A Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine and Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine Combination Sedation for Transthoracic Echocardiography in Pediatric Patients With Congenital Heart Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Intranasal dexmedetomidine for transthoracic echocardiography in infants with shunt-dependent single ventricle heart disease

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the efficacy and complication profile of intranasal dexmedetomidine for transthoracic echocardiography sedation in patients with single ventricle physiology and shunt-dependent pulmonary blood flow during the high-risk interstage period.

METHODS

A single-centre, retrospective review identified interstage infants who received dexmedetomidine for echocardiography sedation. Baseline and procedural vitals were reported. Significant adverse events related to sedation were defined as an escalation in care or need for any additional/increased inotropic support to maintain pre-procedural haemodynamics. Minor adverse events were defined as changes from baseline haemodynamics that resolved without intervention. To assess whether sedation was adequate, echocardiogram reports were reviewed for completeness.

RESULTS

From September to December 2020, five interstage patients (age 29-69 days) were sedated with 3 mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine. The median sedation onset time and duration time was 24 minutes (range 12-43 minutes) and 60 minutes (range 33-60 minutes), respectively. Sedation was deemed adequate in all patients as complete echocardiograms were accomplished without a rescue dose. When compared to baseline, three (60%) patients had a >10% reduction in heart rate, one (20%) patient had a >10% reduction in oxygen saturations, and one (20%) patient had a >30% decrease in blood pressure. Amongst all patients, no significant complications occurred and haemodynamic changes from baseline did not result in need for intervention or interruption of study.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal dexmedetomidine may be a reasonable option for echocardiography sedation in infants with shunt-dependent single ventricle heart disease, and further investigation is warranted to ensure efficacy and safety in an outpatient setting.

What Is the Role of Dexmedetomidine in Modern Anesthesia and Critical Care?

Dexmedetomidine's unique sedative properties have led to its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine has a beneficial pharmacologic profile including analgesic sparing effects, anxiolysis, sympatholysis, organ-protective effects against ischemic and hypoxic injury, and sedation which parallels natural sleep. An understanding of predictable side effects, effects of age-related physiologic changes, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine is crucial to maximize its safe administration in adults and children. This review focuses on the growing body of literature examining advances in applications of dexmedetomidine in children and adults.

Comparison of nebulized dexmedetomidine and ketamine for premedication in pediatric patients undergoing hernia repair surgery: a randomized comparative trial

Background

Allaying anxiety and providing calm children in the operating room is a challenging task for anesthesiologists. This study was designed to compare the use of nebulized dexmedetomidine and ketamine for premedication in pediatric patients under general anesthesia.

Methods

Seventy patients, aged 2 to 8 years of both sexes, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II scheduled for hernia repair surgery under general anesthesia, were randomized to two equal groups using a computer-generated random number table. Patients in group D received dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg), and patients in group K received ketamine (2 mg/kg) by a jet nebulizer before the induction of anesthesia. The study's primary objective was comparing the level of sedation, which was achieved at 30 min after a study drug administration using the Ramsay sedation scale, between the two groups. The secondary objectives were the two-group comparison of parental separation anxiety scale, acceptance of the mask, hemodynamic variables, recovery time, incidence of emergence agitation, and adverse events.

Results

The median Ramsay sedation scale at 30 min was 3 (1–4) in group D and 3 (1–3) in group K (P = 0.002). Patients in group D had a more acceptable parental separation anxiety scale (P = 0.001) and a satisfactory mask acceptance scale (P = 0.042).

Conclusions

Nebulized dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) provided better sedation along with smooth parental separation and satisfactory mask acceptance during induction of anesthesia with a similar emergence agitation profile and adverse reactions compared to nebulized ketamine in pediatric patients.

A Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine, Esketamine or a Dexmedetomidine-Esketamine Combination for Induction of Anaesthesia in Children: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Trial

Objective: To compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, esketamine or combined intranasal administration on the induction of inhalation anaesthesia in children.

Methods: Ninety children aged 1–6 years were randomly allocated into three equal groups to be premedicated with either intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg (Group D), esketamine 1 mg/kg (Group S), or dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg combined with esketamine 0.5 mg/kg (Group DS). The primary endpoint was the Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC) Scale. Secondary outcomes included the sedation success rate; the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale score; the time of reaching up to two points on the University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS); Parental Separation Anxiety Scale; anaesthesiologist satisfaction with induction based on the visual analogue scale; emergence agitation scale score; and adverse effects.

Results: The children in the DS group showed a high degree of cooperation with inhalation anaesthesia induction, and their ICC score was significantly lower than that of the D and S groups (p = 0.001), but there was no difference between the D and S groups. The success rate of sedation was higher in Group DS (90%) than in Group D (70%) and Group S (53.3%) (p = 0.007). Anaesthesiologist satisfaction with induction was significantly higher in Group DS than in Groups D and S (p = 0.001). The incidence of emergence agitation and the Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) score in the DS group were lower than those in the D and S groups.

Conclusions: Preoperative intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine combined with esketamine can significantly improve the cooperation of children with inhalation anaesthesia masks. It is a sedation method that has a high success rate and reduces the incidence and degree of emergence agitation.

Using intranasal dexmedetomidine with buccal midazolam for magnetic resonance imaging sedation in children: A single-arm prospective interventional study

OBJECTIVE

Although numerous intravenous sedative regimens have been documented, the ideal non-parenteral sedation regimen for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been determined. This prospective, interventional study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of buccal midazolam in combination with intranasal dexmedetomidine in children undergoing MRI.

METHODS

Children between 1 month and 10 years old requiring sedation for MRI examination were recruited to receive buccal midazolam 0.2 mg⋅kg^-1 with intranasal dexmedetomidine 3 μg⋅kg^-1. The primary outcome was successful sedation following the administration of the initial sedation regimens and the completion of the MRI examination.

RESULTS

Sedation with dexmedetomidine-midazolam was administered to 530 children. The successful sedation rate was 95.3% (95% confidence interval: 93.5-97.1%) with the initial sedation regimens and 97.7% (95% confidence interval: 96.5-99%) with a rescue dose of 2 μg⋅kg^-1 intranasal dexmedetomidine. The median sedation onset time was 10 min, and a significant rising trend was observed in the onset time concerning age (R = 0.2491, P < 0.001). The wake-up and discharge times significantly correlated with the duration of the procedure (R = 0.323, P < 0.001 vs. R = 0.325, P < 0.001). No oxygen deficiency nor medication intervention due to cardiovascular instability was observed in any of the patients. History of a prior failed sedation was considered a statistically significant risk factor for failed sedation in the multivariate logistic regression model [odds ratio = 4.71 (95% confidence interval: 1.24-17.9), P = 0.023].

CONCLUSION

In MRI examinations, the addition of buccal midazolam to intranasal dexmedetomidine is associated with a high success rate and a good safety profile. This non-parenteral sedation regimen can be a feasible and convenient option for short-duration MRI in children between 1 month and 10 years.

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.

The Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine for Procedural Sedation and Postoperative Behaviors in Pediatric Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation and postoperative behaviors in a pediatric population as well as whether the results met the information required to draw conclusions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy evaluation of dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation and postoperative behaviors in a pediatric population.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science and Ovid MEDLINE were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with control medicine and comparing different doses of dexmedetomidine.

RESULTS

There were a total of 16 RCTs for a total of 3240 patients. Dexmedetomidine slowed down the heart rate (HR; mean difference: -13.27; 95% CI: -16.41 to 10.14; P < 0.001) and reduced postoperative delirium (risk ratio [RR]: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.20-0.50; P < 0.001), the number of pain patients (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30-0.75; P = 0.002), and desaturation (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.13-0.89; P = 0.03) compared with the control group. The limitation was that it was difficult to determine the range of low- and high-dose dexmedetomidine.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Dexmedetomidine slowed down intraoperative HR within the normal range, which might reduce myocardial oxygen consumption. It reduced postoperative pain and postoperative complications: delirium and desaturation. Dexmedetomidine showed no dose-dependent increase in the procedural sedation time of pediatric patients. Clinically, dexmedetomidine can improve pediatric procedural sedation and postoperative behavior, and it can be considered as a related medicine for safety in pediatric surgery.