Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients

Scoping review finds insufficient evidence on potential risks of procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine in children

AIM

Dexmedetomidine is commonly used in hospitals for sedation during procedurals. It has been considered safe even though studies have shown that it may cause bradycardia and hypotension. The aim of this study was to map the current evidence regarding potential risks of sedation of children with dexmedetomidine.

METHODS

Two database searches were conducted to gather all articles published through 30 January 2024 that matched the inclusion criteria. PubMed and Embase were chosen for the initial search. Search terms were chosen to create a broad systematic search that would include articles reporting adverse events during procedural sedation on children. From the included articles, data on type of sedation, administration, patient characteristics, endpoints and number of adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

After the initial search, 357 individual papers were screened and 41 papers were included. The most common adverse event reported was bradycardia. In almost 40% of the articles that measured oxygen saturation, one or more incidents of desaturation occurred. 27% reported that interventions to prevent further harm were preformed, most of the interventions were to improve oxygenation.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for further investigation regarding adverse events, especially respiratory adverse events during sedation with dexmedetomidine.

A Randomized Study to Compare the Efficacy Between Intranasal and Intravenous Dexmedetomidine for the Removal of Foreign Bodies in the Esophagus at the Cricopharynx Level in Pediatric Patients

BACKGROUND

Foreign body (coins, magnets, button batteries, and metallic foreign bodies) ingestion is common and causes significant morbidity and mortality in children aged six months to three years. Endoscopic removal of swallowed foreign substances is widely accepted, but sedation and general anesthesia may be required to alleviate pain and anxiety during the procedure. Dexmedetomidine is used as a sedative, hypnotic, anxiolytic, and analgesic. In this study, we aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy between the intranasal (IN) and intravenous (IV) routes for the administration of dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to propofol for the removal of foreign bodies in the esophagus at the cricopharynx level in pediatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This prospective, double-blinded, randomized study was conducted on 80 patients of either sex and American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status (ASA PS) I and II aged one month to 12 years with a foreign body in the esophagus at the cricopharynx level undergoing endoscopic foreign body removal. Patients were randomly allocated into groups A and B, with 40 patients each. In the preoperative area group A, IN, 3 mcg/kg, was dripped equally in both nostrils (supine position). In Group B, IV, 3 mcg/kg, diluted in normal saline, was administered intravenously slowly over 10 minutes. The onset of sedation was assessed using the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) every 10 minutes following dexmedetomidine administration, and when an RSS score of 3 or above was achieved, the patient was transferred to the operation theater. In the operation room, patients were induced with injection propofol in a dose of 2 mg/kg or until the loss of verbal response. Parent separation scale scoring was used to evaluate the child's behavior on separation from parents as a tool to assess the anxiolytic property of dexmedetomidine. Perioperative pain using the Wong-Baker Faces pain rating scale, heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), ECG, and blood pressure (BP) were monitored before drug delivery till the end of the procedure. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

RESULTS

The mean time (minutes) in shifting to operation theater (33.8 ± 5) was significantly higher in group A compared to group B (10.7 ± 2.1) (p = 0.001). The mean Ramsay Sedation Score was higher at 10 and 20 minutes in group B as compared to group A. Group B had significantly lower pain (2.2 ± 1.4) (p ≤ 0.001) at 10 minutes, while in group A, the pain score decreased slowly and took more time but remains lower (1.35 ± 0.94) for longer duration (120 minutes) in the postoperative period in comparison to Group B (1.94 ± 0.35) (p = 0.002). Group B had a sharp hemodynamic decrease, while group A had slow, persistent changes.

CONCLUSION

IN administration of dexmedetomidine is a safer and more effective mode of sedation to remove a foreign body from the esophagus at the cricopharyngeal level in pediatric patients. It provides stable and sustained hemodynamic parameters and longer postoperative pain relief compared to IV dexmedetomidine.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[Propofol-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Day-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

METHODS

We enrolled 120 patients (2-7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg^-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg^-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg^-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes respectively, p <0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and six patients experienced SpO₂ <92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p=0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

Effects of Propofol, Dexmedetomidine, or Ketofol on Respiratory and Hemodynamic Profiles in Cardiac Patients Undergoing Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Prospective Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to evaluate sedation characteristics, as well as cardiorespiratory effects, of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and ketofol used for conscious sedation during transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

DESIGN

Prospective double-blind randomized study.

SETTINGS

Tanta University hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-five participants with left-to-right shunt requiring diagnostic TEE interventions. Patients were randomized into three groups-P, Dex, and K-to receive propofol, dexmedetomidine, or ketofol, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Time to reach targeted sedation level, duration of the procedure, recovery time, hemodynamic parameters, incidence of oxygen desaturation <90%, as well as the cardiologist's satisfaction were recorded. The time onset and offset of sedation, duration of TEE procedure, and the need for rescue propofol were significantly less in the P and K groups compared with group Dex (p value 0.000*, 0.003*, 0.000*, and 0.000* and effect size 0.39, 0.15, 0.21, and 0.34, respectively). Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output significantly decreased in groups P and Dex compared with either baseline or group K. Hypoxic events were more manifest in group P; whereas group K had better cardiologist's satisfaction than the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the TEE settings, the three agents were capable of attaining the targeted sedation levels , with propofol and ketofol having a faster onset and recovery times compared with dexmedetomidine. Even though dexmedetomidine and ketofol provided a more stable respiratory profile than propofol, ketofol was favorable in providing fewer hemodynamic alterations with better satisfaction scores than both propofol and dexmedetomidine.

Propofol-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial

Background and objectives

Day-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

Methods

We enrolled 120 patients (2−7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg^-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg^-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg^-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

Results

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and 6 patients experienced SpO₂ < 92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p =  0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

Conclusions

The P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.

Registration number

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Emergence Agitation or Delirium in Children After Anesthesia-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies

Background: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the clinical effect of dexmedetomidine in preventing pediatric emergence agitation (EA) or delirium (ED) following anesthesia compared with placebo or other sedatives. Methods: The databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until 8th January 2020. Inclusion criteria were participants with age<18 years and studies of comparison between dexmedetomidine and placebo or other sedatives. Exclusion criteria included adult studies; duplicate publications; management with dexmedetomidine alone; review or meta-analysis; basic research; article published as abstract, letter, case report, editorial, note, method, or protocol; and article presented in non-English language. Results: Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case-control trials (CCTs) including 7,714 patients were included. The results showed that dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the incidence of post-anesthesia EA or ED compared with placebo [OR = 0.22, 95% CI: (0.16, 0.32), I 2 = 75, P < 0.00001], midazolam [OR = 0.36, 95% CI: (0.21, 0.63), I 2 = 57, P = 0.0003], and opioids [OR = 0.55, 95% CI: (0.33, 0.91), I 2 = 0, P = 0.02], whereas the significant difference was not exhibited compared with propofol (or pentobarbital) [OR = 0.56, 95% CI: (0.15, 2.14), I 2 = 58, P = 0.39], ketamine [OR = 0.43, 95% CI: (0.19, 1.00), I 2 = 0, P = 0.05], clonidine [OR = 0.54, 95% CI: (0.20, 1.45), P = 0.22], chloral hydrate [OR = 0.98, 95% CI: (0.26, 3.78), P = 0.98], melatonin [OR = 1.0, 95% CI: (0.13, 7.72), P = 1.00], and ketofol [OR = 0.55, 95% CI: (0.16, 1.93), P = 0.35]. Conclusion: Compared with placebo, midazolam, and opioids, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the incidence of post-anesthesia EA or ED in pediatric patients. However, dexmedetomidine did not exhibit this superiority compared with propofol and ketamine. With regard to clonidine, chloral hydrate, melatonin, and ketofol, the results needed to be further tested due to the fact that only one trial was included for each control drug.

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol as sedation for implantation of neurostimulators: A single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

During the lead implantation of most spinal cord neurostimulators, the patient has to be comfortable and without pain. However, the patient is expected to provide feedback during electrical mapping. Titrating sedatives and analgesics for this double goal can be challenging. In comparison with our standard sedative agent propofol, the pharmacological profile of dexmedetomidine is more conducive to produce arousable sedation. The latter, however, is associated with hemodynamic side effects. We investigated whether dexmedetomidine is preferable over propofol during neurostimulator implantation.

METHODS

This single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial included 72 patients with an indication for a neurostimulator, randomized to sedation with either propofol (0.5 mg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 2.0 mg/kg/h) or dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the sedation. The secondary outcomes were patient's and operator's comfort, number of titration adjustments, standard intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and side effects.

RESULTS

Data of 69 patients (dexmedetomidine n = 35; propofol n = 34) were analyzed. Those receiving dexmedetomidine were more satisfied with the sedation than those receiving propofol; i.e. with sedation delivery (median 100.0 vs 83.3, P < .01), procedural recall (median 95.8 vs 83.3, P = .03), and sedation side effects (median 90.0 vs 83.3, P = .01). Fewer changes in the dexmedetomidine titration were necessary to maintain arousable sedation. Over time, mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group. Hemodynamic side effects were comparable across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine sedation resulted in higher patient satisfaction and allowed for better arousable sedation than sedation with propofol. Although differences in hemodynamic parameters were found between the groups, these differences were not regarded as clinically relevant.

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.

Safety of Propofol versus Nonpropofol-Based Sedation in Children Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of children who undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy require anesthesia or procedural sedation for comfort, cooperation, and procedure efficiency. The safety profile of propofol is not well established in children but has been studied in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety of propofol-only sedation for GI endoscopy procedures to other anesthetic regimes in the pediatric population.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohorts were included in the study.

RESULTS

No significant difference was noted in total complications between the two cohorts with a pooled OR of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.57-3.04, chi2 = 0.053, I2 = 54.31%). The pooled rate of complications in the studies was 23.4% for those receiving propofol only and 18.2% for those receiving other anesthetic regimens. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing a study with a very different control comparison compared to the rest of the studies included. Once excluded, there was minimal heterogeneity in the remaining studies and a significant difference in overall complications was detected, with more complications seen in the propofol-only group compared to the other anesthetic groups (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09-3.20).

CONCLUSION

Significantly higher incidence of cardiorespiratory complications was noted in the propofol-only versus other anesthetic regimens in pediatric patients undergoing GI endoscopy in this meta-analysis. However, the overall quality of the evidence is very low.

HOW TO APPLY THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR ROUTINE CLINICAL PRACTICE

Clinicians providing sedation to a pediatric population for GI endoscopy should consider there may be increased risks when using a propofol-only regimen, but further study is needed.

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient's satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD).

RESULTS

Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient's satisfaction level (WMD: -0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.149 to -0.207, p = 0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.305, p = 0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were -0.029 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.05), -0.080 (95% CI: -0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: -0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: -10.41, 95% CI: -13.77 to -7.051, p ≤ 0.0001), without significant heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar.

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.