Comparison of oral dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam as premedication to prevent emergence agitation after sevoflurane anaesthesia in paediatric patients

Oral Dexmedetomidine Achieves Superior Effects in Mitigating Emergence Agitation and Demonstrates Comparable Sedative Effects to Oral Midazolam for Pediatric Premedication: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

Background: Oral midazolam is the most commonly used sedative premedication agent in pediatric patients. While effective, oral midazolam cannot reduce the incidence of emergence agitation. Oral dexmedetomidine may be effective in providing satisfactory sedation and reduce the incidence of emergence agitation, although the results of different randomized controlled trials are conflicting. Methods: This study enrolled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining premedication with oral dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and the Web of Science database were searched from their inception until June 2023. The outcomes were the incidence of satisfactory preoperative sedation, satisfactory sedation during separation from parents, satisfactory sedation during anesthesia induction using an anesthesia mask, and the incidence of emergence agitation. Results: A total of 9 RCTs comprising 885 patients were analyzed. Our data revealed comparable effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam with respect to satisfactory preoperative sedation and a satisfactory incidence of sedation during parental separation and mask acceptance before anesthesia induction. Notably, our data revealed that the rate of emergence agitation was significantly lower in pediatric patients receiving dexmedetomidine (n = 162) than in those receiving midazolam (n = 159) (odds ratio = 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 35%). Conclusions: Data from this meta-analysis revealed comparable effects for premedication with oral dexmedetomidine or oral midazolam with respect to satisfactory sedation; furthermore, premedication with oral dexmedetomidine more effectively mitigated emergence agitation in pediatric patients receiving general anesthesia compared with oral midazolam.

Single-bolus dexmedetomidine in prevention of emergence delirium in pediatric ophthalmic surgeries: A randomized controlled trial

Purpose

Emergency delirium (ED), a common postoperative neurologic complication, causes behavioral disturbances leading to self-traumas and also has long-term adverse effects in children. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of a single-bolus dose of dexmedetomidine in reducing the incidence of ED. Additionally, pain relief, number of patients who needed rescue analgesia, hemodynamic parameters, and adverse events were assessed.

Methods

One hundred and one patients were randomly allocated into two groups: 50 patients received 15 mL of dexmedetomidine 0.4 μg/kg (group D) and 51 patients received volume-matched normal saline (group C). Hemodynamic parameters such as heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were monitored regularly throughout the procedure. ED was assessed with Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium Scale (PAEDS), and pain was measured using the modified Objective Pain Score (MOPS).

Results

The incidences of ED and pain were higher in group C than group D (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Group D showed significant decrease in MOPS and PAEDS values at 5, 10, 15, and 20 min (P < 0.05), HR at 5 min (P < 0.0243), and SBP at 15 min (P < 0.0127). There was no significant difference in DBP between the two groups at any time point. The mean blood pressure (MBP) at 10 min was significantly less in group D than group C (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine 0.4 μg/kg as a single bolus over 10 min immediately after intubation is effective for the prevention of ED and significantly reduces the need of rescue analgesia without compromising the hemodynamic parameters in children undergoing ophthalmic surgery.

Parental presence and intranasal dexmedetomidine for the prevention of anxiety during anesthesia induction in children undergoing tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Background: During the perioperative period of pediatric surgery, it is extremely stressful for children and parents to enter the operating room and receive the anesthesia induction. This study was designed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes with parental presence at induction of anesthesia (PPIA), intranasal dexmedetomidine, and combined use of PPIA and intranasal dexmedetomidine. Methods: In this prospective study, 124 children were randomly divided into four groups: control (no parental presence or intranasal dexmedetomidine), PPIA (parental presence), DEX (intranasal dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg)), and PPIA + DEX (parental presence and intranasal dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg)). The anxiety of children was mainly evaluated by the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale-Short Form (mYPAS-SF). Secondary evaluation methods were, for example, the Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC), the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium Scale (PAED), the COMFORT Behavior Scale (COMFORT-B Scale), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: Children in the PPIA + DEX group exhibited significantly lower mYPAS-SF and ICC scores compared with all three other groups (p < 0.001), and children in that group exhibited significantly lower mYPAS-SF and ICC scores compared with the PPIA and DEX groups (p < 0.05). The children's PAED scores in the PPIA, DEX, and PPIA + DEX groups were significantly lower than the control group (p < 0.001).The STAI-S scores of the PPIA, DEX, and PPIA + DEX groups were significantly lower than the score of the control group (p < 0.001). The VAS scores of the PPIA, DEX, and PPIA + DEX groups were significantly higher than that of the control group (p < 0.001), while the score of the PPIA + DEX group was significantly higher than those of the PPIA and DEX groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The combined use of PPIA and intranasal dexmedetomidine is more effective than PPIA or intranasal dexmedetomidine for alleviating the preoperative anxiety of children, improving children's induction compliance and parental satisfaction.

Single bolus dexmedetomidine versus propofol for treatment of pediatric emergence delirium following general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Pediatric emergence delirium is a psychomotor disorder occurring in the early postanesthetic stage. There is no clear consensus regarding its treatment; however, dexmedetomidine and propofol have both been shown to be effective.

AIM

In this single-center, randomized, double-blind prospective study, we compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine against that of propofol in the treatment of established emergence delirium in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia.

METHODS

Patients aged 1-14 years, with ASA I or II and severe emergence delirium (Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium score of ≥15) during the postoperative period following general anesthesia, were randomized to receive intravenous bolus injection of 0.5 μg.kg^-1 dexmedetomidine or 1 mg.kg^-1 propofol. The primary outcome was the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) score after treatment, and the secondary outcome was the recovery time in the postanesthetic care unit.

RESULTS

Of the 53 patients who participated in the study, 26 (49%) were treated with dexmedetomidine and 27 (51%) with propofol. In the dexmedetomidine group, a single-dose intervention was effective for all patients (100%); whereas in the propofol group, 19 patients (70.4%) had PAED score of <12 after the first dose (p = .004; relative risk [95% confidence interval] = 0.1422 [0.113-1.815]). No significant difference in recovery time (median [IQR (range)]) was observed between the dexmedetomidine (20[14-30(10-45)]) and propofol groups (25 [20-40 (10-50)]; p = .056; 95% confidence interval = 0.113-1.815).

CONCLUSIONS

A single bolus of 0.5 μg.kg^-1 of dexmedetomidine was more effective than a single bolus of 1 mg.kg^-1 of propofol in treating emergence delirium during the early postanesthetic stage.

Recent Advances in the Clinical Value and Potential of Dexmedetomidine

Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist, has sedative, anxiolytic, analgesic, sympatholytic, and opioid-sparing properties and induces a unique sedative response which shows an easy transition from sleep to wakefulness, thus allowing a patient to be cooperative and communicative when stimulated. Recent studies indicate several emerging clinical applications via different routes. We review recent data on dexmedetomidine studies, particularly exploring the varying routes of administration, experimental implications, clinical effects, and comparative advantages over other drugs. A search was conducted on the PubMed and Web of Science libraries for recent studies using different combinations of the words “dexmedetomidine”, “route of administration”, and pharmacological effect. The current routes, pharmacological effects, and application categories of dexmedetomidine are presented. It functions by stimulating pre- and post-synaptic α2-adrenoreceptors within the central nervous system, leading to hyperpolarization of noradrenergic neurons, induction of an inhibitory feedback loop, and reduction of norepinephrine secretion, causing a sympatholytic effect, in addition to its anti-inflammation, sleep induction, bowel recovery, and sore throat reduction effects. Compared with similar α2-adrenoceptor agonists, dexmedetomidine has both pharmacodynamics advantage of a significantly greater α2:α1-adrenoceptor affinity ratio and a pharmacokinetic advantage of having a significantly shorter elimination half-life. In its clinical application, dexmedetomidine has been reported to present a significant number of benefits including safe sedation for various surgical interventions, improvement of intraoperative and postoperative analgesia, sedation for compromised airways without respiratory depression, nephroprotection and stability of hypotensive hemodynamics, reduction of postoperative nausea and vomiting and postoperative shivering incidence, and decrease of intraoperative blood loss. Although the clinical application of dexmedetomidine is promising, it is still limited and further research is required to enhance understanding of its pharmacological properties, patient selection, dosage, and adverse effects.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine in two different doses on emergence agitation in children under sevoflurane anaesthesia: A double-blind randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims:

Emergence agitation (EA) in children is one of the most common postoperative problems encountered in the recovery room. Sevoflurane has been strongly associated with EA owing to its lower solubility and rapid recovery. Dexmedetomidine has been found to reduce the incidence of EA. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine in two doses in reducing EA in children.

Methods:

This was a prospective double-blinded randomised study done on eighty children aged 5–14 years undergoing adenotonsillectomy/tonsillectomy under sevoflurane anaesthesia. Patients in Group A (n = 40) received 0.3 μg/kg/h and patients in group B (n = 40) received 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion after a bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine. The primary objective was to compare two different doses of dexmedetomidine on EA in the postoperative period. The secondary objectives were to assess the pain and perioperative haemodynamics in the recovery room. The anaesthesiologist blinded to the study charted the paediatric anaesthesia emergence delirium score (PAED), perioperative haemodynamic parameters, objective pain score and rescue medications if given. The data were analysed using Student's unpaired t-test, Chi-square test, repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Mann-Whitney U test wherever appropriate.

Results:

The incidence of EA was comparable between both groups (P = 0.960). The haemodynamic parameters (P > 0.05) and the objective pain score (P = 0.810) also did not show a statistically significant difference.

Conclusion:

A lower dose of dexmedetomidine (0.3 μg/kg/h) is equally effective as a higher dose (0.5 μg/kg/h) after a bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg in decreasing EA.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine in children undergoing general anaesthesia with sevoflurane: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Objective

The sedative effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) are similar to natural sleep, with easy wakening following Dex administration, and Dex has minor effects on breathing, reducing emergence agitation in children. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the effects of Dex on recovery quality in children following general anaesthesia with sevoflurane, to aid clinical decision making.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials published before August 2019 were searched and selected from databases. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed included studies for bias risk. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 software.

Results

The study included 24 publications. Following general anaesthesia by sevoflurane, Dex was associated with reduced occurrence of emergence agitation (odds ratio [OR] 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11, 0.25) and nausea and vomiting (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24, 0.60), along with shortened eye-opening time (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.72, 95% CI 0.41, 1.03), shortened extubation time (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.28, 0.81), and reduced duration of post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) stay (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.08, 0.51) versus placebo.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine has positive effects on recovery quality in children undergoing general anaesthesia with sevoflurane.

Delirium Research in India: A Systematic Review

Delirium is the most common psychiatric diagnoses encountered in patients with various medical-surgical illnesses, in all the treatment set-ups, with relatively higher incidence and prevalence in the intensive care units. As delirium is encountered in multiple specialties, it is important to understand the research on this diagnosis. This study aims to assess the research output involving patients of delirium from India. A comprehensive search was undertaken using Medline (PubMed) and other databases. Search words included were “delirium,” “delirious,” “delirium tremens” AND “India.” No filters were used. Internet and hand searches yielded 305 articles. Out of these articles, 151 had the terms “delirium,” “delirious,” “delirium tremens” in the title and these were included for the review. Additionally, 14 articles were included for the review, although these did not have these terms in the title, but delirium was one of the major outcome parameters in these studies. Majority of the papers were original articles ( n = 81), and these were followed by, case reports ( n = 58), review articles ( n = 10), letter to the editor (not as case reports but as a communication; n = 13), editorials ( n = 2) and one clinical practice guideline. Most of the original papers have either focused on epidemiology (incidence, prevalence, outcome, etc.), symptom profile, with occasional studies focusing on effectiveness of various pharmacological interventions. There is a dearth of research in the field of delirium from India. There is a lack of studies on biomarkers, evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions, and evaluation of prevention strategies. It is the need of the hour to carry out more studies to further our understanding of delirium in the Indian context.

Effect of different administration and dosage of dexmedetomidine in the reduction of emergence agitation in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with sequential trial analysis

BACKGROUND

Beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) against emergence agitation (EA) in children remain controversial. We performed a more comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the protective effect of different administration routes, timing, patterns, and doses of DEX on EA in children.

METHODS

The randomized controlled trials about DEX preventing EA in children were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Sciences up to October 7, 2020. The traditional meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to study the influence of DEX on EA in children. The sequential trial analysis (TSA) further analyzed the pooled results to evaluate meta-analyses' robustness. Grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess evidence quality.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies with 5,688 pediatric patients were included. DEX significantly decreased EA in children compared to placebo [RR 0.29, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.25-0.34] and midazolam (RR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.25-0.45), with firm evidence from TSA. Notably, using DEX significantly reduced severe EA incidence (RR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.32), with firm evidence by TSA and high quality of GRADE. Pre-specified subgroup analyses revealed firm and high-quality evidence for a reduction of EA, only if the perineural route administers DEX (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.14-0.41), as premedication (RR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.20-0.36), as continuous dosage (RR 0.25, 95% CI: 0.18-0.33), at high dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.18-0.31). The pooled results also showed that DEX reduced the incidence of PONV compared to placebo (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.55). Evidence for DEX's influence on other secondary outcomes (emergence time, time in PACU, rescue analgesia, hypotension, and bradycardia) is insufficient to draw any conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm the beneficial effects of DEX on EA, severe EA, and PONV in children. There was firm and high-quality evidence for the efficacy of DEX in preventing EA in children when perineural routes administered DEX, as premedication, as continuous dosage, and at a high dose. The best dose, route, patterns, and timing of DEX and influence on other outcomes call for further studies.

Comparison of recovery characteristics with two different washout techniques of desflurane anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial

Background:

Rapid emergence with low soluble inhalational agents (IA) is offset by a significant association with emergence agitation (EA). Research on the influence of elimination methods of IA on recovery characteristics is very few. We conducted this study to compare the recovery characteristics of slow elimination (SE) of desflurane with purging technique.

Methodology:

Forty-five participants, 18–60 years, undergoing elective laparoscopic surgeries were randomised either into Group-P (n = 23) or Group-SE (n = 22). A standardised induction-maintenance protocol including desflurane and fresh gas flow (FGF) of 0.8 l/min was followed. During recovery, the FGF was increased in Group-P to 10 L/min and in Group-SE it was continued at 0.8 L/min. The decrement in end-tidal concentration of desflurane, time for emergence and extubation, EA and time for psychomotor recovery were noted.

Results:

Time for emergence (Group-SE: 22.8 ± 9 vs. Group-P: 5.6 ± 1.5 min; P = 0.000) and emergence to extubation duration (Group-SE: 128 ± 36 s vs. Group-P: 11.5 ± 1.7 s; P = 0.000) were longer in the Group-SE than in Group-P. EA occurred in 22.7% patients in Group-SE and in 4.3% patients in Group-P (P = 0.07). Psychomotor recovery to baseline values was seen in more number of patients in Group-SE than Group-P at 30 min. There was no difference between the groups at 60 min post-extubation.

Conclusions:

Slow elimination using FGF of 0.8 L/min significantly prolongs emergence even with low soluble agent like desflurane. SE is not beneficial in decreasing the incidence of EA or hastening psychomotor recovery. Purging technique is, therefore, a better-suited technique with fewer complications for eliminating desflurane.

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.

A comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

Background

The present study with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to evaluate comprehensively the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation, and to investigate whether the outcomes achieved the required information size to draw the conclusions.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2019. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. Sedative efficacy, postoperative analgesic effect, and incidence of emergence agitation were considered as the co‐primary outcomes. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was applied to rate the quality of evidences.

Results

We acquired data from 34 studies involving 2281 pediatric patients. The results indicated that administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of emergence agitation (RR = 0.78, with 95% CI [0.65, 0.92]) and more satisfactory sedation at parental separation (RR = 0.31, with 95% CI [0.24, 0.41]) compared to midazolam, and the current sample sizes were sufficient with unnecessary further trials. Two groups did not differ significantly in sedation level at mask induction (RR = 0.86, with 95% CI [0.74, 1.00]). And using of dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of postoperative analgesic rescue (RR = 0.57, with 95% CI [0.35, 0.93]), but the number of patients was too few to achieve the required information size and to draw reliable conclusions. Premedication of dexmedetomidine was associated with significant less value of SBP, heart rate, increased incidence of bradycardia, and a lower rate of shivering. And there were no differences about onset of sedation and recovery time between two groups.

Conclusions

Given that more satisfactory sedation at separation from parents and less incidence of emergence agitation, dexmedetomidine is preferred for pediatric sedation. However, compared with midazolam, the superiority of dexmedetomidine in providing adequate sedation at mask induction and postoperative analgesic effects has not yet been defined.

Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine and Oral Midazolam for Premedication in Pediatric Dental Patients under General Anesthesia: A Randomised Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of preoperative intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam on preoperative sedation and postoperative agitation in pediatric dentistry. A total of 60 children (ASA grade I, aged 3-6 years) scheduled for elective pediatric dental treatment were randomly divided into the dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MID) groups. Ramsay sedation score, parental separation anxiety scale, mask acceptance scale, pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. The Ramsay sedation scale and hemodynamic parameters of the children were observed and recorded immediately before administration and 10, 20, and 30 min after administration. A satisfactory mask acceptance scale rate was 93.33% in both MID and DEX groups, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). The proportions of children that "successfully separated from their parents" were 93.33% (MID) and 96.67% (DEX). No significant difference was found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The incidence of agitation was 20% in the MID group and 0% in the DEX group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam provided satisfactory sedation. No significant difference between the two groups was found in terms of parental separation anxiety and mask acceptance (p > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative pediatrics emergence delirium was significantly lower in the DEX group (p < 0.05).

The prevalence of emergence delirium and its associated factors among children at a postoperative unit: A retrospective cohort at a Middle Eastern hospital

BACKGROUND

Emergence delirium (ED) has been reported among children at a postoperative setting, which delays their recovery and exposes them to traumas. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of ED and its associated factors among children who underwent surgeries at a major tertiary healthcare facility in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March and August 2018, a retrospective cohort study was conducted based on a review of 413 medical charts of children (<14 years) who underwent an elective/nonemergency surgery and then were admitted to a Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Patient and surgery-related characteristics were analyzed as potential factors associated with ED. The anxiety level was assessed preoperatively using the Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (four domains), while the ED was detected after surgery using the Watcha scale (child is agitated and thrashing around).

RESULTS

The leading surgery category was ear, nose, and throat surgeries [184 (44.6%)] and dental surgeries [109 (26.4%)]. Almost one-third received only general anesthesia (31.2%), while 271 (68.8%) received an additional regional block/skin infiltrate. The anxiety domains preop showed that the percentage mean score ± standard deviation of expression of emotions was 37.1 ± 21.6, apparent arousal 33.7 ± 20.4, activeness 30.1 ± 13.5, and vocalization 26.9 ± 20.3. The prevalence of ED among children who underwent surgeries during the 6-month period was 23 (6.6%). Almost 18.8% of those who received opioid analgesics (fentanyl alone) developed ED, while 12% of those who received both opioid and nonopioid analgesics (fentanyl/paracetamol) developed ED. ED was significantly associated with longer recovery duration 69.5 + 27.1 min, P = 0.007. Binary logistics regression analysis showed that participants who did not receive Precedex were adj. odds ratio = 10.3 (2.4-48.9) times more likely to develop ED, compared with those who received it, adj. P = 0.003. Lower preoperative scores of expression of emotions and higher scores of apparent arousal were significantly associated with ED, adj. P = 0.035 and adj. P = 0.023, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ED appears to be inevitable in postoperative settings. It is crucial to address any preoperative anxiety assessment as it is associated with ED. Anxiety remains a modifiable factor that can be managed, as well as to the administration of Precedex and adjunct analgesic treatments.

Attenuation of haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation with dexmedetomidine: A comparison between intravenous and intranasal route

Background and Aims:

Haemodynamic changes during endotracheal intubation are major concerns in general anaesthesia This study compared the efficacy of intranasal and intravenous dexmedetomidine (DEX) to attenuate the stress response of laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation.

Methods:

In this prospective, randomised, double-blinded study, 70 adults were divided into two groups [Group D_IV(n=35) and Group D_IN(n=35)]. D_IV group received intravenous dexmedetomidine (DEX) infusion (0.5 μg/kg) over 40 min and D_IN group received intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) 40 min before induction. The primary objective was the comparison the mean arterial pressure (MAP) between two groups from 40 min before induction at every 10 min intervals till induction of anaesthesia, at the time of intubation, thereafter every 1 min interval till 5 min, at 7 min and 10 min after intubation. The secondary outcomes were comparison of heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure along with sedation and other adverse effects. Statistical analysis was with Statistica 6.0 and Graph Pad prism version 5.

Results:

In both the groups, all the haemodynamic parameters were maintained within (20% of baseline values) throughout the study period. There was no statistically significant difference in MAP between two groups (P>0.05). Preoperative sedation score was significantly higher in the D_IV group than the D_IN group (P = 0.014).

Conclusion:

Like IV DEX, intranasal DEX can also attenuate the haemodynamic stress responses of laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation without significant differences in MAP between two groups.

Comparison of single minimum dose administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for prevention of emergence delirium in children: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Emergence delirium (ED) is common in children after sevoflurane anesthesia and should be prevented for patient safety. A prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled study was performed to compare the efficacy of minimal dosage of midazolam versus dexmedetomidine to prevent ED in children undergoing tonsillectomy.

METHODS

Seventy children aged 24 months to 12 years were allocated to receive midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) or dexmedetomidine (0.3 µg/kg) 5 min before the end of surgery. The incidence and severity of ED were assessed using a four-point scale and the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale, respectively. The emergence time and postoperative pain scores were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of ED was 31.3% in the midazolam group and 26.5% in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.668). The severity of ED was similar in both groups (9.6 ± 5.8 in the midazolam group, vs. 8.1 ± 5.9 in the dexmedetomidine group, P = 0.299). The emergence time was comparable in the two groups [11.0 (8.3-13.8) min in midazolam group vs. 12.0 (10.0-13.5) min in dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.218)]. Postoperative pain score was higher in the midazolam group [0 (0-1)] than in the dexmedetomidine group [0 (0-0)] (P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine and midazolam at single minimum dosages had equal effectiveness to prevent ED in children without delaying emergence time, when administered at the end of surgery. With regards to postoperative analgesic efficacy, although dexmedetomidine showed statistically significant higher analgesic effect than midazolam, further clinical investigations are needed to validate our findings.

Study of Feasibility and Safety of Higher-Dose Dexmedetomidine in Special Outpatient Examination of Pediatric Ophthalmology

Objective

To investigate the feasibility and safety of higher-dose dexmedetomidine in ophthalmological outpatient examination of children with cataract.

Methods

100 cases of children were recruited in the study and randomly equally divided into two groups. One group was given 2 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine anesthesia, while the other group was under 3 μg/kg. The dosage of dexmedetomidine was calculated by the same anesthesiologist according to the weight of patient. After sufficient sedation, the same ophthalmologist performed ocular examinations manually, including intraocular pressure, keratometry, axial length, and corneal thickness and recorded the ocular position score during intraocular pressure measurement and corneal thickness measurement. Other variables were sedation onset time, recovery time, vital signs, and side effects.

Results

In intraocular pressure measurement, only one case in the 2 μg/kg group did not complete the examination, while all cases in the 3 μg/kg group completed the examination and the difference of the success rate between the two groups was nonsignificant (P > 0.05). The success rates of the 3 μg/kg group in corneal curvature, axial length, and corneal thickness examination were 96%, 92%, and 86%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of the 2 μg/kg group (22%, 18%, and 4%). The average onset time of sedation in the 3 μg/kg group was 15.42 ± 2.09 minutes, which was significantly shorter than that in the 2 μg/kg group (19.52 ± 2.43 minutes, P < 0.001). The average time of completing all examinations in the 3 μg/kg group was 18.36 ± 4.01 minutes, which was significantly shorter than that in the 2 μg/kg group (22.62 ± 4.13 min, P < 0.001). The recovery time of group 3 μg/kg was 90.62 ± 27.80 min, which was significantly longer than that of group 2 μg/kg (49.20 ± 15.50 min). Vital signs such as pulse, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and heart rate kept in normal range throughout the tests, and no obvious side effects were observed.

Conclusion

3 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine had a higher sedation success rate and quality than 2 μg/kg did in pediatric ocular examinations, without any obvious side effects.

Comparison of oral dexmedetomidine and midazolam for premedication and emergence delirium in children after dental procedures under general anesthesia: a retrospective study

Background

Premedication is the most common way to minimize distress in children entering the operating room and to facilitate the smooth induction of anesthesia and is accomplished using various sedative drugs before the children are being transferred to the operating room. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of oral dexmedetomidine (DEX) and oral midazolam (MID) on preoperative cooperation and emergence delirium (ED) among children who underwent dental procedures at our hospital between 2016 and 2017.

Patients and methods

The medical records of 52 children, who were American Society of Anesthesiologists I, aged between 3 and 7 years, and who underwent full-mouth dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia (GA), were evaluated. Twenty-six patients were given 2 µg/kg of DEX, while another 26 patients were given 0.5 mg/kg of MID in apple juice as premedication agents. The patients’ scores on the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), Parental Separation Anxiety Scale (PSAS), Mask Acceptance Scale, Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium Scale (PAEDS), and hemodynamic parameters were recorded from patients’ files. The level of sedation of children had been observed just before premedication and at 15, 30, and 45 min after premedication. The data were analyzed using a chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, Student’s t-test, and analysis of variance in SPSS.

Results

The Mask Acceptance Scale and PSAS scores and RSS scores at 15, 30, and 45 min after premedication were not statistically different (p>0.05) in both groups, whereas the PAEDS scores were significantly lower in the DEX group (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Oral DEX provided satisfactory sedation levels, ease of parental separation, and mask acceptance in children in a manner similar to MID. Moreover, children premedicated with DEX experienced lesser ED than those premedicated with MID.

The Effect of Oral Dexmedetomidine Premedication on Preoperative Cooperation and Emergence Delirium in Children Undergoing Dental Procedures

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to detect the effect of 1 μg/kg of oral dexmedetomidine (DEX) as premedication among children undergoing dental procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study involved 100 children between 2 and 6 years of age, ASA I, who underwent full-mouth dental rehabilitation. The DEX group (n = 50) received 1 μg/kg DEX in apple juice, and the control group (n = 50) received only apple juice. The patients' scores on the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), parental separation anxiety scale, mask acceptance scale, and pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale (PAEDS) and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. The data were analyzed using chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, and analysis of variance in SPSS.

RESULTS

RSS scores were significantly higher in the DEX group than group C at 15, 30, and 45 min (p < 0.05). More children (68% easy separation, 74% satisfactory mask acceptance) in the DEX group showed satisfactory ease of parental separation and mask acceptance behavior (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the PAEDS scores and mean hemodynamic parameters of both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral DEX administered at 1 μg/kg provided satisfactory sedation levels, ease of parental separation, and mask acceptance in children but was not effective in preventing emergence delirium. The trial was registered (Protocol Registration Receipt NCT03174678) at clinicaltrials.gov.