Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine Premedication in Balanced Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Dogs.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pan SY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8614454 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus any other treatment without dexmedetomidine in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched without limitations of language and publication time. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus any other treatment without dexmedetomidine in patients that have undergone cardiac surgery were selected. Endpoints such as hemodynamic indexes and adverse events in eligible studies were extracted by two researchers, independently. The data was analyzed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 11.0 software. A total of 18 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 1730 patients. Compared to control (any treatment without dexmedetomidine), dexmedetomidine showed a pooled mean difference (MD) of -14.46 [95% confidence interval(CI): -24.69, -4.23; p<0.01] for systolic arterial pressure, a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.74 for mean arterial blood pressure (95% CI: -2.80, -0.68; P < 0.01), -2.12 (95%CI: -3.23, -1.00; p<0.01) for heart rate, and combined odds ratio (OR) of 0.22 (95%CI: 0.11, 0.44; p<0.01) for tachycardia, 3.44 (95%CI: 1.95, 5.96; p<0.01) for bradycardia, 0.74 (95%CI: 0.49, 1.12; p>0.05) for atrial fibrillation, and 0.99 (95%CI: 0.51, 1.90; p>0.05) for hypotension. In addition, dexmedetomidine could reduce time of surgery and stay in intensive care units, improve delirium with good safety. Our study shows clinical application of dexmedetomidine in cardiac surgery patients can reduce risks of abnormal hemodynamics with good safety.
| S-EPMC6145508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation.Materials and methodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsDexmedetomidine 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.
| S-EPMC5249234 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC3966844 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesDexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, which is the main sedative in the intensive care unit. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and adverse events of DEX in maintaining hemodynamic stability in pediatric cardiac surgery.SourcesDatabases such as PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, WANFANG STATA and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for articles about the application of DEX in maintaining hemodynamic stability during and after pediatric cardiac surgery up to 18th Feb. 2021. Only randomized controlled trials were included and random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the standardized mean deviation (SMD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).Summary of the findingsFifteen articles were included for this meta-analysis, and 9 articles for qualitative analysis. The results showed that preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative recovery of DEX in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery were effective in maintaining systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and reducing heart rate (HR) (SBP: SMD = -0.35,95% CI: -0.72, 0.01; MAP: SMD = -0.83, 95% CI: -1.87,0.21; DBP: SMD = -0.79,95% CI: -1.66,0.08; HR: SMD = -1.71,95% CI: -2.29, -1.13). In addition, the frequency of Junctional Ectopic Tachycardia in the DEX treatment group was lower than that in the placebo group.ConclusionsThe application of DEX for preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative recovery in pediatric cardiac surgery patients are effective in maintaining hemodynamic stability, and the clinical dose of DEX is not significantly related to the occurrence of pediatric adverse events which may be related to individual differences.
| S-EPMC9432289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelirium is a common postoperative complication. Many studies have found that dexmedetomidine is associated with a reduced incidence of postoperative delirium (POD). This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the effects of dexmedetomidine on POD incidence among elderly patients undergoing general anesthesia.MethodsWe searched 4 electronic databases (i.e., Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science) from inception to November 30, 2020, for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of dexmedetomidine in preventing the occurrence of POD in elderly patients (aged ≥60 years). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020192114).Results14 studies with 4173 patients showed that dexmedetomidine was significantly associated with a decreased POD incidence among elderly patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44-0.76). The incidence of POD was significantly reduced in the noncardiac surgery group (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37-0.72), when dexmedetomidine was applied during the postoperative period (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.40-0.70), and in patients received low-doses (RR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.34-0.87) and normal-doses (RR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.42-0.83). There were no significant differences in POD incidence in the cardiac surgery group (RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.45-1.11), and when dexmedetomidine was applied during the intra- (RR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.29-1.01) or perioperative period (RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.64-1.40).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine may significantly reduce POD incidence in elderly noncardiac surgery patients and when applied during the postoperative period, in addition, both low- and normal-doses of dexmedetomidine may reduce POD incidence. However, its use in cardiac surgery patients and during the intra- or perioperative period may have no significant effects on POD incidence.
| S-EPMC9191298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic esophageal myotomy (POEM) represents a less invasive alternative, as compared with conventional laparoscopic Heller myotomy for treating achalasia patients. In the last years, a number of prospective and retrospective experiences with POEM use for achalasia have been published. METHODS: Relevant publications in which patients affected by achalasia underwent POEM treatment were identified by PubMed databases for the period 2010 - 2013. From each study, we extracted the number and type of major complications (defined as those requiring any additional medical or surgical intervention). Data were pooled, using random-effects models. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by using Cochran's Q and the I (2) statistic. RESULTS: We found 16 studies that provided data on 551 patients. The median surveillance period was 6 months (range: 3-12). The median of mean POEM duration was 156 minutes (range: 42-112). Median myotomy length was 10?cm (range: 6-14). Technical and clinical success were reported in 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) and 93% (407/428; 95% CI: 90-95%). No heterogeneity (I (2?)=?0%) or publication bias was present in both estimates. When limiting the analysis only to adverse events that require medical or surgical interventions, major adverse events occurred in 14% (95% CI: 11-17%); however, only one patient needed post-POEM surgery (0.2%; 95% CI: 0-0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: POEM appeared to be a highly feasible and effective endoscopic treatment for achalasia. Despite POEM being apparently associated with relatively high morbidity, most patients are successfully managed conservatively, so that POEM appears as a very safe procedure; however, POEM should only be performed in centers able to treat POEM complications, such as pneumothorax or pneumoperitoneum.
| S-EPMC4528214 | biostudies-other
Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.
| S-EPMC2764163 | biostudies-other
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7381209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Leadless pacemaker is a novel technology, and evidence supporting its use is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers implanted in the right ventricle. Methods and Results We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published before June 6, 2020. The primary safety outcome was major complications, whereas the primary efficacy end point was acceptable pacing capture threshold (≤2 V). Pooled estimates were calculated using the Freedman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Of 1281 records screened, we identified 36 observational studies of Nanostim and Micra leadless pacemakers, with most (69.4%) reporting outcomes for the Micra. For Micra, the pooled incidence of complications at 90 days (n=1608) was 0.46% (95% CI, 0.08%-1.05%) and at 1 year (n=3194) was 1.77% (95% CI, 0.76%-3.07%). In 5 studies with up to 1-year follow-up, Micra was associated with 51% lower odds of complications compared with transvenous pacemakers (3.30% versus 7.43%; odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70). At 1 year, 98.96% (95% CI, 97.26%-99.94%) of 1376 patients implanted with Micra had good pacing capture thresholds. For Nanostim, the reported complication incidence ranged from 6.06% to 23.54% at 90 days and 5.33% to 6.67% at 1 year, with 90% to 100% having good pacing capture thresholds at 1 year (pooled result not estimated because of the low number of studies). Conclusions Most studies report outcomes for the Micra, which is associated with a low risk of complications and good electrical performance up to 1-year after implantation. Further data from randomized controlled trials are needed to support the widespread adoption of these devices in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8403316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections. The US Food and Drug Administration approved its use in certain types of infections among pediatric patients, and yet there have been mixed data about its efficacy and safety in this population.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to compare efficacy and all-cause mortality of cefepime to other clinically indicated antibiotics among children.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov databases through February 8, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials comparing cefepime to other clinical antibiotics, placebo, or no treatment in children aged 0-19 years in the inpatient setting with clinical signs of infection. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were success rate, treatment failure, and incidence of adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a total of 1,285 participants included, 624 participants in the cefepime arm and 661 in the comparison arm. A random effects meta-analysis for all-cause mortality showed no difference in rates of mortality between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with a mortality risk ratio of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-1.08). For the secondary outcomes of success rate and treatment failure, a random effects model meta-analysis conducted of the studies showed no difference in rate between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with an overall risk ratio of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.05) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.91-1.19), respectively. Adverse events were not statistically assessed given widespread heterogeneity. Overall, the studies had unclear risk of bias and were limited by high heterogeneity and methodological flaws.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of cefepime in pediatric patients remain unclear despite the inclusion of newer trials since the last index systematic review conducted a decade ago.
| S-EPMC5845692 | biostudies-literature