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.
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.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the influence of dexmedetomidine on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction in adult patients after receiving noncardiac surgery under general anesthesia.
MethodsThe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the influence of dexmedetomidine on the early postoperative cognitive dysfunction of patients after receiving noncardiac surgery with general anesthesia was searched in PubMed, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2013), CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and Google Scholar up to November 30th, 2013. The references of included literature were also retrieved manually. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.
ResultsA total of 22 RCTs involving 1 356 patients were enrolled. The results of meta-analysis indicated that:a) dexmedetomidine reduced the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction on the first day (RR=0.38, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.49, P < 0.001), on the seventh day (RR=0.55, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.29, P=0.17); improved postoperative MMSE scores after surgery (on the first day:MD=2.38, 95%CI 1.42 to 3.34, P < 0.001; on the seventh day:MD=0.92, 95%CI 0.16 to 1.68, P=0.02), and decreased the expression of inflammatory factor IL-6 (instant:MD=-11.96, 95%CI-18.45 to-5.46, P=0.000 3; after 24 h:MD=-7.50, 95%CI-13.73 to-1.27, P=0.02); and TNF-α (instant:MD=-4.09, 95%CI-7.02 to-1.16, P=0.006)) in patients. b) No significant difference was found between two groups (MD=-0.97, 95%CI-2.37 to 0.43, P=0.17).
ConclusionDexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the early-stage postoperative cognitive dysfunction, improve MMSE scores after the operation, and reduce inflammatory reaction. In addition, due to the limited quantity and quality of studies included, larger sample, high quality RCTs are needed to verify the abovementioned conclusion.
【摘要】 目的 評價α2受體激動劑是否可以降低七氟烷引起的小兒術后躁動的發生率。 方法 通過檢索Medline、荷蘭醫學文摘、Cochrane臨床試驗數據庫、中國生物醫學文獻數據庫和中國期刊網全文數據庫等數據庫，收集可樂定或右美托咪啶對七氟烷引起的小兒術后躁動的預防作用的隨機對照試驗（randomized controlled trial，RCT），提取資料和評估方法學質量，采用Cochrane協作網RevMan 5.0軟件進行Meta分析。 結果 最終納入11個RCT，其中104例患兒預防性使用右美托咪啶，268例患兒使用可樂定，365例患兒使用安慰劑。Meta分析顯示，可樂定組小兒術后躁動發生率的比值比（OR）為0.31，95%CI為（0.15，0.61）（P=0.000 8）；右美托咪啶組小兒術后躁動發生率的OR為0.16，95%CI為（0.08，0.31）（Plt;0.000 01）。 結論 α2受體激動劑可以顯著降低七氟烷引起的小兒術后躁動的發生率。【Abstract】 Objective To determine whether alpha2-adrenoceptor agonists can decrease emergence agitation (EA) in pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia. Methods The Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM and CNKI were searched. All randomized controlled trials comparing clonidine or dexmedetomidine with other interventions in preventing emergence agitation after sevoflurane anesthesia were retrieved. Study selection and assessment, data collection and analyses were undertaken. Meta-analysis was done using the Cochrane Collaboration RevMan 5.0 software. Results Eleven articles reached our inclusion criteria and were included in the Meta-analysis. A total of 104 children treated with dexmedetomidine, 268 children treated with clonidine, and 365 children treated with placebo were evaluated for the incidence of emergence agitation. The pooled odds ratio for the clonidine subgroup was 0.31, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.15-0.61 (P=0.000 8). The pooled odds ratio for the dexmedetomidine subgroup was 0.16, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.08-0.31 (Plt;0.000 01). Conclusion Alpha2-adrenoceptor agonists can significantly decrease the incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia.
