Effects of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for premedication in paediatric anaesthesia with sevoflurane: A meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine Compared to Other Needle-Free Pharmacological Sedation Methods in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Imaging Procedures

BACKGROUND

Pediatric patients often require sedation during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) to ensure stillness and minimize stress. This meta-analysis compared the effectiveness and safety of 3 sedative agents-dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and chloral hydrate-for pediatric MRI/CT sedation.

METHODS

Six studies with a total of 633 patients were included in the analysis. Quality assessment revealed varying levels of bias risk. Dexmedetomidine exhibited a significantly higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (risk ratio [RR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.29-0.64]), but no statistically significant difference compared to chloral hydrate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.60-1.45]). Chloral hydrate also showed a higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.25-0.83]). The onset of sedation time did not significantly differ between the 3 agents.

RESULTS

The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly higher incidence of bradycardia compared to the chloral hydrate group (RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.05-0.59]), but no significant difference compared to the midazolam group (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.06-1.26]). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of nausea and vomiting between the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine demonstrates effectiveness in pediatric MRI/CT sedation, offering advantages over midazolam and similar efficacy to chloral hydrate. Careful cardiovascular monitoring is essential during administration, particularly in patients with congenital heart disease. Sublingual and intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine is a viable option with high bioavailability. This meta-analysis contributes valuable insights into refining sedation protocols for pediatric imaging procedures, emphasizing efficacy and safety considerations.

Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews on Pediatric Sedation in Dentistry: An Umbrella Review

Sedation is a depression of a patient's state of consciousness, induced by medications, that can reach different levels of intensity during a medical procedure. Conscious sedation produces a minimally depressed level of consciousness without impairment of the ability to maintain an open airway, of protective reflexes or of responses to verbal and physical stimulation. This umbrella review is aimed at critically assessing the available systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) on sedation in children/adolescents. An electronic database search was conducted that included Pubmed-Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, Scielo, Embase, LILACS and TRIP and the scope of which extended until January 2023. The risk of bias (RoB) of SRs was analyzed using the Measurement Tool to Assess SRs criteria 2 (AMSTAR2). Of 998 entries, 37 SRs were included. In terms of methodological quality, eight studies were assessed as having critically low quality, four studies had low quality, nine studies had moderate quality, and sixteen were considered to be of high quality. Based on the current guidelines, the most employed drugs in pediatric dentistry for sedation are nitrous oxide and midazolam; however, the available evidence supporting their use is insufficient and of low/critically low quality. The combined technique is recommended (nitrous oxide (30-50%) + midazolam). The optimal dose of oral midazolam is 0.75 mg/kg. The level of methodological quality of SRs is expected to increase according to the results and future directions of this umbrella review.

Combined sedation in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging: determination of median effective dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam

BACKGROUND

The exact median effective dose (ED50) of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination in children remains unknow and the aim of this study was to determine the ED50 of their combination.

METHODS

This is a prospective dose-finding study. A total of 53 children aged from 2 months to 6 years scheduled for MRI examination from February 2023 to April 2023 were randomly divided into group D (to determine the ED50 of intranasal dexmedetomidine) and group M (to determine the ED50 of oral midazolam). The dosage of dexmedetomidine and midazolam was adjusted according to the modified Dixon's up-and-down method, and the ED50 was calculated with a probit regression approach.

RESULTS

The ED50 of intranasal dexmedetomidine when combined with 0.5 mg∙kg- 1 oral midazolam was 0.39 µg∙kg- 1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.46 µg∙kg- 1] while the ED50 of oral midazolam was 0.17 mg∙kg- 1 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.29 mg∙kg- 1) when combined with 1 µg∙kg- 1 intranasal dexmedetomidine. The sedation onset time of children with successful sedation in group D was longer than in group M (30.0[25.0, 38.0]vs 19.5[15.0, 35.0] min, P < 0.05). No other adverse effects were observed in the day and 24 h after medication except one dysphoria.

CONCLUSION

This drug combination sedation regimen appears suitable for children scheduled for MRI examinations, offering a more precise approach to guide the clinical use of sedative drugs in children.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300068611(24/02/2023).

Comparison of intranasal and nebulized dexmedetomidine for premedication in pediatric patients: A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α-2 adrenoreceptor agonist and has been found to be an effective premedication agent when administered via the intranasal route. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine premedication administered via intranasal route and through nebulization in pediatric patients.

Material and Methods

This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted after getting approval from institutes ethics committee and informed written parental consent. Sixty-four children aged 2-8 years scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled and were divided into two groups. Group I (Intranasal, n = 33) received 2 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine via intranasal route and group N (Nebulized, n = 31) received 2 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine through nebulization. The primary outcome was number of patients with satisfactory sedation 30 minutes after premedication at separation from parent. The secondary outcome included ease of medication acceptance, anxiety at parental separation, acceptance of anesthesia mask, perioperative hemodynamics, emergence agitation during recovery and adverse effects. Data collected was analyzed using Chi-square test, Student "t" test and Mann-Whitney U test with the help of SPSS 22. A one tailed P value < 0.025 was considered significant.

Results

Demographic profile was comparable between groups. On arrival in OR 27 (81.8%) patients in group I and 21 (67.7%) patients in group N had satisfactory sedation score (P = 0.19). The median (IQR) sedation score was comparable between group I and group N (P = 0.057). Patients in Group I showed significantly better medication and mask acceptance scores (P < 0.0001, P = 0.001 respectively), parental separation anxiety score (P < 0.0001) and emergence agitation score (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in hemodynamic parameters and adverse effects between the groups.

Conclusion

Although nebulized dexmedetomidine is non-inferior to intranasal dexmedetomidine in providing desired level of sedation but intranasal administration had better acceptance of medication and anesthesia mask with lesser anxiety at parental separation and postoperative emergence agitation.

Dexmedetomidine and perioperative analgesia in children

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an anaesthetic agent that mimics natural deep sleep and produces minimal cardiorespiratory depression. As such, it is a very valuable option in the management of such a challenging population as paediatric patients. The main objective of this mini review was to evaluate the role of DEX as a perioperative analgesic in children receiving anaesthesia. We searched Google, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2010 and 2021, and reviewed various of aspects of DEX, such as pharmacology, effectiveness, safety, and the most recent evidence on its clinical use as an analgesic in paediatric anaesthesia. We also include a cost estimate of perioperative analgesia with DEX.

Best Evidence-Based Dosing Recommendations for Dexmedetomidine for Premedication and Procedural Sedation in Pediatrics: Outcome of a Risk-Benefit Analysis By the Dutch Pediatric Formulary

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is currently off-label for use in pediatric clinical care worldwide. Nevertheless, it is frequently prescribed to pediatric patients as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia or for procedural sedation. There is ample literature on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in this vulnerable patient population, but there is a general lack of consensus on dosing. In this project, we aimed to use the standardized workflow of the Dutch Pediatric Formulary to establish best evidence-based pediatric dosing guidelines for dexmedetomidine as premedication and for procedural sedation.

METHOD

The available literature on dexmedetomidine in pediatrics was reviewed in order to address the following three questions: (1) What is the right dose? (2) What is known about efficacy? (3) What is known about safety? Relevant literature was compiled into a risk-benefit analysis document. A team of clinical experts critically appraised the analysis and the proposed dosing recommendations.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered via the intravenous or intranasal route. Clearance is age dependent, warranting higher doses in infants to reach similar exposure as in adults. Dexmedetomidine use results in satisfactory sedation at parent separation, adequate sedation and a favorable recovery profile. The safety profile is good and comparable to adults, with dose-related hemodynamic effects.

CONCLUSION

Following the structured approach of the Dutch Pediatric Formulary, best evidence-based dosing recommendations were proposed for dexmedetomidine, used as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia (intranasal dose) and for procedural sedation (intranasal and intravenous dose) in pediatric patients.

Application of Different Doses of Dexmedetomidine Combined with General Anesthesia in Anesthesia of Patients with Traumatic Tibiofibular Fractures and Its Effect on the Incidence of Adverse Reactions

Objective

To explore the application of different doses of dexmedetomidine combined with general anesthesia in patients with traumatic tibiofibular fractures.

Methods

A total of 120 patients with traumatic tibiofibular fractures treated in our hospital (January 2018–January 2021) were selected as the research subjects and equally grouped into group A, group B, group C, and group D according to the dosage of dexmedetomidine. Group B, group C, and group D were pumped with 0.3 μg/kg, 0.5 μg/kg, and 0.8 μg/kg load doses of dexmedetomidine before anesthesia induction, with the same doses for maintenance during surgery. Group A was intravenously pumped with the same amount of normal saline and received tracheal intubation after anesthesia induction, with propofol and remifentanil to maintain general anesthesia during surgery.

Results

No notable differences in general data were observed among the groups (P > 0.05). Ramsay sedation scores of all groups showed a downward trend after drug withdrawal. At 10 min, 30 min, and 60 min, the scores of groups C and D were markedly higher than those of groups A and B (P < 0.05), and the scores were higher in group D than those in group C (P < 0.05). The HR changes at each period were close between groups A and B (P > 0.05). The HRs at T1 and T2 in group C were slightly lower than those in group D (P > 0.05), and the HRs at T1 in groups A and B were remarkably higher than those in groups C and D, and were higher than those at T0 and T2 (P < 0.05). The SBP levels of all groups began to rise at T0, peaked at T1, and decreased to a lower level at T2 than that at T0. Moreover, the SBP levels of groups C and D at T1 and T2 were notably lower compared with groups A and B (P < 0.05). With a lower DBP level in group C than the other three groups at T1, the DBP levels were notably lower in groups C and D than those in groups A and B at T2 (P < 0.05). With no statistical difference in the MAP levels at T0 among the four groups (P > 0.05), the MAP levels in group A at T1 and T2 were obviously higher compared with groups C and D (P < 0.05). The extubation time in group A was notably longer than that that in groups B, C, and D (P < 0.05), with longer extubation time in group B than that in groups C and D (P < 0.05). The orientation recovery time in group D was markedly shorter than that in groups A, B, and C (P < 0.05). The incidence of cognitive dysfunction, chills, and restlessness in groups C and D was notably lower compared with groups A and B (P < 0.05), with a higher incidence of chills, intraoperative hypotension, and delayed awakening in group D than in group C (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine at doses of 0.5 μg/kg and 0.8 μg/kg has a better effect in the maintenance of general anesthesia for patients with traumatic tibiofibular fractures, with faster orientation recovery, better recovery of postoperative cognitive function, and a lower incidence of adverse reactions. Dexmedetomidine at 0.5 μg/kg is recommended in view of the increased risk of excessive sedation, chills, restlessness, and intraoperative hypotension in patients at 0.8 μg/kg.

Comparison of the Effects of Oral Midazolam and Intranasal Dexmedetomidine on Preoperative Sedation and Anesthesia Induction in Children Undergoing Surgeries

Background and Purpose: Premedication with either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine prior to surgery remains less than ideal. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of those two drug regimens would have any beneficial effects on the preoperative sedation and the children’s compliance during anesthesia inhalation induction.

Experimental Approach: One hundred thirty-eight children aged 2–6 years were randomly allocated into three groups: Group M with oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹, Group D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg⁻¹, and Group M + D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg⁻¹ plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹. The primary outcome was the children’s compliance during inhalation induction with sevoflurane. The secondary outcomes included the preoperative sedative effects, behavior scores, parental separation anxiety scores, and the postoperative incidence of emergence agitation and recovery time.

Results: Subjects in Group M + D showed higher satisfaction scores of compliance (p = 0.0049) and mask acceptance (MAS) (p = 0.0049) during anesthesia inhalation induction. Subjects in Group M + D had a significantly shorter time than those in Groups M and D to achieve the desired sedation level (p < 0.001) and remained at a higher sedation score in the holding area and up to the anesthesia induction after drug administration (p < 0.001).

Conclusion and Implications: We conclude that pediatric patients premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg⁻¹ plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ had significantly improved anesthesia induction compliance, and quicker onset to achieve and maintain a satisfactory level of sedation than those premedicated separately with two drugs. Therefore, the combined premed regimen is a greater choice when we are expecting a higher quality of sedation and a smoother anesthesia induction in children undergoing the surgeries.

Dexmedetomidine & perioperative analgesia in children

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an anaesthetic agent that mimics natural deep sleep and produces minimal cardiorespiratory depression. As such, it is a very valuable option in the management of such a challenging population as paediatric patients. The main objective of this mini review was to evaluate the role of DEX as a perioperative analgesic in children receiving anaesthesia. We searched Google, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2010 and 2021, and reviewed various of aspects of DEX, such as pharmacology, effectiveness, safety, and the most recent evidence on its clinical use as an analgesic in paediatric anaesthesia. We also include a cost estimate of perioperative analgesia with DEX.

Intranasal drugs for analgesia and sedation in children admitted to pediatric emergency department: a narrative review

Acute pain is one of the most common symptoms in children admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) and its management represents a real clinical challenge for pediatricians. Different painful procedures can be very stressful for young children and their perception of pain can be enhanced by emotional factors, such as anxiety, distress, or anger. Adequate procedural sedation reduces anxiety and emotional trauma for the patient, but it reduces also stress for operators and the time for procedures. We have reviewed the literature on this topic and the drugs covered in these papers were: midazolam, fentanyl, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine. There are several routes of administering for these drugs to provide analgesia and anxiolysis to children: oral, parenteral, or intranasal (IN). Intravenous (IV) sedation, since it involves the use of needles, can be stressful; instead, IN route is a non-invasive procedure and generally well tolerated by children and it has become increasingly widespread. Some medications can be administered by a mucosal atomizer device (MAD) or by drops. The benefits of the atomized release include less drug loss in the oropharynx, higher cerebrospinal fluid levels, better patient acceptability, and better sedative effects. IN midazolam has a sedative, anxiolytic and amnesic effect, but without analgesic properties. Fentanyl and ketamine are mainly used for pain control. Dexmedetomidine has anxiolytic and analgesic properties. In conclusion, IN analgo-sedation is a simple, rapid and painless option to treat pain and anxiety in the PED requiring brief training on the administration process and experience in sedation.

Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Emergence Agitation and Recovery Quality Among Children Undergoing Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Emergence agitation (EA) is one of the most common and intractable postoperative complications among children undergoing surgery under general anesthesia. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-adrenoceptor agonist, offers an ideal sedation, reduces preoperative anxiety, and facilitates smooth induction of anesthesia, and it is widely used in pediatric surgery. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for preventing emergence agitation in children after general anesthesia. Methods: We comprehensively reviewed PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to search all randomized controlled trials, published before April 22, 2020, investigating the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in preventing the emergence agitation in children after general anesthesia. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. The primary outcome was the incidence of emergence agitation. Secondary outcomes included the number of patients requiring rescue analgesic, number of patients with postoperative nausea and vomiting, emergence time, extubation time, and time to discharge from the post-anesthesia care unit. Results: We included a total of 33 studies, comprising 2,549 patients in this meta-analysis. Compared with saline, dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the emergence agitation incidence [risk ratio (RR) 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.37; p < 0.00001], incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.3-0.69; p = 0.0002), and the requirement of rescue analgesic (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.44; p < 0.00001). Furthermore, children in the dexmedetomidine group experienced a longer emergence time [mean difference (MD) 2.18; 95% CI 0.81-3.56; p = 0.002] and extubation time (MD 0.77; 95% CI 0.22-1.31; p = 0.006) compared with those in the saline group. However, no significant difference was observed in the time to discharge from the post-anesthesia care unit (MD 2.22; 95% CI -2.29-6.74; p = 0.33) between the two groups. No significant differences were observed between the effects of dexmedetomidine and other drugs like midazolam, propofol, fentanyl, tramadol, and clonidine in terms of the emergence agitation incidence and other parameters, except for the requirement of rescue analgesic (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.33-0.61; p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine can prevent emergence agitation, relieves postoperative pain, decreases the requirement of rescue analgesic, and decreases the postoperative nausea and vomiting events.

Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine and Oral Ketamine Versus Intranasal Midazolam Premedication for Children Undergoing Dental Rehabilitation

Background

Dental rehabilitation surgery is associated with significant fear and anxiety with subsequent psychological disturbances. Midazolam has been used frequently as a premedication. However, it may be associated with side effects. Dexmedetomidine and ketamine combination has been suggested as an effective premedication in improving preoperative sedation and analgesia.

Objectives

This study compared the effects of combined intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral ketamine versus intranasal midazolam on anxiolysis and postoperative analgesia.

Methods

Seventy-six children (aged two to six years) undergoing dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia were assigned randomly to one of the two groups (n = 38 each) receiving either intranasal dexmedetomidine at 2 µg/kg and oral ketamine at 3 mg/kg (Group DK) or intranasal midazolam at 0.2 mg/kg (group M) 30 minutes prior to the anesthesia induction. The sedation levels and parental separation state were evaluated. Time to recovery, postoperative rescue analgesia, and postoperative adverse effects were assessed.

Results

Seventy-six children completed the study. Patients in group DK had significantly lower sedation scores than those in group M after 20 and 30 min (P < 0.05). The rate of satisfactory separation showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups 30 minutes after the administration of premedication (P = 0.926). A significantly higher number of patients in group M required rescue analgesic (42%) compared to those in group DK (16%) (P = 0.012).

Conclusions

Premedication with intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg and oral ketamine 3 mg/kg is a rapid and effective alternative in children undergoing dental rehabilitation when compared to intranasal midazolam 0.2 mg/kg.

Effect of Single-Dose Dexmedetomidine on Intraoperative Hemodynamics and Postoperative Recovery during Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy

Background

In children undergoing adenotonsillectomy, smooth recovery from anesthesia without any respiratory compromise and excessive sedation or pain is always desirable. In this placebo-controlled study, we examined the effect of single dose of dexmedetomidine on intraoperative hemodynamics and postoperative recovery profile such as emergence agitation (EA), pain, and sedation in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy.

Methods

Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II children in the age group of 5-10 years, undergoing adenotonsillectomy were randomly assigned to receive dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg (Group D) or volume-matched saline (placebo) (Group C), 10 min before induction of anesthesia. Intraoperative heart rate (HR) and mean blood pressure (MBP), duration of surgery, time to extubation, EA using Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale, level of sedation in postanesthesia care unit using Ramsay sedation score (RSS), and postoperative visual analog score (VAS) for pain were recorded and compared.

Results

Dexmedetomidine group had lower HR and stable MBP, compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Postoperatively, the agitation score (PAED scale score) was statistically lower in Group D compared to Group C (13.84 ± 1.39; median 14 in Group C vs. 9.37 ± 1.33; median 9.5 in Group D; P < 0.001). All patients in Group C had PAED scale score >12, while only 6.67% of patients in Group D had PAED scale score of 12. The patients in Group D had higher RSS (2.62 ± 0.49 in Group D vs. 1.60 ± 0.50, P = 0.004); none of the patients were excessively sedated or had RSS >3. No significant difference was found in VAS score of the groups at all times, except at 0 h (P = 0.002). Time to extubation was significantly longer in the dexmedetomidine group (7.70 ± 1.62 min in Group D vs. 5.23 ± 1.91 min in Group C; P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Premedication of dexmedetomidine at the dose of 1 μg/kg in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy resulted in favorable effect on intraoperative hemodynamics, significant decrease in postoperative EA without causing any excessive sedation, desaturation, or any other drug-related adverse events.

Dexmedetomidine protects against oxygen-glucose deprivation/reoxygenation injury-induced apoptosis via the p38 MAPK/ERK signalling pathway

Objective

To investigate the protective effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in oxygen-glucose deprivation/reoxygenation (OGD/R) injury, which is involved in a number of ischaemic diseases.

Methods

An in vitro OGD/R injury model was generated using mouse Neuro 2A neuroblastoma (N2A) cells. Different concentrations of DEX were administrated to OGD/R cells. CV-65 was used to inhibit p38 microtubule associated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinases (MAPK/ERK) signalling. Cell proliferation, cell cycle, apoptosis, and the levels of proteins related to p38 MAPK/ERK signalling and apoptosis were evaluated using Cell Counting Kit-8, flow cytometry, TdT-UTP nick end labelling and Western blot analysis, respectively.

Results

DEX treatment of OGD/R cells promoted cell survival and attenuated OGD/R-induced cell apoptosis. It also activated the p38 MAPK/ERK signalling pathway, increased the levels of Bcl-2, and decreased the levels of Bax and cleaved caspase-3. Treatment with the p38 MAPK/ERK inhibitor CV-65 inhibited the activation of p38 MAPK/ERK and abrogated the DEX-induced effects on cell survival and apoptosis.

Conclusions

DEX protects N2A cells from OGD/R-induced apoptosis via the activation of the p38 MAPK/ERK signalling pathway. DEX might be an effective agent for the treatment of ischaemic diseases.