Dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation with colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

Up-to-date literature review and issues of sedation during digestive endoscopy

Sedation is common during digestive endoscopy to provide comfort and pain relief for patients. However, the use of sedation in endoscopy also poses potential risks, and recent issues have been raised regarding its safety and administration. This literature review paper will discuss the most recent developments in the field of sedation in digestive endoscopy, including the adverse events that might be associated with sedation and how to manage it, the legal issues associated with administration, the impact of COVID-19 on sedation practices, and sedation in special situations. It will also touch upon the current guidelines and recommendations for sedation, including the importance of patient selection and monitoring and the need for training and certification for endoscopists administering sedation. The review will also analyse studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of various sedation techniques, including propofol, midazolam, and others. It will examine the benefits and drawbacks of these agents.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Respiratory support with nasal high flow without supplemental oxygen in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under moderate sedation: a prospective, randomized, single-center clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Nasal high flow (NHF) may reduce hypoxia and hypercapnia during an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure under sedation. The authors tested a hypothesis that NHF with room air during ERCP may prevent intraoperative hypercapnia and hypoxemia.

METHODS

In the prospective, open-label, single-center, clinical trial, 75 patients undergoing ERCP performed with moderate sedation were randomized to receive NHF with room air (40 to 60 L/min, n = 37) or low-flow O₂ via a nasal cannula (1 to 2 L/min, n = 38) during the procedure. Transcutaneous CO₂, peripheral arterial O₂ saturation, a dose of administered sedative and analgesics were measured.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was the incidence of marked hypercapnia during an ERCP procedure under sedation observed in 1 patient (2.7%) in the NHF group and in 7 patients (18.4%) in the LFO group; statistical significance was found in the risk difference (-15.7%, 95% CI -29.1 - -2.4, p = 0.021) but not in the risk ratio (0.15, 95% CI 0.02 - 1.13, p = 0.066). In secondary outcome analysis, the mean time-weighted total PtcCO₂ was 47.2 mmHg in the NHF group and 48.2 mmHg in the LFO group, with no significant difference (-0.97, 95% CI -3.35 - 1.41, p = 0.421). The duration of hypercapnia did not differ markedly between the two groups either [median (range) in the NHF group: 7 (0 - 99); median (range) in the LFO group: 14.5 (0 - 206); p = 0.313] and the occurrence of hypoxemia during an ERCP procedure under sedation was observed in 3 patients (8.1%) in the NHF group and 2 patients (5.3%) in the LFO group, with no significant difference (p = 0.674).

CONCLUSIONS

Respiratory support by NHF with room air did not reduce marked hypercapnia during ERCP under sedation relative to LFO. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoxemia between the groups that may indicate an improvement of gas exchanges by NHF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

jRCTs072190021 . The full date of first registration on jRCT: August 26, 2019.

Dexmedetomidine is safe and effective for reducing intraprocedural pain in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Objectives

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is effective for the resection of colorectal intramucosal lesions. This study was performed to examine the safety and effectiveness of using dexmedetomidine (DEX) in the anesthesia regimen of patients with colorectal lesions undergoing ESD.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 287 consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal lesions in our institution from January 2015 to December 2021. Outcomes including the frequency of intraprocedural pain and adverse events were compared between the DEX and no DEX groups. Moreover, univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted for each clinical factor of intraprocedural pain. Intraprocedural pain was defined as patient-reported abdominal pain or body movement during the procedure.

Results

The incidence of intraprocedural pain was significantly lower in the DEX than in the no DEX group (7% vs. 17%, p = 0.02). The incidence of hypotension was also significantly higher in the DEX group (7% vs. 0%, p = 0.01), but no cerebrovascular or cardiac ischemic events occurred. In the univariate analyses, the diameter of the resected specimen, procedure time, no use of DEX, and total midazolam dose was associated with intraprocedural pain. The midazolam dose and DEX administration were significantly negatively correlated and the diameter of resected specimen and procedure time were significantly positively correlated. Multivariate logistic regression showed that no use of DEX was independently associated with intraprocedural pain (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Adding DEX to the anesthesia regimen in patients undergoing colorectal ESD appears to be safe and effective for reducing intraprocedural pain.

Asystole-induced Bradycardia by Dexmedetomidine during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Although dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a widely used analgesic and sedative agent for endoscopic procedures, cardiovascular complications, such as bradycardia and hypotension, are frequently experienced. We herein report the first case of asystole-induced bradycardia due to DEX during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). An 81-year-old man without cardiovascular diseases was referred for gastric carcinoma. ESD was started after administering a loading dose of DEX followed by a continuous maintenance infusion of DEX. The patient's heart rate gradually decreased, and then cardiac arrest occurred. DEX has a risk of cardiac arrest, so bradycardia should not be underestimated during sedation with DEX.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Characteristic Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine on Neurocognitive Dysfunction in Elderly Patients with Colorectal Tumors after Laparoscopic Operation

In order to investigate the effects of Dexmedetomidine (DEX) on postoperative anesthesia recovery time and consciousness function in elderly patients with laparoscopic colorectal tumors, 40 patients (20 in the control group and 20 in the DEX group) were selected. The DEX group was intravenously pumped at a rate of 0.8 μg/kg/h for 10 min and then continuously pumped at a rate of 0.3 μg/kg/h until 40 min before the end of the operation. The two groups were given the same amount of normal saline, with the same way of anesthesia. The results showed that the visual analog scale (VAS) score of pain in the two groups decreased signally. Compared with the control group, the inflammatory factors tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP-2) in the DEX group were remarkably decreased at T1 and T2 stages, with a considerable difference (P < 0.05). One month after the auxiliary diagnosis of colorectal tumor, no clear nodular, irregular shape patches, or patchy diffuse limited points were found, which indicated that the whole tumor had been removed. In summary, DEX could improve postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients who underwent the laparoscopic radical resection of colon cancer, and its mechanism was related to the reduction of inflammatory factors. Therefore, the anesthesia intervention with DEX during the operation had a positive significance for tumor resection.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), is a highly selective alpha2 adrenoceptor (α2-AR) agonist, successfully used in various procedures including flexible bronchoscopy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DEX sedation during bronchoscopy report equivocal results regarding respiratory and hemodynamic outcomes.

Methods

We conducted an RCT to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine compared to propofol for sedation during bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was the number of desaturation events, secondary outcomes were transcutaneous Pco2 level, hemodynamic adverse events and physician and patient satisfaction.

Results

Overall, 63 patients were included, 30 and 33 in the DEX and propofol groups, respectively. The number of desaturation events was similar between groups, median (IQR) 1 (0–1) and 1 (0–2) in the DEX and control groups, respectively (P = 0.29). Median desaturation time was 1 (0–2) and 1 (0–3) minutes in the DEX and control groups, respectively (P = 0.48). Adverse events included hypotension, 33% vs 21.1% in intervention and control groups, respectively (P = 0.04), bradycardia, cough, and delayed recovery from sedation. Total adverse events were 22 and 7 in DEX and propofol groups, respectively (P = 0.009).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine sedation during bronchoscopy did not show differences in oxygen saturation and transcutaneous CO2 level in comparison to propofol. Moreover, DEX sedation required a significantly higher number of rescue boluses, due to inadequate sedation and was associated with a higher rate of adverse events.

Trial registration NCT04211298, registration date: 26.12.2019.

Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

During endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer, patient body movement can sometimes occur, which may cause discontinuation of the procedure. Propofol and dexmedetomidine have recently been found to be useful sedatives for endoscopic submucosal dissection. This study investigated whether sedation using propofol plus dexmedetomidine can suppress the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and compared this combination with sedation using propofol alone.

METHODS

This was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial esophageal cancers who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Yokohama City University Hospital were prospectively enrolled and were randomly assigned to the propofol and the propofol plus dexmedetomidine groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of restlessness. The secondary endpoints were the satisfaction score, maintenance dose of propofol, and number of rescue propofol injections.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (propofol group: n = 33; combination group: n = 33) were included. The combination group had a significantly lower incidence of restlessness than the propofol group (3.0% vs 27.3%, P = 0.02). In the combination group, the satisfaction scores of the endoscopists were significantly higher, the maintenance dose of propofol was significantly lower, and the number of rescue propofol injections was lower than those in the propofol group (3.0% vs 18.2%, P < 0.001). Although the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the combination group (30.3% vs 3.0%, P < 0.01), no serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

The propofol plus dexmedetomidine combination provided excellent sedation that effectively suppressed the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion

PURPOSE

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a sedative agent with minimal respiratory and hemodynamic effects. The present study aimed to evaluate its effectiveness in peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent PD catheter insertion under spinal anesthesia in our hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. Patients were divided into the DEX and non-DEX groups according the use of DEX. After 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, mean blood pressure (BP), and Charlson comorbidity index, we compared operation-related outcomes, including peak numerical rating scale (NRS), occurrence of nausea, vital signs, or operative time between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of a total of 44 patients, 9 patients received DEX, and 35 did not. After propensity score matching, each group consisted of 8 patients. Peak NRS was significantly lower (P = 0.003) in the DEX group compared with the non-DEX group. Maximum mean BP during the operation was also significantly lower in the DEX group compared with the non-DEX group (P = 0.020), with no significant differences in minimum mean BP between the two groups (P = 0.831). The DEX group showed a trend of shortened operative time (P = 0.068). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of nausea (P = 1.000). Moreover, there was no clinically important adverse event associated with use of DEX.

CONCLUSION

The use of DEX in PD catheter insertion under spinal anesthesia could safely improve operative analgesia.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol administration during sedation-guided upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine popular sedative agents that result in minimal respiratory depression and the presence of analgesic activity. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of a dexmedetomidine-propofol combination and a ketamine-propofol combination during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

METHODS

The study commenced after receiving approval from the local ethics committee. Patients between 18 and 60 years in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II groups were included. Patients who had severe organ disease, who had allergies to the study drugs, and who refused to participate were excluded. Cases were randomized into a dexmedetomidine-propofol group (Group D, n = 30) and a ketamine-propofol group (Group K, n = 30). Cardiac monitoring, peripheral oxygen saturation, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring were performed. Group D received 1 mg/kg dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenous (IV) bolus, 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg/h propfol infusion. Group K received 1 mg/kg ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg propofol iv bolus, 0.25 mg/kg/h ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg/h propfol infusion. Patients were followed up with a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of ≥4. Means, standard deviations, lowest and highest frequency values, and ratio values were used for descriptive statistics, and the SPSS 22.0 program was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

In Group K, recovery time and mean blood pressure (MBP) values were significantly shorter. Furthermore, coughing rate, pulse, and BIS values were higher than in Group D (P < .05). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of endoscopic tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction, we observed that the dexmedetomidine group experienced more comfortable levels of sedation.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol combinations may be suitable and safe for endoscopy sedation due to their different properties. It was observed that the dexmedetomidine-propfol combination was superior in terms of sedation depth and that the ketamine-propofol combination was superior in terms of early recovery. As a result, we suggest the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination for upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy sedation due to hemodynamic stability and minimal adverse effects.

Review on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection focusing on the technical aspect

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables removal of broad-based colorectal polyps or lateral spreading tumors with a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower risk of local recurrence. However, it is technically demanding. Over the past 20 years, various equipment and innovative techniques have been developed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The information in the literature is scattered. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review on the setup and technical aspects of colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database and systemically reviewed all original and review articles related to colorectal ESD. Further manual search according to reference lists of identified articles were done. The selected articles were categorized and reviewed. Original figures were created to help readers understand some of the ESD techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 216 articles were identified, in which 25 of them were review articles and 191 of them were original articles. They were categorized and reviewed. An in-depth appraisal of the setting, equipment, and technical aspects of colorectal ESD was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ESD is a technically demanding procedure that requires expert endoscopic skills, it can be mastered. With good peri-procedural preparation, sufficient knowledge of the equipment, and thorough understanding of the useful endoscopic tricks and maneuvers, colorectal ESD can be performed smoothly and safely.