Randomised Comparison between the Efficacy of Two Doses of Nebulised Dexmedetomidine for Premedication in Paediatric Patients

Effect of nebulized dexmedetomidine on gag reflex suppression and sedation quality in pediatric patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pediatric patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) interventions frequently require sedation and analgesia due to the challenges associated with endoscopic probe placement, particularly the gag reflex. This study investigates the effects of nebulized dexmedetomidine as a premedication on the gag reflex in pediatric patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial at the Pediatric Gastroenterology Clinic of Ondokuz Mayis University School of Medicine from January to April 2024. Participants aged 2-17 years scheduled for upper GI endoscopy were randomized to receive nebulized dexmedetomidine (2 µg /kg) or no premedication. The primary outcome measured was the severity of the gag reflex during the procedure. Secondary outcomes included cough incidence, separation anxiety, postoperative agitation, and endoscopist satisfaction. Statistical analyses were performed with significance set at p < 0.050.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were analyzed. The dexmedetomidine group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of gag reflex (88.3% with no gag reflex vs. 30% in the control group, p < 0.001) and coughing (95% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). Separation anxiety scores were also significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group (p < 0.005). Additionally, the need for additional anesthetics was reduced, and endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher. No significant differences in complications were observed between the two groups (p = 0.600).

CONCLUSIONS

Nebulized dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective premedication for pediatric patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, significantly reducing gag and cough reflexes, decreasing anesthetic requirements, and enhancing endoscopist satisfaction. This approach improves the comfort and safety of pediatric endoscopy procedures.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06218797, date of registration 27/12/2023.

Comparative evaluation of nebulized versus intravenous dexmedetomidine on intubating conditions during awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation

BACKGROUND

There is a search for an ideal agent to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 agonist which can be administered through intravenous, intramuscular, buccal, intranasal & inhalational routes. It provides good intubation conditions without oxygen desaturation but may cause hypotension and bradycardia when administered intravenously. Hence, alternative routes of administering dexmedetomidine which may improve its safety profile are worth exploring.

METHODS

In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 46 ASA I/II adult participants scheduled for elective ENT surgery were randomly allocated to Group ND (Nebulised Dexmedetomidine) (n = 23) to receive nebulisation with dexmedetomidine 1μg.kg-1 and Group ID (Intravenous Dexmedetomidine) (n = 23) to receive intravenous dexmedetomidine 1μg.kg-1 before AFOI. All the patients received injection midazolam 1 mg i.v. as premedication before anaesthesia was initiated. The primary outcome was the cough score. The secondary outcomes were the RSS, SAYGO boluses, post-intubation score, hemodynamic parameters, recall of the procedure, patient satisfaction score and any side effects.

RESULTS

The cough score was significantly lower in nebulized group (2.43 ± 0.992 vs 3.52 ± 1.082) with p = 0.001. RSS(3.30 ± 0.926 vs 4.22 ± 1.126; p = 0.004), number of SAYGO boluses required (2.74 ± 0.864 vs 3.57 ± 1.161; p = 0.009) & the post intubation score (1.48 ± 0.593 vs 2.17 ± 0.778; p = 0.001) were also significantly lower in nebulized group.

CONCLUSIONS

Nebulisation with dexmedetomidine results in desirable degree of sedation and better tolerance of the procedure with adequate attenuation of the haemodynamic responses to intubation.

Effects of different doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine on related complications and parents' satisfaction in anesthetized children: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Agitation/delirium is commonly seen in children after anesthesia, and a proper dose of dexmedetomidine can prevent this complication. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different doses of Dexmedetomidine (DEX) on agitation/delirium and other complications in anesthetized children, providing clinical evidence for dose recommendations of DEX.

METHODS

This study was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Two independent researchers performed literature screening, data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality. Data analysis was conducted using R and STATA 16.0.

RESULTS

In the final analysis, 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2521 children were included. The results showed that in comparison to normal saline, 1 µg/kg, 1.5 µg/kg, and 2 µg/kg intranasal DEX significantly reduced the incidence of post-anesthetic emergence agitation in children with the most effective dose being 2 µg/kg (SUCRA = 0.91). Compared with normal saline, 1 µg/kg, 1.5 µg/kg, and 2 µg/kg intranasal DEX reduced patient's need for postoperative analgesia, with the most effective dose being 1.5 µg/kg (SUCRA = 0.78). However, 1 µg/kg DEX performed the best in reducing Pediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) Scale score (SUCRA = 0.88).

CONCLUSION

Compared with normal saline, intranasal administration of 2 µg/kg DEX and 1.5 µg/kg DEX are the optimal doses to reduce the incidence of agitation and the need for postoperative pain relief in children under general anesthesia. Given effectiveness and safety, intranasal use of 1 µg/kg DEX appears to be the most effective dosage for anesthetized children.

Clinical usefulness of nebulized dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation in daycare flexible bronchoscopy in Southern India

BACKGROUND

Sedative agents used in bronchoscopy require trained personnel to administer and monitor the patient. This increases the procedure cost, duration, and inpatient stay. Inhalational administration of sedative agents can be a practical solution to the issue. Dexmedetomidine in the inhalational form could give results similar to the intravenous form without significant adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study is prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. Patients needing bronchoscopy were randomized to receive the nebulized form of either dexmedetomidine or saline (0.9%) before bronchoscopy. The study parameters are assessed and recorded before, during, and after bronchoscopy. Data collected are analyzed using the SPSS software.

DISCUSSION

The side effects limit using commonly administered sedation agents in bronchoscopy, such as midazolam, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine. The nebulized dexmedetomidine is safe with proven efficacy when compared to the placebo. Proceduralist-administered conscious sedation reduces the overall cost and shortens inpatient stays. Attenuation of hemodynamic parameters by dexmedetomidine could be an advantage for the physician in reducing an untoward cardiac event.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine in the nebulized form improves the comfort of patients during the procedure. It blunts the pressure response during bronchoscopy and could be a safer and cost-effective agent in its nebulized form for conscious sedation in bronchoscopy. The study is approved by the institutional ethics committee (IEC KMC MLR 10-2021-310).

Effect of different doses of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to lignocaine nebulization: A comparative study during awake flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy

Background and Aims

Mild to moderate sedation during bronchoscopy is essential for patient safety, comfort during and after the procedure, and to facilitate the performance of the bronchoscopist. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective, centrally acting α-2 agonist used to provide conscious sedation during various procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three different doses of dexmedetomidine nebulization as an adjuvant to lignocaine during bronchoscopy.

Material and Methods

Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II patients, aged from 18 to 60 years, scheduled for an elective bronchoscopy, were recruited. They were divided into three groups: 30 patients in each group. Group I: The patient was nebulized with a mixture of 4 ml of 4% lignocaine and dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg. Group II: The patient was nebulized with a mixture of 4% lignocaine, 4 ml, and dexmedetomidine, 1 μg/kg. Group III: The patient was nebulized with 4% lignocaine 4 ml and dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg.

Results

The mean cough score was (1.17 ± 0.37), (1.40 ± 0.49), and (1.70 ± 0.75) in group III, group II, and group I, respectively. A significant difference was found between the groups. Patients were more comfortable with a statistically significant difference in the comfort score in group III as compared to group II and group I.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine nebulization in a dose of 1.5 μg/kg (compared to 1 μg/kg or 0.5 μg/kg) as an adjuvant to lignocaine, provides better bronchoscopy conditions and patient satisfaction.

Comparison of nebulized ropivacaine (0.75%) with nebulized dexmedetomidine on the hemodynamic response on intubation in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia: A comparative randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

Background

Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation lead to sympathetic stimulation resulting in hemodynamic fluctuations. We compared local anesthetic ropivacaine 0.75% with alpha agonist dexmedetomidine through ultrasonic nebulization for direct local action of the drug in the airway.

Methods

In our randomized study, 180 patients were prospectively assigned to three groups of 60 each: group R (0.75%), group D (1 microgram/kg), and group C (control). The primary objective was to determine whether nebulized ropivacaine or nebulized dexmedetomidine can cause a reduction in stress response to laryngoscopy and intubation. The secondary objectives were to compare the hemodynamic parameters at extubation, cough response at extubation, and postoperative sore throat.

Results

A total of 165 patients were analyzed. Demographically, all the groups were similar. Group R and group D were found to significantly attenuate the heart rate (HR) at intubation and extubation when compared to group C (P < 0.05). A significant reduction in mean arterial pressure (MAP) was seen (P < 0.05; group D: 90 ± 18.4 mmHg, group C: 99.5 ± 15.9 mmHg, group R: 92.4 ± 16.1 mmHg). There was a significant reduction in cough response in both groups in comparison with group C at 0 minutes (P value; group C vs group D: <.0001; group C vs group R:.01) and 5 minutes (P value; group C vs group D: <.0001; group C vs group R: <.0001).

Conclusion

Preinduction topical use of ropivacaine or dexmedetomidine, through the nebulization route, effectively attenuated the pressor responses when compared to placebo.

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.

Comparison of Intravenous Versus Nebulized Dexmedetomidine for Laryngoscopy and Intubation-Induced Sympathoadrenal Stress Response Attenuation

Background

Nebulized dexmedetomidine has been used for procedural sedation and allaying separation anxiety in children. Literature regarding its use in the attenuation of laryngoscopy and intubation response via the nebulized route is scarce. We evaluated preoperative dexmedetomidine nebulization on the hemodynamic response arising from laryngoscopy/intubation, hemodynamics, analgesic consumption, and postoperative sore throat.

Objectives

The primary objective was to evaluate/compare the hemodynamic effects of preoperative intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine on laryngoscopy/intubation and compare the efficacy of the two routes in blunting the sympathoadrenal response. The secondary objective was to evaluate their effects on intraoperative analgesic consumption and incidence and sore throat postoperatively.

Methods

120 ASA I & II adult patients undergoing elective surgeries requiring tracheal intubation were randomized to receive intravenous dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg over 10 minutes) and nebulized dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg in 3 - 4 mL of 0.9% saline), 30 min before anesthesia induction. Heart rate and non-invasive blood pressure were monitored for 10 min following laryngoscopy and then throughout the surgery. Intraoperative analgesic consumption, postoperative sore throat, and recovery from anesthesia were assessed.

Results

No significant hemodynamic difference was found between the two groups till three minutes. Then, the difference turned significant owing to a greater fall in the heart rate and mean arterial pressure in the intravenous group. Nebulized dexmedetomidine exhibited a lesser tendency of hypo/hypertension and brady/tachycardia, while hemodynamics was more stable. There was lesser sore throat and sedation in the nebulized group. Intraoperative analgesic and propofol consumption was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions

Nebulized dexmedetomidine attenuated laryngoscopy and intubation response, although to a lesser extent than the intravenous group in equivalent doses. However, the nebulized route provided greater hemodynamic stability in the intraoperative period and lesser sedation/sore throat postoperatively without an increase in adverse effects. Nebulized dexmedetomidine may provide a more holistic and viable alternative in patients who poorly tolerate hypotension, bradycardia, and sedation.

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.

Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Anesthesia plus Dorsal Penile Nerve Block in Pediatric Circumcision

Objective

To assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine anesthesia plus dorsal penile nerve block in pediatric circumcision.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 80 children receiving circumcision in our hospital from February 2020 to February 2021 were recruited and assigned via different anesthesia methods at a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive dorsal penile nerve block plus dexmedetomidine anesthesia (combined anesthesia group) or only sevoflurane for total inhalational anesthesia (total anesthesia group). Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) care was introduced to both groups of patients. Outcome measures included vital signs, operative indices, anesthesia effect, adverse reactions, parent satisfaction, and nursing satisfaction.

Results

There were no significant differences in the heart rate, oxygen saturation, and mean arterial pressure between the two groups of children before anesthesia, after anesthesia, and during the awakening period (P > 0.05). Patients receiving combined anesthesia showed a shorter time lapse before the disappearance of eyelash reflex, longer time lapse before postoperative analgesic use, faster awakening, and shorter operation time and hospital stay versus those receiving total inhalational anesthesia alone (P > 0.05). The combined anesthesia resulted in a lower Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC) score, McGill score, and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score and a higher Ramsay score versus total anesthesia (P > 0.05). Patients receiving combined anesthesia showed a significantly lower incidence of adverse events (5.00% (2/40)) versus total inhalational anesthesia (62.50% (25/40)) (X² = 29.574, P > 0.05). The combined anesthesia group had a higher parent satisfaction (92.50% (37/40)) versus the total anesthesia group (75.00% (30/40)) (X² = 4.501, P > 0.05). A total of 80 questionnaires were distributed, with a 100% return rate and a 100% validity rate, and all 80 questionnaires scored 90 points or above. The families of children in both groups were satisfied with the quality of TCM care.

Conclusion

The efficacy of dorsal penile nerve block plus dexmedetomidine anesthesia in pediatric circumcision is better than total inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane.

Recent advances in drug delivery to the central nervous system by inhalation

INTRODUCTION

Drugs need to enter the systemic circulation efficiently before they can cross the blood-brain barrier and reach the central nervous system. Although the respiratory tract is not a common route of administration for delivering drugs to the central nervous system, it has attracted increasing interest in recent years for this purpose.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we compare pulmonary delivery to three other common routes (parenteral, oral, and intranasal) for delivering drugs to the central nervous system, followed by summarising the devices used to aerosolise neurological drugs. Recent studies delivering drugs for different neurological disorders via inhalation are then discussed to illustrate the strengths of pulmonary delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent studies provide strong evidence and rationale to support inhaling neurological drugs. Since inhalation can achieve improved pharmacokinetics and rapid onset of action for multiple drugs, it is a non-invasive and efficient method to deliver drugs to the central nervous system. Future research should focus on delivering other small and macro-molecules via the lungs for different neurological conditions.

The Sedative Effects of Inhaled Nebulized Dexmedetomidine on Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Children that need surgery and medical examinations are often uncooperative, and preoperative sedation is necessary. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine in children for sedation that underwent medical examinations or surgery.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library, for randomized controlled trials of Intranasal dexmedetomidine using a spray or a mucosal atomization device in children undergoing examination or elective surgery. We included all studies that analyzed the sedation efficiency of intranasal dexmedetomidine in children.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1,233pediatric patients were included. Compared to other sedation treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine showed similar sedation satisfaction [risk ratio RR: 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.18; P = 0.83; I² = 72%]. there was also no statistical difference in the success rate of separation from parents (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82-1.12; P = 0.58; I² = 67%), and mask acceptability (RR: 1; 95% CI: 0.83-1.20; P = 0.99; I² = 35%). But it is worth mentioning that nebulized dexmedetomidine combined with ketamine provided better sedation satisfaction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.96; I² = 49%) and more satisfactory separation from parents (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; I² = 0%). Moreover, nebulized dexmedetomidine reduced the occurrences of nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.51; P < 0.01; I² = 10%) and emergence agitation (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18-0.49; P < 0.01; I² = 0%). There are no hypotension or arrhythmia reported that required intervention in all articles.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other premedication treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine provided equivalent sedation satisfaction for the examination or preoperative sedation of children, but it reduced the occurrences of emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Assessing the Antioxidant Activity of Dexmedetomidine by Measuring the Plasma Antioxidant Enzyme Activity of Catalase, Glutathione Peroxidase, and Superoxide Dismutase During Lumbar Spine Laminectomy

Background: Current knowledge on antioxidant properties of anesthetics is inconclusive. Nevertheless, experiments on different anesthesia-related drugs and techniques are growing. Objectives: The aim of this prospective blinded randomized study was to assess the effect of dexmedetomidine (Dex) infusion during anesthesia on oxidative stress resulting from lumbar laminectomy. Methods: The antioxidant activity of Dex compared to placebo (normal saline) was evaluated by measuring the antioxidant enzyme activity of catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione peroxidase (GPX). A total of 56 patients who underwent laminectomy surgery were allocated into two groups of intervention and control. Dex group received 0.6 µg.kg-1 dexmedetomidine infusion before induction of anesthesia over 15 minutes, followed by 0.4 µg.kg-1.hr-1 maintenance. Control group received the same volume and sequence of normal saline. Anesthesia protocol was similar in both groups. The antioxidant activity of the previously mentioned enzymes was measured at the beginning of the anesthesia (T1) and after surgery (T2). Propofol consumption, hemodynamic indices, shivering, bleeding volume, and pain numeric rating scale (NRS) were recorded. Results: Although the serum levels of CAT and GPX increased during the procedure, these changes were not significant (P-values 0.579 and 0.762, respectively). Also, the mean SOD level did not change over time in any of the groups, and it was not meaningfully different between the groups at any of the predetermined times (P-value 0.665). Conclusions: As expected, Dex decreased propofol consumption, mean heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and pain intensity allover the perioperative period. It seems that adding Dex to anesthesia regimen during laminectomy had no dominant antioxidant effects.

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.

Effectiveness of nebulized dexmedetomidine for treatment of post-dural puncture headache in parturients undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

The need for effective treatment for post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a growing research entity. This study aimed to test the effectiveness of additional dexmedetomidine (DEX) to PDPH conservative management and evaluate its cerebral hemodynamic effects trans-cranial Doppler.

METHODS

This prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial was conducted on 43 post-partum females suffering from PDPH with visual analog score (VAS) ≥ 4 and Lybecker score ≥ 2. The study subjects were allocated into control group [n = 22] received nebulization of 4 mL 0.9% saline and DEX group [n = 21] received nebulization of 1 µg/kg DEX diluted in 4 mL 0.9% saline twice daily that was continued until achieving VAS score ≤ 3 and Lybecker score < 2 and/or for a maximum of 72 h. Both groups received routine conservative management. The primary outcome was the VAS and Lybecker scores and the secondary results were the DEX effects on cerebral vessels and the occurrence of any adverse effects.

RESULTS

VAS and Lybecker scores were significantly lower in DEX group. The middle cerebral artery mean flow velocity was significantly lower, and the pulsatility index was considerably higher after DEX nebulization compared to placebo. Two patients in the control group were indicated for epidural blood patch.

CONCLUSION

The addition of DEX nebulization (1 µg/kg twice daily) to the PDPH conservative care effectively relieved the symptoms and lowered pain scores which could be due to its analgesic and cerebral vasoconstrictive effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was approved by the research ethical committee of Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University with the reference number (ZU-IRB#: 6075/26-4-2020) and it was registered under clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04327726).