» Articles » PMID: 32018129

Dexmedetomidine Versus Other Sedatives for Non-painful Pediatric Examinations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Overview
Journal J Clin Anesth
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2020 Feb 5
PMID 32018129
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Objective: Procedural sedation for non-painful pediatric examinations outside the operating room remains a challenge, this study was designed to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam, and pentobarbital for pediatric patients to complete diagnostic examinations.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

Setting: Pediatric procedural sedation.

Interventions: Comparison of sedation by dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate, or pentobarbital, or midazolam for pediatric non-painful sedation.

Patients: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomized clinical trials were searched and limited the studies to those published in English through July 30, 2018.

Measurements: Prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine to chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, and midazolam for pediatric procedural examinations outside the operating room were included in the meta-analysis. Search terms included dexmedetomidine, precede, adrenergic alpha-2 receptor agonists, adrenergic alpha 2 agonists, adrenergic alpha-agonists, adrenergic alpha 2 receptor agonists, chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, midazolam, AND sedation.

Main Results: A total of 1486 studies were screened and nine RCTs were identified; 1076 patients were analyzed. Sedation with dexmedetomidine provided statistically higher incidences in completing examinations with fewer episodes of desaturation than the other sedatives did (OR 2.90, 95% CI: 1.39-6.07, P = 0.005, I = 77%; OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15-0.57, P = 0.0004, I = 0%, respectively).

Conclusions: The meta-analysis shows that sedation by dexmedetomidine has lower incidence of respiratory depression and provides higher success rates in completing examinations than other traditional sedatives without compromising safety, indicating a prospective clinical use for procedural sedation.

Citing Articles

Effect of different intranasal dexmedetomidine doses on pediatric postoperative delirium and agitation: network meta-analysis.

Wu H, Wu P, Xiang L, Huang Q, Xiang Y, Zhang J Pediatr Res. 2025; .

PMID: 40082658 DOI: 10.1038/s41390-025-03851-2.


Pediatric sedation outside the operating room integrating dexmedetomidine for MRI and CT scan procedures: A systematic review.

Alotaibi N Saudi J Anaesth. 2024; 18(4):540-544.

PMID: 39600467 PMC: 11587964. DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_236_24.


Involvement of anesthesiologists in pediatric sedation and analgesia outside the operating room in Japan: is it too late, or is there still time?.

Obara S J Anesth. 2024; .

PMID: 39537871 DOI: 10.1007/s00540-024-03431-4.


Impact of mini-dose dexmedetomidine supplemented analgesia on sleep structure in patients at high risk of obstructive sleep apnea: a pilot trial.

Sun P, Liang X, Chen N, Ma J, Zhang C, Shen Y Front Neurosci. 2024; 18:1426729.

PMID: 39416950 PMC: 11480026. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1426729.


Dexmedetomidine Promotes NREM Sleep by Depressing Oxytocin Neurons in the Paraventricular Nucleus in Mice.

Zhang Y, Li J, Li Y, Wang W, Wang D, Ding J Neurochem Res. 2024; 49(10):2926-2939.

PMID: 39078522 DOI: 10.1007/s11064-024-04221-w.