Challenge of using Intranasal dexmedetomidine as a premedication modality in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-07-21 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2236865
Mohamed said mostafa elmeligy, A. Abdelhamid, E. Mahdy
{"title":"Challenge of using Intranasal dexmedetomidine as a premedication modality in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Mohamed said mostafa elmeligy, A. Abdelhamid, E. Mahdy","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2236865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication has been employed in children for controlling stress before induction of general anesthesia. Until now, the effect of intranasal dexmedetomidine in relation to other premeditations remains incompletely studied. Objectives This study was conducted to study the effectiveness and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication in pediatrics. Sittings Meta-analysis-based study following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Methods Systematic searches of the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane were conducted to collect all published randomized, controlled, clinical trials in the last seven years which compare the intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication with other methods of premedication in different procedures. Results Twenty-five studies were collected for inclusion in this research including 2601 patients. The bias risk was low. Meta-analysis showed that the use of dexmedetomidine intranasally as a premedication when compared with other premedication regimes results in significant evidence of decreasing emergence agitation (RR = 0.64 [0.54, 0.77] 95% CI; I2 = 84%; P = 0.0001) fewer sedation scores (Mean difference = 51 [0.38, 0.65]; 95% CI; I2 = 99%; P = 0.00001), significantly less incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting ((RR = 0.30 [0.20, 0.45] 95% CI; I2 = 12%; P = 0.00001), significantly decreased BP ((Mean difference = -2.28 [−3.42, −1.14]; 95% CI; I2 = 88%; P = 0.0001), and significantly decreased heart rate and (mean difference = -6.67 [−8.37, −4.97]; 95% CI; I2 = 94%; P = 0.00001). Conclusion Intranasal dexmedetomidine provided a satisfactory level of emergence agitation, more satisfactory sedation, more hemodynamic stability, and reduced the incidence of postoperative complications in relation to other premeditations.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2236865","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication has been employed in children for controlling stress before induction of general anesthesia. Until now, the effect of intranasal dexmedetomidine in relation to other premeditations remains incompletely studied. Objectives This study was conducted to study the effectiveness and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication in pediatrics. Sittings Meta-analysis-based study following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Methods Systematic searches of the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane were conducted to collect all published randomized, controlled, clinical trials in the last seven years which compare the intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication with other methods of premedication in different procedures. Results Twenty-five studies were collected for inclusion in this research including 2601 patients. The bias risk was low. Meta-analysis showed that the use of dexmedetomidine intranasally as a premedication when compared with other premedication regimes results in significant evidence of decreasing emergence agitation (RR = 0.64 [0.54, 0.77] 95% CI; I2 = 84%; P = 0.0001) fewer sedation scores (Mean difference = 51 [0.38, 0.65]; 95% CI; I2 = 99%; P = 0.00001), significantly less incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting ((RR = 0.30 [0.20, 0.45] 95% CI; I2 = 12%; P = 0.00001), significantly decreased BP ((Mean difference = -2.28 [−3.42, −1.14]; 95% CI; I2 = 88%; P = 0.0001), and significantly decreased heart rate and (mean difference = -6.67 [−8.37, −4.97]; 95% CI; I2 = 94%; P = 0.00001). Conclusion Intranasal dexmedetomidine provided a satisfactory level of emergence agitation, more satisfactory sedation, more hemodynamic stability, and reduced the incidence of postoperative complications in relation to other premeditations.
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
使用鼻内右美托咪定作为儿科患者用药前方式的挑战:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析
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
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊最新文献
Intrathecal levo-bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for inguinal hernia repairs in ex-preterm infants: A double blinded randomized prospective study Comparison of two different methods as reliable predictors of successful caudal block in children Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol on early cognitive functions in elderly patients after lumbar disc surgery Muscle wasting assessed by ultrasound versus scoring systems as early predictor of outcomes of intensive care unit stay in critically ill patients Posterior quadratus lumborum versus caudal epidural block for perioperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing upper abdominal surgeries: Arandomized, double-blind trial
×
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