Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine used for intravertebral anesthesia. Methods A search in PubMed Central, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, CNKI and WanFang Data was conducted from the date of their establishment to February 2011, so as to collect the randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on dexmedetomidine used for intravertebral anesthesia. The reference lists of identified papers were examined for further trials. After the data were extracted and the quality was assessed in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the Meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan5.0 software. Results A total of 13 RCTs involving 672 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with saline solution, dexmedetomidine tended to speed up the mean time of sensory block to reach T10 dermatome (MD= –2.39, 95%CI –4.40 to –0.39) and motor block to reach Bromage 3 (MD= –5.30, 95%CI –7.18 to –3.43). It also prolonged the time for two dermatomes regression of sensory blockade (MD=51.14, 95%CI 44.96 to 57.32) and complete resolution of motor blockade (MD=68.46, 95%CI 38.56 to 98.35). Peri-operative bradycardia significantly increased (RR=3.03, 95%CI 1.64 to 5.59) but shivering decreased (RR=0.47, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.80). In comparison with the control group, dexmedetomidine showed no difference in low blood pressure and occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Conclusion The current evidence shows that dexmedetomidine shortens the time for taking effect, prolongs the duration of intravertebral anesthesia, decreases the occurrence of shivering, and increases the occurrence of bradycardia.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the influence of dexmedetomidine on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and serum inflammatory factors in elderly patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases from inception to April 2017, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about dexmedetomidine for early POCD in elderly patients. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 23 RCTs, including 2 026 patients were enrolled. The results of meta-analysis showed that, the incidence of POCD in the dexmedetomidine group was lower than that in the control group (the first day: RR=0.40, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.53, P<0.000 01; the third day: RR=0.33, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.48,P<0.000 01; the seventh day: RR=0.42, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.78,P=0.006). Meanwhile, compared with the control group, the dexmedetomidine group significantly decreased the serum levels of TNF-α (immediately after operation: MD=–5.43, 95%CI –7.44 to –3.42, P<0.000 01; 1 h after operation: MD=–4.64, 95%CI –6.92 to –2.36,P<0.000 1; 24 h after operation: MD=–3.27, 95%CI –4.92 to –1.63,P<0.000 1) and IL-6 (immediately after operation: MD=–30.69, 95%CI –41.39 to –20.00,P<0.000 01; 1h after operation: MD=–20.84, 95%CI –28.87 to –12.80,P<0.000 01; 24 h after operation: MD=–13.42, 95%CI –19.90 to –6.94,P<0.000 1).ConclusionCurrent evidence indicates that dexmedetomidine could relief early POCD in elderly patients, in which the reduction of serum inflammatory factors alleviate inflammation response may play a vital role. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high quality RCTs are required to verify the above conclusion.
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 efficacy of dexmedetomidine for controlled hypotension in orthognathic surgery. MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on dexmedetomidine for controlled hypotension in orthognathic surgery from inception to May, 2024. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed by using RevMan 5.4 software. ResultsA total of 8 RCTs involving 371 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time of dexmedetomidine group was not significantly different from that of hypotensive drug group, but was shorter than that of saline group (MD=?23.20, 95%CI ?44.05 to ?2.35, P=0.03). There were no statistically significant differences in the mean arterial pressure and the intraoperative blood loss between dexmedetomidine group and the control group. Compared with those in the control group, the heart rate (MD=?18.78, 95%CI ?30.80 to ?6.77, P=0.002) and the incidence of postoperative adverse events (OR=0.25, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P=0.01) in dexmedetomidine group were less than those in the control group significantly. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that dexmedetomidine can be used effectively for controlled hypotension in orthognathic surgery. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on systemic vascular resistance in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.
MethodsThirty-one patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass from January to April, 2012 were randomized into experimental group (n=16) and control group (n=15). The flow rate was kept at 2.4 L/(min·m2) and moderate hypothermia was maintained. Equivalent dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium chloride solution were pumped for the experimental group and control group, respectively. The mean artery pressure (MAP), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), Cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine were determined before (T0) and at 10 and 20 minutes (T1,T2) after dexmedetomidine administration.
ResultsCompared with T0, there were significant decreases in MAP and SVR at T1 and T2 (P<0.05). MAP and SVR were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group at T1 and T2, respectively (P<0.05); cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group at T1 and T2, respectively (P<0.05).
ConclusionDexmedetomidine reduces SVR and causes decrease in MAP. It can effectively inhibit the stress reaction in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.
Objective To determine the efficiency and safety of dexmedetomidine in general anesthesia. Methods Trials were located through electronic searches of the PubMed, EBSCO, OVID, Springer, Foreign Journals Integration System, CNKI, CMBdisk (from the date of establishment of the databases to April 2008). Bibliographies of the retrieved articles were also checked. Result A total of 25 trials involving 1 241 patients were included. The Meta-analysis showed: dexmedetomidine reduced peri-operative heart rate and blood pressure, reduced the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomitting [RR=0.57, 95%CI (0.38, 0.84)], postoperative agitation [RR=0.29, 95%CI (0.17, 0.51)], shivering [RR=0.45, 95%CI (0.29, 0.68)], increase the occurrence of bradycardia [RR=2.16, 95%CI (1.58, 2.95)], hypotension [RR=2.97, 95%CI (1.42, 6.18)]. Dexmedetomidine reduced administration of thiopental, isoflurane and fentanyl, while there was no difference in muscle relaxant. Dexmedetomidine showed no difference in emergency time compared with the control group. As a result of low incidence of adverse reaction, dexmedetomidine showed superior in discharge time [WMD15.17, 95%CI (3.87, 26.46)]. Conclusions The limited current evidence shows that dexmedetomidine is better in maintaining the hemodynamic balance; reducing occurrence of nausea, vomiting, agitation and shivering; and reducing doses of anesthetics. In emergency time, dexmedetomidine shows no difference except discharge time.
ObjectiveTo observe the effects and security of dexmedetomidine in combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP).
MethodsFrom January 2010 to January 2013, we selected 90 patients who were going to receive TEP surgery as our study subjects. The patients were divided into three groups:M1, M2 and M3 with 30 patients in each. The patients had left lateral position, and anesthesia was done between 3-4 lumbar epidural line. Injection of 0.5% bupivacaine 2 mL was carried out, and epidural catheter was 3-5 cm. Anesthesia plane was adjusted from the chest 4 or 6 vertebra to the sacral vertebra. The three groups of patients were treated with micro pump using dexmedetomidine given at a pre-charge of 0.5 μg/kg, and then group M1 was maintained by 0.3 μg/(kg·h), M2 by 0.5 μg/(kg·h), and M3 by 0.7 μg/(kg·h). The changes of mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, respiration and pulse oximetry (SpO2) were observed at each time point, and bispectral index (BIS) monitor and Ramsay sedation score test were also conducted.
ResultsThe changes of MAP, heart rate and respiration in group M1 were not obvious; the Ramsay score for group M1 was 2 to 3, and BIS value after pre-charge was 65-84. For group M2, MAP, heart rate and respiration had a slight decline; Ramsay score was 3-5 points, and BIS value was 60-79. In group M3, patients had a milder decline in their MAP and respiration; the heart rate declined obviously after receiving dexmedetomidine and one patient with severe decline of the heart rate alleviated after active treatment; Ramsay score was 5 to 6 points, and BIS value was between 55 and 75. There was little change in SpO2 in all the three groups, and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).
ConclusionContinuous injection of dexmedetomidine at 0.3-0.5 μg/(kg·h) in CSEA is an alternative way for anesthesia, which can effectively promote sedation and reduce pain and discomfort.
Objective To explore the influence of dexmedetomidine on wake-up test during spinal orthopaedic surgery. Methods All 80 patients taking spinal orthopaedic surgery were randomly divided into the trial group and the control group, with 40 cases in each group. The endotracheal intubation anesthesia was adopted in both groups with same anesthesia induction. Additionally, dexmedetomidine 0.8 μg/ (kg·h) was infused within 10 min in the trial group before anesthesia induction, and then another 0.5 μg/ (kg·h) was also infused from the intraoperation to suture of incision. For the control group, the same amount of normal saline was infused, and all the narcotics were stopped pumping 15 min before the wake-up test, but then were continued pumping after the wake-up test. Finally, the following indexes were analyzed: wake-up time, wake-up quality, hemodynamic changes at the time of 15 min before wake-up (T1), recovery of spontaneous breathing (T2), wake-up (T3) and 15 min after wake-up (T4), dosage of narcotics, and the incidence of adverse events. Results There was no significant difference in the operation time before wake-up between the two groups (P=0.07). For the trial group, the dosage of sevoflurane (P=0.03) and sufentanil (P=0.00) used before wake-up was significantly lower, the wake-up time (P=0.04) and bleeding amount during wake-up (P=0.00) were significantly less, the wake-up quality (P=0.03) was significantly higher, the blood pressure (P=0.00) and heart rate (P=0.00) when wake-up were significantly lower, and the incidence of adverse events (P=0.04) was significantly lower, compared with the control group. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine adopted in spinal orthopaedic surgery can significantly improve patient’s wake-up quality, shorten wake-up time, reduce bleeding amount when wake-up and adverse events after wake-up, and maintain the hemodynamic stability, so it has better protective effects.
Objective To carry out a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in comparison with midazolam as preoperative drug. Methods All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about dexmedetomidine as preoperative drug compared with midazolam were identified. Meta analysis was performed by using the statistical software RevMan 4.2.10 on the basis of strict quality evaluation. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 806 patients were included. The results of meta analyses showed that dexmedetomidine was better than midazolam in decreasing perioperative blood pressure and heart rate, decreasing dosage of anesthetics, shortening of emergence time, and decreasing the occurrence of agitation, while the occurrence of perioperative hypotention and bradycardia of dexmedetomidine was much more than midazolam. The statistical outcomes showed that there were no differences between the two drugs in the satisfactory score, postoperative sedation score, the number of people needing analgesia, and occurrence of nausea and vomitting. Conclusion Significant advantages in favour of dexmedetomidine as preoperative drug are observed. Dexmedetomidine is safe except for more incidences of hypotension and bradycardia.
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine in perioperative management of on-pump cardiac surgery. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through a systematic literature search of PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Database (up to December 2016). RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Results Sixteen studies with 1 432 patients were included. Dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the risk of postoperative delirium (RR=0.28, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.44, P<0.000 01) and postoperative atrial fibrillation (RR=0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98, P=0.04) compared with the controls. The duration of intubation (RR=–1.96, 95% CI –2.07 to –1.86, P<0.000 01), length of ICU stay (RR=–0.49, 95% CI –0.74, –0.24, P=0.000 1) and hospital stay (RR=–1.24, 95% CI –2.26 to –0.22, P=0.02) in the dexmedetomidine group were significantly shorter than those of the control group. In addition, dexmedetomidine was shown to improve the score of the the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (RR=0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.35, P=0.000 2) compared to the control group. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine can reduce the complications after cardiac surgery, which is safe and effective. However, more studies with good methodologic quality and large samples are still needed to make further assessment.
