Search

Background: Sedation using intranasal dexmedetomidine is a convenient and well-tolerated technique. This study evaluated the sedative efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine in combination with patient-controlled sedation (PCS) for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy., Methods: In this double-blind, randomised, controlled trial, 50 patients received either intranasal dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg (dexmedetomidine group) or intranasal saline (placebo group) 1 h before the procedure. PCS with propofol and alfentanil was provided for rescue sedation. Additional sedative consumption, perioperative sedation scores using Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale, recovery, vital signs, adverse events and patient satisfaction were assessed., Results: Total consumption of PCS propofol and alfentanil was significantly less in the dexmedetomidine than placebo group with a mean difference of -13.8 mg propofol (95% confidence interval -27.3 to -0.3) and -34.5 μg alfentanil (95% confidence interval -68.2 to -0.7) at the completion of the procedure (P = 0.044). Weighted areas under the curve (AUCw ) of OAA/S scores were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group before, during and after procedures (P < 0.001, P = 0.024 and P = 0.041 respectively). AUCw of heart rate and systolic blood pressure were also significantly lower during the procedure (P = 0.007 and P = 0.022 respectively) with dexmedetomidine. There was no difference in recovery, side effects or satisfaction., Conclusion: Intranasal dexmedetomidine with PCS propofol and alfentanil confers deeper perioperative clinical sedation with significantly less use of additional sedatives during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy., (© 2014 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The aim of the study was to determine whether or not dexmedetomidine- (DEX-) based intravenous infusion in dental implantation can provide better sedation and postoperative analgesia via suppressing postoperative inflammation and oxidative stress. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either DEX (group D) or midazolam (group M). Recorded variables were vital sign (SBP/HR/RPP/SpO2/RR), visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, and observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale (OAAS) scores. The plasma levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), antioxidant superoxide dismutase (SOD), and the lipid peroxidation product malondialdehyde (MDA) were detected at baseline and after 2, 4, and 24 h of drug administration. The VAS pain scores and OAAS scores were significantly lower for patients in group D compared to group M. The plasma levels of TNF-α, IL-6, and MDA were significantly lower in group D patients than those in group M at 2 h and 4 h. In group M, SOD levels decreased as compared to group D at 2 h and 4 h. The plasma levels of TNF-α, IL-6, and MDA were positively correlated with VAS pain scores while SOD negatively correlated with VAS pain scores. Therefore, DEX appears to provide better sedation during office-based artificial tooth implantation. DEX offers better postoperative analgesia via anti-inflammatory and antioxidation pathway.

In this double-blind, randomised study, 100 patients undergoing open or conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery received an intra-operative loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1 μg.kg(-1) followed by an infusion of 0.5 μg.kg(-1) .h(-1) , or a bolus and infusion of saline 0.9% of equivalent volume. Forty-six patients in the dexmedetomidine group and 50 in the saline group completed the study. The area under the curve of numerical rating scores for pain at rest for 1-48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the patients receiving dexmedetomidine (p = 0.041). There was no difference in morphine consumption, duration of recovery ward or hospital stay. From the data obtained in this study, we calculated a number needed to treat for effective pain relief of 4. Intra-operative dexmedetomidine in colorectal surgery resulted in a reduction in resting pain scores, but there was no morphine-sparing effect or improvement in patients' recovery outcome measures., (© 2014 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an alpha 2-adrenoreceptor agonist, which induces sedation and analgesia. This study aimed to determine whether intranasal DEX offered perioperative sedation and better postoperative analgesia., Methods: Patients having unilateral third molar surgery under local anaesthesia were recruited and allocated to receive either intranasal DEX 1 µg kg(-1) (Group D) or same volume of saline (Group P) 45 min before surgery. Patient-controlled sedation with propofol was offered as a rescue sedative. Perioperative sedation, postoperative pain relief and analgesic consumption, vital signs, adverse events, postoperative recovery, and satisfaction in sedation and analgesia were assessed., Results: Thirty patients from each group were studied. Areas under curve (AUC) of postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores 1-12 h at rest and during mouth opening were significantly lower in Group D (P=0.003 and 0.009, respectively). AUC BIS values and OAA/S sedation scores were significantly lower before surgery and at the recovery area (all P<0.01) with significantly less intra-operative propofol used in group D (P<0.01). In group D, heart rate was significantly lower at recovery period (P=0.005) while systolic blood pressure in different periods of the study (all P<0.01), but the decreases did not require treatment. More patients from placebo group experienced dizziness (P=0.026) but no serious adverse event was found. No difference was found in postoperative psychomotor recovery and satisfaction in pain relief and sedation., Conclusions: Patients receiving intranasal DEX for unilateral third molar surgery with local anaesthesia were more sedated perioperatively with better postoperative pain relief. No delay in psychomotor recovery was seen.

Objectives: To determine the analgesic effects of locally applied dexmedetomidine in third molar surgery under general anesthesia., Methods: Patients undergoing bilateral third molar surgery under general anesthesia were recruited into this double-blind, randomized, controlled study and were allocated to 3 study groups. Group D received preincision intravenous dexmedetomidine (1 mcg/kg) and direct infiltration of normal saline to the surgical wounds at the end of the surgery. Group P received preincision intravenous normal saline and direct infiltration of dexmedetomidine (1 μg /kg) to the surgical wounds at the end of the surgery. A control group (group N) received normal saline at both time points. Postoperative analgesic effects, analgesic consumption, global pain satisfaction score, vital signs, adverse events, and postoperative recovery were assessed., Results: Thirty-three patients from each group were studied. Postoperative resting pain numerical rating scale scores were similar in all the groups. However, the areas under curves of numerical rating scale pain scores during mouth opening for 1 to 72 hours were significantly lower in group P than in group N (P=0.012). Both heart rate and systolic blood pressure in the immediate postoperative period were significantly lower in groups D and P than in group N (P<0.001). Patients from groups D and P were also more sedated than patients in group N (P=0.013 and P=0.007, respectively) but no difference in psychomotor recovery was observed. Respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, common side effects, wound infection rate, and global pain satisfaction scores were similar among the groups., Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine seems to have an antihyperalgesic effect when administered locally after bilateral third molar surgery. There is no delay in psychomotor recovery or increase in postoperative clinically significant adverse events.

This randomised, double-blind study compared dexmedetomidine and midazolam for intravenous sedation during third molar surgery under local anaesthesia. Sixty patients received either dexmedetomidine (up to 1 microg x kg(-1)) or midazolam (up to 5 mg), which was infused until the Ramsay Sedation Score was four or the maximum dose limit was reached. Intra-operative vital signs, postoperative pain scores and analgesic consumption, amnesia, and satisfaction scores for patients and surgeons, were recorded. Sedation was achieved by median (IQR (range)) doses of 47 microg (39-52 (25-76)) or 0.88 microg x kg(-1) (0.75-1.0 (0.6-1.0)) dexmedetomidine, and 3.6 mg (3.3-4.4 (1.9-5.0)) or 0.07 mg x kg(-1) (0.055-0.085 (0.017-0.12)) midazolam. Heart rate and blood pressure during surgery were lower in dexmedetomidine group. There was no significant difference in satisfaction or pain scores. Midazolam was associated with greater amnesia. Dexmedetomidine produces comparable sedation to midazolam.