Dataset Information

Does dexmedetomidine as a neuraxial adjuvant facilitate better anesthesia and analgesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neuraxial application of dexmedetomidine (DEX) as adjuvant analgesic has been invetigated in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety in these RCTs. We performed this meta-analysis to access the efficacy and safety of neuraxial DEX as local anaesthetic (LA) adjuvant.

Methods

We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to June 2013 for RCTs that investigated the analgesia efficacy and safety for neuraxial application DEX as LA adjuvant. Effects were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighed mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratio (OR) with suitable effect model. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity and analgesic duration, bradycardia and hypotension.

Results

Sixteen RCTs involving 1092 participants were included. Neuraxial DEX significantly decreased postoperative pain intensity (SMD, -1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.70 to -0.89; P<0.00001), prolonged analgesic duration (WMD, 6.93 hours; 95% CI, 5.23 to 8.62; P<0.00001) and increased the risk of bradycardia (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.18 to 6.10; P = 0.02). No evidence showed that neuraxial DEX increased the risk of other adverse events, such as hypotension (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.85; P = 0.17). Additionally, neuraxial DEX was associated with beneficial alterations in postoperative sedation scores and number of analgesic requirements, sensory and motor block characteristics, and intro-operative hemodynamics.

Conclusion

Neuraxial DEX is a favorable LA adjuvant with better and longer analgesia. The greatest concern is bradycardia. Further large sample trials with strict design and focusing on long-term outcomes are needed.

SUBMITTER: Wu HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3966844 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does dexmedetomidine as a neuraxial adjuvant facilitate better anesthesia and analgesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wu Huang-Hui HH Wang Hong-Tao HT Jin Jun-Jie JJ Cui Guang-Bin GB Zhou Ke-Cheng KC Chen Yu Y Chen Guo-Zhong GZ Dong Yu-Lin YL Wang Wen W

PloS one 20140326 3

<h4>Background</h4>Neuraxial application of dexmedetomidine (DEX) as adjuvant analgesic has been invetigated in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety in these RCTs. We performed this meta-analysis to access the efficacy and safety of neuraxial DEX as local anaesthetic (LA) adjuvant.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to June 2013 for RCTs that investigated t ...[more]

PMID: 24671181

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDexmedetomidine, a highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist, has been investigated for anti-shivering effects in some trials. This current meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as a neuraxial adjuvant in preventing perioperative shivering.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO [www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO] with the unique identification number CRD42017055991. The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to select high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the anti-shivering efficacy for neuraxial application dexmedetomidine as local anesthetic adjuvant. Effects were summarized using pooled risk ratios (RRs), weighed mean differences (MDs), or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (Cls) with random effect model. Heterogeneity assessment, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were performed. The primary outcome was perioperative shivering.ResultsA total of 1760 patients from 24 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the placebo, dexmedetomidine reduced the incidence of perioperative shivering (RR: 0.34; 95% Cl: 0.21 to 0.55; P < 0.00001), with a maximum effective dose of 5μg via subarachnoid space injection (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.92; P = 0.02), especially in cesarean section (RR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.45; P = 0.0001). Dexmedetomidine also could improve the characteristics of the block, with an increase only in the incidence of bradycardia (RR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.23 to 3.60; P = 0.006). No significant difference could be found compared dexmedetomidine with other adjuvants, except morphine.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that dexmedetomidine as a neuraxial adjuvant had statistically significant efficacy on prevention of perioperative shivering. Moreover, dexmedetomidine could improve the characteristics of the block. However, the potential induction of bradycardia should be taken seriously.

Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension under general anesthesia. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP databases, as well as dissertations and conference papers, to obtain randomized controlled trials comparing remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension before August 23, 2021. The primary outcomes included hemodynamic profiles, surgical field score, and blood loss. Extubation time, sedation and pain score at the PACU, and perioperative adverse events were the secondary outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials with 543 patients (272 in the dexmedetomidine group and 271 in the remifentanil group) were eventually included. This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between dexmedetomidine and remifentanil in terms of surgical field score, blood loss, minimum values of mean arterial pressure (MD 0.24 with 95% CI [-1.65, 2.13], P = 0.80, I2 = 66%) and heart rate (MD 0.42 [-1.33, 2.17], P = 0.64, I2 = 40%), sedation scores at the PACU (MD -0.09 [-0.69, 0.50], P = 0.76, I2 = 92%), and incidence of bradycardia (OR 2.24 [0.70, 7.15], P = 0.17, I2 = 0%). Compared with remifentanil, dexmedetomidine as the controlled hypotensive agent showed a lower visual analogue score at the PACU (MD -1.01 [-1.25, -0.77], P<0.00001, I2 = 0%) and incidence of shivering (OR 0.22 [0.08, 0.60], P = 0.003, I2 = 0%), nausea, and vomiting (OR 0.34 [0.13, 0.89], P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). However, extubation time was shorter in the remifentanil group (MD 3.34 [0.75, 5.93], P = 0.01, I2 = 90%). In conclusion, dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are both effective in providing satisfactory controlled hypotension and surgical conditions. Dexmedetomidine is better in easing postoperative pain at the PACU and reducing the occurrence of shivering, nausea, and vomiting. Meanwhile, remifentanil is a fast-track anesthesia with a shorter extubation time. Given the limitations of this meta-analysis, further studies are needed for a more definitive comparison of the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil.

Project description:BackgroundExternal cephalic version (ECV) is a frequently performed obstetric procedure for fetal breech presentation to avoid cesarean delivery. Neuraxial, intravenous, and inhalational anesthetic techniques have been studied to reduce maternal discomfort caused by the forceful manipulation. This study compares the effects of these anesthetic techniques on ECV and incidence of cesarean delivery.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or well-conducted quasi-randomized trials of ECV performed either without anesthesia or under neuraxial, intravenous, or inhalational anesthesia. Pairwise random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed to compare and rank the perinatal outcomes of the 3 anesthetic interventions and no anesthesia control, including the rate of successful version, cesarean delivery, maternal hypotension, nonreassuring fetal response, and adequacy of maternal pain control/satisfaction.ResultsEighteen RCTs and 1 quasi-randomized trial involving a total of 2296 term parturients with a noncephalic presenting singleton fetus were included. ECV under neuraxial anesthesia had significantly higher odds of successful fetal version compared to control (odds ratio [OR] = 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-3.57), compared to intravenous anesthesia (OR = 2.08; 95% CI, 1.36-3.16), and compared to inhalational anesthesia (OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.33-4.00). No association was found between anesthesia interventions and rate of cesarean delivery. Neuraxial anesthesia was associated with higher odds of maternal hypotension (OR = 9.33; 95% CI, 3.14-27.68). Intravenous anesthesia was associated with significantly lower odds of nonreassuring fetal response compared to control (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82). Patients received neuraxial anesthesia reported significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) of procedure-related pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.61; 95% CI, -1.92 to -1.31). The VAS scores of pain were also significantly lower with intravenous (SMD = -1.61; 95% CI, -1.92 to -1.31) and inhalational (SMD = -1.19; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.8) anesthesia. The VAS of patient satisfaction was significantly higher with intravenous anesthesia (SMD = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.64-2.43).ConclusionsCompared to control, ECV with neuraxial anesthesia had a significantly higher successful rate; however, the odds of maternal hypotension increased significantly. All anesthesia interventions provided significant reduction of procedure-related pain. Intravenous anesthesia had significantly higher score in patient satisfaction and lower odds of nonreassuring fetal response. No evidence indicated that anesthesia interventions were associated with significant decrease in the incidence of cesarean delivery compared to control.

Project description:BackgroundRopivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic that is used to treat postoperative pain. Adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine in regional anesthesia may prolong the duration of analgesia. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the duration and effect of ropivacaine alone vs. ropivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ropivacaine alone or ropivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine for regional anesthesia. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia, defined as the time from onset of the block to the time of the first analgesic request or initial pain report. Secondary outcomes were duration of sensory block, duration of motor block, consumption of sufentanil for analgesia, length of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.ResultsEighteen studies with 1148 patients were included. Overall quality of the RCTs, as assessed by the Jadad scale, was high. The meta-analysis demonstrated that ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia from local anesthetics compared to ropivacaine alone (WMD: 4.14h; 95%CI: 3.29~5.0h; P<0.00001; I2 = 99%). There was evidence of high heterogeneity between studies. The duration of sensory and motor block was significantly increased, and consumption of sufentanil for analgesia and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced in patients who received ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine compared to ropivacaine alone. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay.ConclusionsCompared to ropivacaine alone, ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia and sensory and motor block, and reduced consumption of sufentanil for analgesia and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, across an array of surgeries.

Project description:BackgroundPatients undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a high risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality and often have long hospital stays. Use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia may represent one approach to improving outcomes and reducing resource use among these patients.ObjectiveThe aim is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes and costs and a shorter length of hospitalization.MethodsWe will search electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the seven databases in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Google Scholar), review papers identified during the search, and included article bibliographies. We will include randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD. Two investigators will independently evaluate the risk of bias. The primary outcome will be short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. Secondary outcomes will include longer-term mortality; major adverse cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, and limb events; delirium; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; neuraxial or regional anesthesia-related complications; graft-related outcomes; length of operation and hospital stay; costs; and patient-reported or functional outcomes. We will calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity will be explored using stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression. We will assess for publication bias using the Begg and Egger tests and use the trim-and-fill method to estimate the potential influence of this bias on summary estimates. Finally, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to make an overall rating of the quality of evidence in our effect estimates.ResultsThe protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). We executed the peer-reviewed search strategy on March 2, 2021. We completed the review of titles and abstracts on July 30, 2021, and plan to complete the review of full-text papers by September 30, 2021. We will complete full-text study data extraction and the risk-of-bias assessment by November 15, 2021, and conduct qualitative and then quantitative data synthesis and GRADE assessment of results by January 1, 2022, before drafting the manuscript. We anticipate that we will be able to submit the manuscript for peer review by the end of February 2022.ConclusionsThis study will synthesize existing evidence regarding whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes, graft patency, and costs and a shorter length of hospital stay. Study results will be used to inform practice and future research, including creation of a pilot and then multicenter randomized controlled trial.Trial registrationProspero CRD42021237060; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=237060.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/32170.

Project description:ObjectiveDexmedetomidine is a medication that has analgesic, sedative, and anti-anxiety properties. In the clinical, it is often used to prevent common complications associated with strabismus surgery, including postoperative delirium, postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, and oculocardiac reflex. However, its effectiveness and side effects of the present studies are different. The sample sizes of the present studies on the prevention of complications of dexmedetomidine are small. Therefore, this study evaluates the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in preventing anesthesia-related complications in strabismus surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsLiterature was retrieved from 10 commonly used databases and randomized controlled trials published up to May 2022 were sought. The included studies compared the intervention effects of dexmedetomidine versus placebo on anesthesia-related complications in surgery. The occurrence rates of postoperative delirium, postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, and oculocardiac reflex in patients undergoing strabismus surgery were evaluated. Statistical analyses and forest plots were generated using Review Manager and STATA software. Binary outcomes were measured using relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each outcome. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and risk in the studies that met the inclusion criteria.ResultsA total of 13 articles were ultimately included in the analysis, comprising 1,018 patients who underwent strabismus surgery. The dexmedetomidine group, compared to the placebo group, demonstrated significant reductions in the incidence of postoperative delirium (RR = 0.73, P = 0.001), severe postoperative delirium (RR = 0.45, P = 0.005), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.48, P < 0.0001), and the need for supplemental analgesia postoperatively (RR = 0.60, P = 0.004). Additionally, subgroup analysis revealed that intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of oculocardiac reflex (RR = 0.50, P = 0.001). In contrast, intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine did not have a significant effect on the incidence of oculocardiac reflex (RR = 1.22, P = 0.15). There was a significant difference between the subgroups (P = 0.0005, I2 = 91.7%).ConclusionAmong patients undergoing strabismus surgery, the use of dexmedetomidine can alleviate postoperative delirium and reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as postoperative pain. Moreover, intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine can lower the occurrence rate of the oculocardiac reflex.

Dataset Information

Does dexmedetomidine as a neuraxial adjuvant facilitate better anesthesia and analgesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Does dexmedetomidine as a neuraxial adjuvant facilitate better anesthesia and analgesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets