Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine Compared to Other Needle-Free Pharmacological Sedation Methods in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Imaging Procedures.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pediatric emergency care Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1097/PEC.0000000000003169
Mohammed Alsabri Hussein Alsabri, Abdelrahman Abdelshafi, Ahmed Bostamy Elsnhory, Noha Samir Selim, Alaa Bostamy Elsnhory, Douaa Albelal, Fatima Akram, Alaa Ahmed Elshanbary
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine Compared to Other Needle-Free Pharmacological Sedation Methods in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Imaging Procedures.","authors":"Mohammed Alsabri Hussein Alsabri, Abdelrahman Abdelshafi, Ahmed Bostamy Elsnhory, Noha Samir Selim, Alaa Bostamy Elsnhory, Douaa Albelal, Fatima Akram, Alaa Ahmed Elshanbary","doi":"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pediatric patients often require sedation during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) to ensure stillness and minimize stress. This meta-analysis compared the effectiveness and safety of 3 sedative agents-dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and chloral hydrate-for pediatric MRI/CT sedation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six studies with a total of 633 patients were included in the analysis. Quality assessment revealed varying levels of bias risk. Dexmedetomidine exhibited a significantly higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (risk ratio [RR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.29-0.64]), but no statistically significant difference compared to chloral hydrate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.60-1.45]). Chloral hydrate also showed a higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.25-0.83]). The onset of sedation time did not significantly differ between the 3 agents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly higher incidence of bradycardia compared to the chloral hydrate group (RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.05-0.59]), but no significant difference compared to the midazolam group (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.06-1.26]). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of nausea and vomiting between the 3 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dexmedetomidine demonstrates effectiveness in pediatric MRI/CT sedation, offering advantages over midazolam and similar efficacy to chloral hydrate. Careful cardiovascular monitoring is essential during administration, particularly in patients with congenital heart disease. Sublingual and intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine is a viable option with high bioavailability. This meta-analysis contributes valuable insights into refining sedation protocols for pediatric imaging procedures, emphasizing efficacy and safety considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19996,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric emergency care","volume":" ","pages":"e233-e239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric emergency care","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003169","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pediatric patients often require sedation during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) to ensure stillness and minimize stress. This meta-analysis compared the effectiveness and safety of 3 sedative agents-dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and chloral hydrate-for pediatric MRI/CT sedation.

Methods: Six studies with a total of 633 patients were included in the analysis. Quality assessment revealed varying levels of bias risk. Dexmedetomidine exhibited a significantly higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (risk ratio [RR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.29-0.64]), but no statistically significant difference compared to chloral hydrate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.60-1.45]). Chloral hydrate also showed a higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.25-0.83]). The onset of sedation time did not significantly differ between the 3 agents.

Results: The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly higher incidence of bradycardia compared to the chloral hydrate group (RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.05-0.59]), but no significant difference compared to the midazolam group (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.06-1.26]). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of nausea and vomiting between the 3 groups.

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine demonstrates effectiveness in pediatric MRI/CT sedation, offering advantages over midazolam and similar efficacy to chloral hydrate. Careful cardiovascular monitoring is essential during administration, particularly in patients with congenital heart disease. Sublingual and intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine is a viable option with high bioavailability. This meta-analysis contributes valuable insights into refining sedation protocols for pediatric imaging procedures, emphasizing efficacy and safety considerations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
右美托咪定与其他无针药物镇静法在接受造影术的儿科患者中的疗效和安全性比较。
背景:小儿患者在进行磁共振成像(MRI)和计算机断层扫描(CT)时通常需要使用镇静剂,以确保患者保持安静并将压力降至最低。这项荟萃分析比较了3种镇静剂--右美托咪定、咪达唑仑和水合氯醛--对小儿核磁共振成像/CT镇静的有效性和安全性:分析共纳入了六项研究,共计 633 名患者。质量评估显示存在不同程度的偏倚风险。与咪达唑仑相比,右美托咪定的成功镇静率明显更高(风险比 [RR] = 0.43,95% 置信区间 [CI] [0.29-0.64]),但与水合氯醛(RR = 0.94,95% CI [0.60-1.45])相比,没有显著的统计学差异。与咪达唑仑相比,水合氯醛的镇静成功率也更高(RR = 0.46,95% CI [0.25-0.83])。3种药物的镇静起效时间没有显著差异:结果:右美托咪定组心动过缓发生率明显高于水合氯醛组(RR = 0.17,95% CI [0.05-0.59]),但与咪达唑仑组(RR = 0.29,95% CI [0.06-1.26])相比无明显差异。在恶心和呕吐的发生率方面,3组之间没有发现明显的统计学差异:右美托咪定在小儿核磁共振成像/CT镇静中表现出有效性,其优势优于咪达唑仑,疗效与水合氯醛相似。用药期间必须仔细监测心血管,尤其是先天性心脏病患者。右美托咪定的舌下和鼻内给药是一种生物利用度高的可行选择。这项荟萃分析为完善儿科成像手术镇静方案提供了宝贵的见解,强调了疗效和安全性方面的注意事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric emergency care
Pediatric emergency care 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
577
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Emergency Care®, features clinically relevant original articles with an EM perspective on the care of acutely ill or injured children and adolescents. The journal is aimed at both the pediatrician who wants to know more about treating and being compensated for minor emergency cases and the emergency physicians who must treat children or adolescents in more than one case in there.
期刊最新文献
Streamlining Telecommunications Center and Interfacility Patient Throughput to a Pediatric Emergency Department by Utilizing an Electronic Handoff: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Point-of-Care Ultrasound Evaluation of Pediatric Osteomyelitis in the Emergency Department: A Case Series. Sometimes, One Pill Really Can Kill. Video Versus Nonvideo in a Rabbit Training Model for Establishing an Emergency Front of Neck Airway in Children: A Prospective Trial. The Impact of Legalizing Recreational Cannabis on the Children of a Neighboring State.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1