Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for postoperative sedation in cardiac patients. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched electronically from the date of their establishment to May 2012, and other relevant journals and references of the included literature were also searched manually. Two reviewers independently screened the studies in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed methodology quality. Then the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1software. Results A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1 157 patients were included. The Jadad scores of 7 RCTs were more than 3, and only 1 RCT scored 2. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine significantly raised peripheral oxygen saturation (RR=0.90, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.49, P=0.003), decreased the incidence of average heart rate (RR=–5.86, 95%CI –7.31 to −4.40, Plt;0.000 01), ventricular tachycardia (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.88, P=0.03), delirium (RR=0.28, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.48, Plt;0.000 01) and postoperative hyperglycemia (RR=0.57, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.85, P=0.006), and reduced the number of patients who needed vasoactive agents such as epinephrine (RR=0.53, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.96, P=0.04) and β-blocker (RR=0.60, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.94, P=0.03). However, it failed to shorten the time of both ICU stay (RR=−1.24, 95%CI −4.35 to 1.87, P=0.43) and mechanical ventilation (RR=−2.28, 95%CI −5.13 to 0.57, P=0.12), increase mean artery pressure (RR=−2.78, 95%CI −6.89 to 1.34, P=0.19), and well control postoperative nausea, vomiting and atrial-fibrillation. There were no significant differences between the two groups in myocardial infarction, acute cardiac failure, acute kidney failure, and mortality rate. Conclusion For postoperative sedation in cardiac patients, dexmedetomidine can effectively stabilize hemodynamic indexes, and reduce tachycardia, delirium, postoperative hyperglycemia and vasoactive agents. However, it has no marked influence on the prognosis. For the quantity and quality limitation of included studies, this conclusion needs to be proved by performing more high quality and large sample RCTs.
Objective To assess the influence of dexmedetomidine on the recovery of pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia. Methods Such databases as PubMed (1966 to March 2012), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), EBSCO (ASP) (1984 to March 2012), Journals@Ovid Full Text (1993 to March 2012), CBM (1978 to March 2012), CNKI (1979 to March 2012), VIP (1989 to March 2012), and WanFang Data (1998 to March 2012) were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the influence of dexmedetomidine on the recovery of pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia, and the references of the included studies were also retrieved. Two researchers extracted the data and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies independently. Then the RevMan 5.2 software was used for meta-analysis. Results A total of 16 RCTs involving 1 217 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the placebo, dexmedetomidine could reduce the occurrence of emergence agitation (OR=0.18, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.25, Plt;0.000 01) and increase the occurrence of postoperative lethargy (OR=0.14, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.68, P=0.01), but there were no differences in the occurrence of side effects including bronchospasm, bucking, breathholding, and oxygen desaturation. Dexmedetomidine could also reduce mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) of pediatric patients during the recovery period after sevoflurane anesthesia, but it increased emergence time (MD=2.14, 95%CI 0.95 to 3.33, P=0.000 4), extubation time (MD=1.26, 95%CI 0.51 to 2.00, P=0.000 9) and the time of staying in PACU (MD=4.72, 95%CI 2.07 to 7.38, P=0.000 5). Conclusions For pediatric patients recovering from sevoflurane-based general anesthesia, dexmedetomidine can reduce the occurrence of emergence agitation, and is helpful to maintain the hemodynamic balance. But it prolongs emergence time, extubation time (or the time of using the laryngeal mask) and the time of staying in PACU, and increases the occurrence of postoperative lethargy.
Objective To explore the influence of dexmedetomidine on wake-up test during spinal orthopaedic surgery. Methods All 80 patients taking spinal orthopaedic surgery were randomly divided into the trial group and the control group, with 40 cases in each group. The endotracheal intubation anesthesia was adopted in both groups with same anesthesia induction. Additionally, dexmedetomidine 0.8 μg/ (kg·h) was infused within 10 min in the trial group before anesthesia induction, and then another 0.5 μg/ (kg·h) was also infused from the intraoperation to suture of incision. For the control group, the same amount of normal saline was infused, and all the narcotics were stopped pumping 15 min before the wake-up test, but then were continued pumping after the wake-up test. Finally, the following indexes were analyzed: wake-up time, wake-up quality, hemodynamic changes at the time of 15 min before wake-up (T1), recovery of spontaneous breathing (T2), wake-up (T3) and 15 min after wake-up (T4), dosage of narcotics, and the incidence of adverse events. Results There was no significant difference in the operation time before wake-up between the two groups (P=0.07). For the trial group, the dosage of sevoflurane (P=0.03) and sufentanil (P=0.00) used before wake-up was significantly lower, the wake-up time (P=0.04) and bleeding amount during wake-up (P=0.00) were significantly less, the wake-up quality (P=0.03) was significantly higher, the blood pressure (P=0.00) and heart rate (P=0.00) when wake-up were significantly lower, and the incidence of adverse events (P=0.04) was significantly lower, compared with the control group. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine adopted in spinal orthopaedic surgery can significantly improve patient’s wake-up quality, shorten wake-up time, reduce bleeding amount when wake-up and adverse events after wake-up, and maintain the hemodynamic stability, so it has better protective effects.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine used for intravertebral anesthesia. Methods A search in PubMed Central, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, CNKI and WanFang Data was conducted from the date of their establishment to February 2011, so as to collect the randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on dexmedetomidine used for intravertebral anesthesia. The reference lists of identified papers were examined for further trials. After the data were extracted and the quality was assessed in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the Meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan5.0 software. Results A total of 13 RCTs involving 672 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with saline solution, dexmedetomidine tended to speed up the mean time of sensory block to reach T10 dermatome (MD= –2.39, 95%CI –4.40 to –0.39) and motor block to reach Bromage 3 (MD= –5.30, 95%CI –7.18 to –3.43). It also prolonged the time for two dermatomes regression of sensory blockade (MD=51.14, 95%CI 44.96 to 57.32) and complete resolution of motor blockade (MD=68.46, 95%CI 38.56 to 98.35). Peri-operative bradycardia significantly increased (RR=3.03, 95%CI 1.64 to 5.59) but shivering decreased (RR=0.47, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.80). In comparison with the control group, dexmedetomidine showed no difference in low blood pressure and occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Conclusion The current evidence shows that dexmedetomidine shortens the time for taking effect, prolongs the duration of intravertebral anesthesia, decreases the occurrence of shivering, and increases the occurrence of bradycardia.
Objective To evaluate the sedative and analgesic efficacy and adverse effect of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the postoperative patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCI, SpringerLinker, ScinceDirect, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM from the date of their establishment to November 2011. The quality of the included studies was evaluated after the data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1. Results Ten RCTs involoving 793 cases were included. The qualitative analysis results showed: within a certain range of dosage as dexmedetomidine: 0.2-2.5 μg/(kg·h), and propofol: 0.8-4 mg/(kg·h), dexmedetomidine was similar to propofol in sedative effect, but dexmedetomidine group needed smaller dosage of supplemental analgesics during the period of sedative therapy. The results of meta-analysis showed: the percentage of patients needing supplemental analgesics in dexmedetomidine group was less than that in propofol group during the period of sedative therapy (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.68, P=0.008). Compared with the propofol group, the duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (WMD= –1.10, 95%CI –1.88 to –0.32, P=0.006), but the mechanical ventilated time was comparable between the two groups (WMD=0.89, 95%CI –1.15 to 2.93, P=0.39); the incidence of adverse effects had no significant difference between two groups (bradycardia: OR=3.57, 95%CI 0.86 to 14.75, P=0.08; hypotension: OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.30 to 3.32, P=1.00); respiratory depression seemed to be more frequently in propofol group, which however needed further study. Mortalities were similar in both groups after the sedative therapy (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.99, P=0.92). Conclusion Within an exact range of dosage, dexmedetomidine is comparable with propofol in sedative effect. Besides, it has analgesic effect, fewer adverse effects and fewer occurrences of respiratory depression, and it can save the extra dosage of analgesics and shorten ICU stay. Still, more larger-sample, multi-center RCTs are needed to provide more evidence to support this outcome.
Objective To carry out a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in comparison with midazolam as preoperative drug. Methods All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about dexmedetomidine as preoperative drug compared with midazolam were identified. Meta analysis was performed by using the statistical software RevMan 4.2.10 on the basis of strict quality evaluation. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 806 patients were included. The results of meta analyses showed that dexmedetomidine was better than midazolam in decreasing perioperative blood pressure and heart rate, decreasing dosage of anesthetics, shortening of emergence time, and decreasing the occurrence of agitation, while the occurrence of perioperative hypotention and bradycardia of dexmedetomidine was much more than midazolam. The statistical outcomes showed that there were no differences between the two drugs in the satisfactory score, postoperative sedation score, the number of people needing analgesia, and occurrence of nausea and vomitting. Conclusion Significant advantages in favour of dexmedetomidine as preoperative drug are observed. Dexmedetomidine is safe except for more incidences of hypotension and bradycardia.
Objective To determine the efficiency and safety of dexmedetomidine in general anesthesia. Methods Trials were located through electronic searches of the PubMed, EBSCO, OVID, Springer, Foreign Journals Integration System, CNKI, CMBdisk (from the date of establishment of the databases to April 2008). Bibliographies of the retrieved articles were also checked. Result A total of 25 trials involving 1 241 patients were included. The Meta-analysis showed: dexmedetomidine reduced peri-operative heart rate and blood pressure, reduced the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomitting [RR=0.57, 95%CI (0.38, 0.84)], postoperative agitation [RR=0.29, 95%CI (0.17, 0.51)], shivering [RR=0.45, 95%CI (0.29, 0.68)], increase the occurrence of bradycardia [RR=2.16, 95%CI (1.58, 2.95)], hypotension [RR=2.97, 95%CI (1.42, 6.18)]. Dexmedetomidine reduced administration of thiopental, isoflurane and fentanyl, while there was no difference in muscle relaxant. Dexmedetomidine showed no difference in emergency time compared with the control group. As a result of low incidence of adverse reaction, dexmedetomidine showed superior in discharge time [WMD15.17, 95%CI (3.87, 26.46)]. Conclusions The limited current evidence shows that dexmedetomidine is better in maintaining the hemodynamic balance; reducing occurrence of nausea, vomiting, agitation and shivering; and reducing doses of anesthetics. In emergency time, dexmedetomidine shows no difference except discharge time.
Objective To investigate the feasibility of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride in sedation practices during NPPV for patients with acute exacerbation of COPD ( AECOPD) and respiratory failure. Methods 50 patients with AECOPD and respiratory failure, admitted in ICU between January 2011 and April 2012, were divide into an observation group and a control group. All patients received conventional treatment and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation ( NPPV) . Meanwhile in the observation group, dexmedetomidine hydrochloride ( 1 μg/kg) was intravenously injected within 10 minutes, then maintained using a micropump by 0.1 ～0. 6 μg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 to maintaining Ramsay Sedation Scale ( RSS) score ranged from 2 to 4. The patients’compliance to NPPV treatment ( conversion rate to invasive ventilation) and ICU stay were compared between two groups. Heart rate,mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, and arterial blood gas ( pH, PaO2 , PaCO2 ) before and 24 hours after treatment were also compared. Results After 24 hours treatment, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, and arterial blood gas were all improved in two groups, while the improvements were more remarkable in the observation group. The conversion rate to invasive ventilation ( 4% vs. 16% ) and ICUstay [ ( 5.47 ±3.19) d vs. ( 8.78 ±3.45) d] were lower in the observation group than those in the control group. ( P lt;0.05) . Conclusion Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride may serve as a safe and effective sedative drug during NPPV in patients with AECOPD and respiratory failure.
Objective To study the sedative effects and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolamfor acute exacerbate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( AECOPD) underwentmechanical ventilation.Methods 68 AECOPD patients underwentmechanical ventilation were enrolled and randomly divided into adexmedetomidine group ( n =34) and a midazolam group ( n = 34) by acute physiology and chronic healthevaluation Ⅱ ( APACHEⅡ) score. The patients in the dexmedetomidine group were given a loading dose( 1 μg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 2-0. 8 mg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 . The patients in the midazolam group weregiven a loading dose ( 0. 05 mg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 06-0. 2 mg· kg- 1 · h- 1 . Sedation levelwas assessed by Ramsay score and maintained a Ramsay score of 3-4. The sedation onset time, disablesedatives wake time, duration of mechanical ventilation, extubation success rate, ICU length of stay, and 28days mortality after admission to the ICU were compared between two groups. And calmer respiratorydepression, circulatory and delirium adverse reactions incidence were also compared. Results Thedifferences in patients’age, gender, and APACHEⅡ score between two groups were not significant ( P gt;0. 05) . Compared with the midazolam group, the dexmedetomidine group had more rapid onset of sedation[ ( 49. 80 ±8. 20) s vs. ( 107. 55 ±19. 65) s, P lt;0. 01] , shorter wake-up time [ ( 18. 90 ±2. 30) min vs. ( 40. 82 ±19. 85) min, P lt;0. 01] , shorter duration of mechanical ventilation [ ( 4. 9 ±1. 6) d vs. ( 7. 8 ±2. 5) d,P lt;0. 01] , higher successful extubation rate ( 79. 41% vs. 58. 82% , P lt;0. 01) , and shorter ICUlength of stay[ ( 6. 5 ±2. 5) d vs. ( 9. 6 ±3. 4) d, P lt;0. 05] . Dexmedetomidine had lower respiratory depression rate, littleeffects on hemodynamics, lower occurrence and short duration of delirium. Conclusion It is highlyrecommended that dexmedetomidine be used for sedation in AECOPD patients with mechanical ventilation.
ObjectiveTo observe the effect of dexmedetomidine combined with etomidate on the clinical safety and the tracheal extubation response after general anesthesⅠa in elderly patient undergoing thyroidectomy. MethodsFifty patients (aged between 65 and 75 years, ASAⅠor Ⅱ) scheduled for thyroid surgery between July 2012 and January 2013 were randomly divided into two groups:dexmedetomidine group (group D) and control group (group C) with 25 patients in each group. Group D received dexmedetomidine of 0.5 μg/(kg·h) through intravenous infusion after anesthesia induction, and the intravenous infusion was stopped five minutes before the end of surgery. Normal saline was infused at the same volume in group C at the same time. Patients were induced with etomidate at 0.2 mg/kg for anesthesia, and etomidate and remifentanil were used for the anesthesia maintenance during the operation. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded 5 (T1), 15 (T2) and 30 (T3) minutes after the beginning of the operation, and 15 (T4) and 5 (T5) minutes before the end of the operation. Moreover, the time of eye opening, time of extubation, the number of patients with restlessness and etomidate requirement were recorded. ResultsCompared with group C, HR and MAP at the time points of T2 and T5 in group D did not obviously change, but the number of restlessness patients in group D was significantly less than in group C (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in time of eye opening and time of extubation between the two groups (P>0.05). Etomidate requirement in group D was[(8.6±2.1) μg/(kg·min)], which was significantly lower than that in group C[(14.4±3.4) μg/(kg·min)] (P<0.05). ConclusionDexmedetomidine combined with etomidate is efficient and safe for elderly patients undergoing thyroidectomy, and this method can effectively reduce cardiovascular responses to tracheal extubation, decrease the incidence of postoperative restlessness, and reduce the requirement of etomidate during the operation.