Dataset Information

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation.

Materials and methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (?18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for conscious sedation and at least one group receiving dexmedetomidine and one group receiving midazolam. Exclusion criteria: patients in intensive care, pediatric subjects and per protocol use of additional sedative medication other than rescue medication. Outcome measures for efficacy comparison were patient and clinician satisfaction scores and pain scores; outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications.

Results

We identified 89 papers, of which 12 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 883 patients were included in these studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher patient and operator satisfaction than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced less pain and had lower analgesic requirements. Respiratory and hemodynamic safety were similar.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine is a promising alternative to midazolam for use in procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine provides more comfort during the procedure for the patient and clinician. If carefully titrated, the safety profiles are similar.

SUBMITTER: Barends CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5249234 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.

Barends Clemens R M CR Absalom Anthony A van Minnen Baucke B Vissink Arjan A Visser Anita A

PloS one 20170120 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (≥18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for con ...[more]

PMID: 28107373

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Remimazolam is an ultra-short acting, fast onset/fast offset benzodiazepine for intravenous use in procedural sedation, general anesthesia, and Intensive Care Unit sedation. The aim of this work was to compare the efficacy of remimazolam versus midazolam dosed according to medical practice (real-world midazolam) and midazolam dosed according to US prescribing information (on-label midazolam) for procedural sedation. Patients and methods This post hoc analysis was performed using integrated data from three randomized, placebo, and active (midazolam) controlled, phase 3 clinical trials in patients undergoing colonoscopy and bronchoscopy. Statistical comparisons between treatment groups, without adjustment for potential confounding factors, were exploratory and observational in nature. Results The mean ± SD dose of midazolam in the real-world midazolam group was 6.2 ± 3.1 mg, compared with 3.5 ± 1.5 mg in the on-label midazolam group. remimazolam showed significantly shorter time from first dose to start of procedure (median 3 minutes) compared to on-label midazolam (median 8 minutes). Recovery time from end of procedure to fully alert was significantly shorter for remimazolam (median 6 minutes) than real-world midazolam (median 14 minutes), enabling earlier transfer of patients from the procedure room to the recovery area with a lower requirement for patient monitoring. The onset and recovery times with remimazolam showed significantly less inter-patient variability than with on-label midazolam and real-world midazolam, respectively. Patients treated with remimazolam received significantly less fentanyl for analgesia (78.2 ± 28.4 µg) than did those treated with real-world midazolam (113.6 ± 60.1 µg) and on-label midazolam (92.5 ± 40.0 µg). Conclusions Remimazolam offers advantages over midazolam in terms of faster recovery and less fentanyl requirement, which may facilitate increased procedural throughput in clinical practice.

Project description:IntroductionDexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation.MethodsThe total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only.ResultsBased on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam).ConclusionsFrom an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of capnography monitoring on sedation-related adverse events during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) administered for ambulatory surgery relative to visual assessment and pulse oximetry alone.Design and settingSystematic literature review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sedation-related adverse event incidence when adding capnography to visual assessment and pulse oximetry in patients undergoing PSA during ambulatory surgery in the hospital setting. Searches for eligible studies published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2016 (inclusive) were conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE without any language constraints. Searches were conducted in January 2017, screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers, and study quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale.InterventionsCapnography monitoring relative to visual assessment and pulse oximetry alone.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPredefined endpoints of interest were desaturation/hypoxaemia (the primary endpoint), apnoea, aspiration, bradycardia, hypotension, premature procedure termination, respiratory failure, use of assisted/bag-mask ventilation and death during PSA.ResultsThe literature search identified 1006 unique articles, of which 13 were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. Addition of capnography to visual assessment and pulse oximetry was associated with a significant reduction in mild (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95%?CI 0.67 to 0.89) and severe (RR 0.59, 95%?CI 0.43 to 0.81) desaturation, as well as in the use of assisted ventilation (OR 0.47, 95%?CI 0.23 to 0.95). No significant differences in other endpoints were identified.ConclusionsMeta-analysis of 13 RCTs published between 2006 and 2016 showed a reduction in respiratory compromise (from respiratory insufficiency to failure) during PSA with the inclusion of capnography monitoring. In particular, use of capnography was associated with less mild and severe oxygen desaturation, which may have helped to avoid the need for assisted ventilation.

Project description:BackgroundProcedural sedation and analgesia are commonly used in the Emergency Departments. Despite this common need, there is still a lack of options for adequate and safe analgesia and sedation in children. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether intranasal dexmedetomidine could provide more effective analgesia and sedation during a procedure than intranasal esketamine.MethodsThis was a double-blind equally randomized (1:1) superiority trial of 30 children aged 1-3 years presenting to the Emergency Department with a laceration or a burn and requiring procedural sedation and analgesia. Patients were randomized to receive 2.0 mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine or 1.0 mg/kg intranasal esketamine. The primary outcome measure was highest pain (assessed using Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale (FLACC)) during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were sedation depth, parents' satisfaction, and physician's assessment. Comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test (continuous variables) and Fisher's test (categorical variables).ResultsAdequate analgesia and sedation were reached in 28/30 patients. The estimated sample size was not reached due to changes in treatment of minor injuries and logistical reasons. The median (IQR) of highest FLACC was 1 (0-3) with intranasal dexmedetomidine and 5 (2-6.75) with intranasal esketamine, (p-value 0.09). 85.7% of the parents with children treated with intranasal dexmedetomidine were "very satisfied" with the procedure and sedation compared to the 46.2% of those with intranasal esketamine, (p-value 0.1). No severe adverse events were reported during this trial.ConclusionsThis study was underpowered and did not show any difference between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal esketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in young children. However, the results support that intranasal dexmedetomidine could provide effective analgesia and sedation during procedures in young children aged 1-3 years with minor injuries.Trial registrationEudra-CT 2017-00057-40, April 20, 2017. https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/.

Dataset Information

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets