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-other | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

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: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: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: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.

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.Materials and methodsMedline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66-5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.ConclusionOur results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.

Dataset Information

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

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