Comparison of the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and a mixture of both for pediatric MRI sedation

Effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine and ketamine combination in paediatric dental sedation: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pain and anxiety can be considerable obstacles while treating paediatric dental patients. Moderate sedation is needed to treat uncooperative patients.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine.

DESIGN

Fifty-six uncooperative children were randomly assigned into two groups: Group I received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg) (DEX-KET), whereas Group II received buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg) (DEX). The effects of drugs were evaluated based on changes in vital signs, onset and duration of sedation, sedation level, analgesia, ease of treatment and procedural adverse effects.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in vital signs or sedation onset between the two groups. DEX-KET group showed shorter recovery time than DEX group (p < .0001). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding sedation level at optimum sedation and during operative procedure (p = .064, p = .069 respectively). The ease of treatment was significantly better in DEX-KET group than in DEX group (p = .048). Procedural side effects and analgesic effects of the sedative drugs were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine delivered buccally provided a better method of delivering care to uncooperative children with more rapid recovery than dexmedetomidine.

The effect of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine on behavior of uncooperative pediatric dental patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Uncooperative behavior in pediatric dentistry is one of the most common manifestations of dental anxiety. Managing anxious patients can be attained by moderate sedation. This study aimed to compare the effect of sedation by dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination (DEX-KET) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) on behavior of uncooperative pediatric dental patients.

METHODOLOGY

In total, 56 uncooperative healthy children (3-5 years old) requiring dental treatment were divided randomly into two groups: Group I (study group), which received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg), and Group II (control group), which received only buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg). Drugs effects were assessed in terms of hemodynamic parameters, patient's drug acceptance, child behavior, postoperative effect of sedation, amnesic effect, incidence of adverse events, as well as procedural induced stress measured by salivary secretory immunoglobulin A (s-IgA).

RESULTS

Hemodynamic results did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two study groups (P>0.05). There was a significant difference in patient's acceptance to sedative drug between both groups, favoring DEX (p=0.005). Children who received DEX-KET showed significantly better behavior than those who received DEX for local anesthesia (p=0.017) and during operative procedure (p=0.037). Adverse events, post-operative and amnesic effects of drugs were comparable in both groups (p>0.05). Moreover, the mean difference in the salivary s-IgA levels between initial and final value was not statistically significant between both groups (p=0.556).

CONCLUSION

Both DEX-KET combination and DEX alone are effective in providing hemodynamic stability. DEX-KET combination significantly improved the behavior of sedated children compared to DEX alone but the drug acceptance was decreased in the DEX-KET group. Both regimens did not have a negative effect on postoperative behavior of children and had comparable amnesic effect with no significant adverse events. Salivary s-IgA is not considered a potential stress biomarker in sedated children.

Efficacy and safety of ketamine alone and ketamine-dexmedetomidine combination for sedation for brain computed tomography in paediatric patients with head injuries: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of ketamine alone with those of ketamine-dexmedetomidine combination for sedation during brain CT in paediatric patients with head injuries.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the data of paediatric patients who underwent sedation for brain CT at the ED. We included patients aged 6 months to 6 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II. The sedative protocol involved the administration of intramuscular (IM) ketamine 3 mg/kg (K), ketamine 2 mg/kg with dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg (KD) or ketamine 1.5 mg/kg with dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg (low-KD). The primary and secondary outcomes were sedation failure and adverse events, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 77 patients; among them, 28, 23 and 26 were in the K, KD and low-KD groups, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the combination groups (KD and low-KD groups) were significantly associated with a lower possibility of sedation failure compared to the K group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.56). Moreover, there were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups, and the sedation-related time variables also did not significantly differ among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicated that a combination of IM ketamine-dexmedetomidine provides effective sedation for paediatric patients undergoing brain CT without significant adverse events. Further research is needed to investigate the potential benefits of using lower doses of ketamine in combination.

The Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Children Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a valuable diagnostic tool but often requires sedation to complete, especially in children. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an a2 agonist, for which there are experimental findings that support its potential neuroprotective effects. Given the potential risks of anesthetic drugs, we ran this study to examine DEX's effectiveness and cardiopulmonary safety as a sedative drug for children undergoing MRI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic research was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 6th/2022 and involving children undergoing MRI who received DEX as sedative medication. The records which met the including criteria, after indexing via the PRISMA chart and assessing for bias, were processed, and a meta-analysis was carried out with the random effects method.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. Out of 6204 measurements obtained, in 4626, it was planned for the participants to only receive DEX (measure group) as an anesthetic drug throughout the procedure. The participants' mean age was 57 months (Ι² = 4%, τ² = 0.5317, p = 0.40). A total of 5.6% (95% CI: 0.6-14.1%, I² = 98%, p < 0.01) of the patients needed a second dose of DEX. In total, 6% (95% CI: 1-15%, I² = 93%, τ² = 0.0454, p < 0.01) required the administration of another drug, besides DEX, to complete the imaging (sedation failure). The effectiveness of the only-DEX method was 99% (95% CI: 97.5-100%, I² = 81%, τ² = 0.0107, p < 0.01). The whole rate of adverse events was 15% (95% CI: 9.3-21.5%, I² = 92%, p < 0.01). Hypotension was reported in 8.7% of the cases (95% CI: 3.1-16.4%, I² = 84%, p < 0.01), hypertension in 1.1% (95% CI: 0-5.4%, I² = 89%, p < 0.01), bradycardia in 10% (95% CI: 4-18%, I² = 95%, p < 0.01) and desaturation in 1.2% (95% CI: 0-4%, I² = 68%, p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant incidence in respiratory rate decrease (comparing the children who received DEX to their baseline). Five cases of vomiting and one of apnea were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that DEX seems to be an effective as well as respiratory and hemodynamically safe drug, it may be a future spotlight in (pediatric) sedation for imaging procedures such as MRI.

Two-center randomized controlled trial comparing oral chloral hydrate and intranasal combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for procedural sedation in children: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Oral chloral hydrate is widely used in pediatric sedation. Intranasal dexmedetomidine has been increasingly used for pediatric sedation; however, its improvement is warranted. The combination of dexmedetomidine with ketamine can improve onset and hemodynamic stability while maintaining sedative efficacy. This study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of intranasal combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine compared to oral chloral hydrate.

METHODS

This is a prospective, parallel-arm, single-blinded, two-center, superiority randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation, designed to compare the effects of intranasal combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine with those of oral chloral hydrate. We shall enroll 136 patients aged < 7 years old in this study. Prior to the procedure, we shall randomize each patient into the control group (oral chloral hydrate 50 mg/kg) or study group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg and ketamine 3 mg/kg). The primary outcome will be the rate of achieving an adequate sedation level (6-point Pediatric Sedation State Scale 1, 2, or 3) within 15 min. In addition, we shall measure the sedation time, sedation failure rate, completion of procedure, adverse events, patient acceptance, and physician satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of the intranasal combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine in comparison with oral chloral hydrate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04820205. Registered on 19th March 2021.

Dexmedetomidine in combination with ketamine for pediatric procedural sedation or premedication: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness of combinational use of dexmedetomidine and ketamine (DEX-KET) for pediatric procedural sedation or premedication.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified after a literature search in electronic databases and study selection was based on precise eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of mean differences were performed to examine differences in sedation onset and recovery times between DEX-KET and comparators. Changes from baseline in heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and mean arterial pressure (MAP), were pooled. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed to estimate incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

15 studies (1087 patients) were included. Onset of sedation was significantly shorter in DEX-KET than in DEX group. HR declined in DEX-KET group from start (-3.5 beats per minute (BPM) [95% CI: -5.1, -1.9]) through midpoint (-7.2 BPM [95% CI: -12.1, -2.3]) and at end of sedation (-8.7 BPM [95% CI: -13.1, -4.4]). Decrease in HR after DEX administration at start was -11.6 BPM [95% CI: -16.0, -7.1] and remained consistent afterward. There was no change in MAP during DEX-KET sedation. However, after DEX administration, MAP decreased by -6.9 [95% CI: -10.4, -3.3] at start, -7.8 [95% CI: -11.4, -4.2] at middle, and by -6.6 [95% CI: -14.4, 1.1] at end of sedation. Incidence of hypotension was 3% [95% CI: 0, 9] in DEX-KET, 7% [95% CI: 2, 14] in DEX, and 0% [95% CI: 0, 2] in KET groups. Incidence of bradycardia was 2% [95% CI: 0, 6] with DEX-KET and 12% [95% CI: 5, 20] with DEX. Incidence of oxygen desaturation was 3% [95% CI: 0, 8] in DEX-KET, 2% [95% CI: 0, 6] in DEX, 12% [95% CI: 5, 20] in KET, and 13% [95% CI: 6, 21] in PROP-KET groups. MIDA-KET sedation had 13% [95% CI: 4, 25] incidence of tachycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX-KET for pediatric sedation results in better sedation outcomes than DEX or KET by shortening onset of sedation and recovery while maintaining hemodynamic and respiratory stability with low incidence of adverse events. DEX sedation was associated with higher incidence of bradycardia. Higher incidence of oxygen desaturation was observed with KET and PROP-KET whereas MIDA-KET was associated with higher incidence of tachycardia.

Effects of dexmedetomidine sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Pediatric sedation is commonly required to obtain high-quality images in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine sedation for MRI in children.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to find all randomized controlled trials concerning dexmedetomidine sedation for MRI in children. We searched databases using the Ovid platform in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. This study was registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42020198368.

RESULTS

Seven studies and 753 participants were included. Dexmedetomidine sedation showed a significantly delayed onset time [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 8.13 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.64 to 11.63, I² = 98%] and recovery time (WMD = 5.22 min, 95% CI 0.35 to 10.09, I² = 92%) compared to propofol, ketamine, and midazolam sedation. There was no difference in quality of sedation [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.69, I² = 89%], or incidence of sedation failure (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.66, I² = 83%) between groups. Although a significantly decreased heart rate (WMD = - 17.34 beats/minute, 95% CI - 22.42 to - 12.26, I² = 96%) was observed, bradycardia that required treatment was not increased (RR = 8.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 62.64, I² = 0%). Dexmedetomidine sedation had a lower incidence of desaturation events (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86, I² = 4%). However, there was no difference in incidence of postoperative vomiting (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.17, I² = 17%) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine sedation provided a similar sedation quality with a reduced incidence of desaturation events. However, the delayed onset and recovery times were drawbacks. The clinical significance of bradycardia is considered to be low. GRADE assessment revealed the quality of the evidence in this meta-analysis ranged from very low to moderate.

Retrospective Comparison of Intramuscular Admixtures of Ketamine and Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine and Midazolam for Preoperative Sedation

Precooperative children and patients with intellectual disabilities often require intramuscular (IM) sedation prior to the induction of general anesthesia (GA). Ketamine is an effective preinduction sedative but can produce significant adverse side effects. Dexmedetomidine, a sedative with sympatholytic and analgesic properties, may provide advantages when used in combination with ketamine. This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of IM ketamine with dexmedetomidine for preoperative sedation. We conducted a chart review of all patients (n = 105) treated for dental rehabilitation who received either IM ketamine and dexmedetomidine (study group, n = 74) or IM ketamine and midazolam (control group, n = 31) prior to induction of GA. No significant difference (p = .14) was observed in the time interval from IM administration to operating room entry (median [interquartile range]) between the study and control groups (5 [4-8] vs 5 [2-7] minutes). Patients who received IM dexmedetomidine exhibited significantly lower mean arterial pressures throughout the induction (p = .004) and had lower heart rates (p = .01) throughout the intraoperative period compared with patients who did not receive dexmedetomidine. The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine may provide effective and safe IM sedation prior to the induction of GA.

Comparison of the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in reducing recovery agitation in pediatric patients after ketamine procedural sedation in emergency department

Background:

Ketamine has been a safe and effective sedative agent commonly used for painful pediatric procedures in the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine (Dex) and propofol when used as co-administration with ketamine on recovery agitation in children who underwent procedural sedation.

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial, 93 children aged between 3 and 17 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I and II undergoing short procedures in the ED were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketadex (Dex 0.7 μg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg), ketofol (propofol 0.5 mg/kg and ketamine 0.5 mg/kg), or ketamine alone (ketamine1 mg/kg) intravenously. Incidence and severity of recovery agitation were evaluated using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and compared between the groups.

Results:

There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups with respect to age, gender, and weight (P > 0.05). The incidence of recovery agitation was 3.2% in the ketadex group, 22.6% in the ketofol group, and 22.6% in the ketamine group (P = 0.002, children undergoing short procedures were recruited). There was a less unpleasant recovery reaction (hallucination, crying, and nightmares) in the ketadex group compared with the ketofol and ketamine groups (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of oxygen desaturation between the groups (P = 0.30).

Conclusion:

The co-administering of Dex to ketamine could significantly reduce the incidence and severity of recovery agitation in children sedated in the ED.

Observation of the Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine Combined With Midazolam Nasal Drops Before a Pediatric Craniocerebral MRI

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the sedative effect of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam nasal drops before a pediatric craniocerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

Eighty children who needed an MRI examination were enrolled in the present study and randomly divided into 2 groups: the observation group (dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam nasal drops) and the control group. After the children were given the medication, their heart rate, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and respiratory rate were continuously monitored and the adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting, cough, restlessness, heart rate slowdown, and respiratory depression were observed.

RESULTS

The difference in the onset time between the 2 groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05), but the duration was significantly longer in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.01) and the examination success rate were significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The protocol of 3 μg/kg of a dexmedetomidine injection combined with 0.3 mg/kg of midazolam nasal drops is safe, easy to operate, and has a high success rate, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

A non-randomized controlled study of total intravenous anesthesia regimens for magnetic resonance imaging studies in children

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We studied the efficacy and safety of different total intravenous anesthesia used for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Children of 1-7 years age (n = 88), undergoing MRI received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg over 10 min, ketamine 1 mg/kg, and propofol 1 mg/kg in sequence. University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS) of 3 was considered an acceptable level for starting the scan. Rescue ketamine 0.25-0.5 mg/kg was given if UMSS remained <3. After the loading dose of drugs, some children attained UMSS = 4 or progressive decline in heart rate, therefore, did not receive any infusion. The rest received either dexmedetomidine (0.7 μg/kg/h) (n = 35) or propofol (3 mg/kg/h) (n = 38) infusion for maintenance. Ketamine 0.25 mg/kg was used as rescue. Sedation failure was considered if either there was inability to complete the scan at the pre-set infusion rate, or there was need for >3 ketamine boluses or serious adverse events occurred. Statistical Package for Social Sciences 20 was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Initiation of scan was 100% successful with median induction time of 10 min. Maintenance of sedation was successful in 100% with dexmedetomidine and 97.4% with propofol infusion. Recovery time (25 min v/s 30 min), discharge time (35 min v/s 60 min), and total care duration (80 min v/s 105 min) were significantly less with propofol as compared to dexmedetomidine (P = 0.002, 0.000, and 0.000, respectively). There were no significant adverse events observed.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine 1μg/kg, ketamine 1 mg/kg, and propofol 1 mg/kg provide good conditions for initiation of MRI. Although dexmedetomidine at 0.7μg/kg/h and propofol at 3 mg/kg/h are safe and effective for maintenance, propofol provides faster recovery.

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.