h, he developed a 15 second period of asystole requiring CPR. Dexmedetomidine was discontinued, and he was started on a midazolam infusion with no further episodes.

DISCUSSION

Both cases occurred in patients without cardiac conduction defects or on negative chronotropic or sympatholytic medications that have been associated with dexmedetomidine-induced asystole. We hypothesize that both episodes of asystole were due to increased patient-related vagal tone exacerbated by dexmedetomidine.

Evaluation of the safety of using propofol for paediatric procedural sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Propofol is one of the most widely used drugs for paediatric procedural sedation owing to its known advantages, but some concerns remain regarding respiratory and/or cardiac complications in patients receiving propofol. Although a considerable number of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been conducted to compare it with other sedative agents or opioids for children undergoing various procedures, propofol is still being used off-label for this indication in many countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of those RCTs to provide an overall summation of evidence that can potentially be considered for further regulatory decisions, including reimbursement policies. We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to January 31, 2018. Our meta-analysis of 30 RCTs confirmed that propofol sedation had advantages in recovery time when compared with other drugs, without excessive concerns for cardiovascular or respiratory adverse events. Its safety profile regarding coughing, nausea or vomiting, and emergence delirium was also similar to that of other drugs. The overall evidence suggests that propofol sedation for paediatric procedures should be considered more positively in the context of regulatory decisions.

Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine as a Sole Sedative Agent in Small Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: A Systematic Review

Dexmedetomidine is an upcoming agent with sedative, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties. This review summarizes empirical evidence for the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative agent, and its effectiveness for small diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, in comparison with other frequently used sedatives. All randomized controlled trials on the effect of dexmedetomidine were reviewed. Pain level, patient satisfaction, operator satisfaction, procedure duration, recovery time, and hemodynamic and respiratory characteristics were examined. A total of 1993 patients (1,621 adults; 372 children) from 35 studies were included. In the adult studies, dexmedetomidine yielded significantly lower pain levels compared to the other sedatives (in 31.25% of the included studies) and significantly more patient satisfaction (68.2%). In studies on children, more favorable results concerning respiratory safety and the level of adequate sedation were found compared to the control sedatives. Implications for future studies are discussed.