Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration and acute kidney injury in patients undergoing unilateral partial nephrectomy: a retrospective study.

Partial nephrectomies are associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI), but dexmedetomidine administration may improve renal outcomes. We hypothesized that intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration would be associated with a decrease in AKI development in patients undergoing unilateral partial nephrectomy. In this retrospective study, adult patients who underwent unilateral partial nephrectomy from April 2016 to October 2023 were included. Exclusion criteria were a history of end-stage renal disease, ineligible procedures (i.e., aborted procedure, conversion to radical nephrectomy, surgery on a horseshoe kidney), and reoperation within three days of the initial nephrectomy. Patients were categorized according to whether they received intraoperative dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was AKI incidence within three days of surgery; AKI was defined according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to account for potential confounders (age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, final surgical approach, clamping-related ischemia for >15 min). We included 1,632 patients; 214 received dexmedetomidine and 1,418 did not. Before PSM, the AKI rate was 31.2% in patients who received dexmedetomidine and 25.7% in patients who did not (p = 0.081). After PSM, the AKI rate was 31.3% in patients who received dexmedetomidine and 27.6% in those who did not (p = 0.396). The post-PSM odds ratio for AKI following dexmedetomidine administration during unilateral partial nephrectomy was 0.910 (95% CI: 0.585-1.142; p = 0.677). Intraoperative dexmedetomidine was not associated with a reduction in postoperative AKI incidence or severity after unilateral partial nephrectomy.

Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam-Fentanyl Combination in Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blinded Study.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine has acceptable clinical utility for inducing sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. Reducing its dose may not only ameliorate its cardiovascular side effects, but also maintain its clinical usefulness. METHODS: Patients between 18 and 65 years were randomized to either dexmedetomidine (0.75 µg/kg) or the midazolam-fentanyl group (0.035 mg/kg midazolam and 25 mcg fentanyl). The primary outcome measure was the composite score. Other parameters noted were: oxygen saturation, hemodynamic variables, Modified Ramsay Sedation Score, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity and distress, Visual Analog Scale score for cough, rescue medication doses, ease of doing bronchoscopy, and patient response 24 hours after bronchoscopy. RESULTS: In each arm, 31 patients were enrolled. The composite score at the nasopharynx was in the ideal category in 26 patients in dexmedetomidine and 21 in the midazolam-fentanyl group (P=0.007). At the tracheal level, the corresponding values were 24 and 16 (P=0.056). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the secondary outcome measures except hemodynamic parameters. The mean heart rate in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively, was as follows: at 10 minutes after start of FB (90.10±14.575, 104.35±18.48; P=0.001), at the end of FB (98.39±18.70, 105.94±17.45; P=0.016), and at 10 minutes after end of FB (89.84±12.02, 93.90±13.74; P=0.022). No patient developed bradycardia. Two patients (P=0.491) in the dexmedetomidine group developed hypotension. CONCLUSION: Low-dose dexmedetomidine (0.75 µg/kg single dose) appears to lead to a better composite score compared with the midazolam-fentanyl combination.

Is intrathecal bupivacaine plus dexmedetomidine superior to bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for a cesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether the administration of intrathecal dexmedetomidine as a bupivacaine adjuvant for caesarean section can prolong the duration of analgesia compared with bupivacaine alone. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, the time interval to the first analgesic request, the level of sedation, the incidence of adverse effects, and the fetal outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The study compared the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine plus dexmedetomidine (group BD) to the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine alone (group B) for cesarean sections. RESULTS: Fourteen publications were included. Among patients who underwent spinal anesthesia for a cesarean section, 514 patients received intrathecal bupivacaine alone, and 533 patients received intrathecal bupivacaine plus dexmedetomidine. The onset of sensory and motor block was essentially the same in both groups; the time for sensory and motor block regression was significantly longer in the BD group. Postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) values were similar in group BD when compared to group B. Postoperative VAS scores remained consistently low in Group BD compared to Group B, starting from 1 hour after surgery. The level of sedation measured at the end of the cesarean section in both groups was almost similar. No difference in terms of safety, adverse events, and neonatal outcomes was found between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of intrathecal dexmedetomidine for spinal anesthesia in cesarean section significantly prolongs sensory and motor block compared to using bupivacaine alone as an adjuvant. It also improves analgesia after 1 hour with no difference in the incidence of maternal and neonatal adverse effects compared to bupivacaine alone. The optimal dose of dexmedetomidine to use remains to be ingested.

Perioperative dexmedetomidine-induced delirium in a patient with schizophrenia: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 receptor agonist with sedative, analgesic, anxiolytic, and anti-sympathetic effects. Dexmedetomidine is widely used for various surgical procedures performed under general anaesthesia and sedation in the intensive care unit. Dexmedetomidine was known to relieve or improve the symptoms of delirium. Schizophrenia is a common psychiatric disease, and the number of surgical patients with schizophrenia is increasing gradually. Dexmedetomidine-induced delirium in patients with schizophrenia is a particular case. CASE PRESENTATION: This patient was a 75-year-old woman (height: 156 cm; weight: 60 kg) with a 5-year history of schizophrenia. Her schizophrenia was well controlled with medications. She was scheduled for open reduction and internal fixation for a patellar fracture. Spinal anaesthesia was administered for surgery, and dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously to maintain sedation. The patient became delirious half an hour after the surgery began. The intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine was discontinued immediately, intravenous propofol was subsequently administered, and the patient stopped experiencing dysphoria and fell asleep. After surgery, the patient stopped using propofol and recovered smoothly. She was transferred back to the general ward and was discharged from the hospital without any abnormal conditions on the 9th day after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a patient with schizophrenia who developed delirium during the infusion of a normal dose of dexmedetomidine without an intravenous injection of any other sedative. The exact mechanism causing dexmedetomidine-induced delirium remains unclear, and this adverse reaction is rare and easy to ignore. Clinicians and pharmacists should be vigilant in identifying this condition.

Combination of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants of transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in gastric cancer patients: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We conducted this double-blinded randomized controlled trial to examine whether the combination of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block could improve analgesia efficacy and duration for gastric cancer patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The preoperative area, operating room, postanesthesia recovery room and bed ward. PATIENTS: A total of 312 adult patients (104 per group) with gastric cancer were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received bilateral subcostal TAP block with three different anesthetics (60 ml 0.25% ropivacaine added with 10 mg dexamethasone and 1 µg·kg-1 dexmedetomidine [A] or 10 mg dexamethasone [B] or 1 µg·kg-1 dexmedetomidine [C]). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain 24 h on movement. Secondary outcomes included incidence of moderate-to-severe pain, pain score, opioids use, recovery quality and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: The incidence of moderate-to-severe pain on movement 24 h postoperatively of group A was significantly lower than group B (45.19% vs 63.46%; RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.92) and group C (45.19% vs 73.08%, RR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79). The median moving pain scores decreased significantly at 24 h (3.00 [3.00,5.00] vs 4.00 [3.00,6.00] vs 4.00 [3.00,5.00]; P < 0.001). There were significant differences in the opioids consumption within the first 24 h (27.5 [17.0,37.2] vs 30.0 [20.0,42.0] vs 32.0 [25.0,44.0] mg; P = 0.01) and the duration to first rescue analgesia (65.5 ± 26.7 vs 45.9 ± 34.5 vs 49.2 ± 27.2 h; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The combination with dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants for TAP block reduced the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain and pain score both on movement and at rest at 24 h with prolonged duration to first rescue analgesia after gastric cancer surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2000037981.

Comparing different postoperative sedation strategies for patients in the intensive care unit after cardiac surgery: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Various postoperative sedation protocols with different anaesthetics lead to profound effects on the outcomes for post-cardiac surgery patients. However, a comprehensive analysis of optimal postoperative sedation strategies for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac surgery is lacking. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in databases including PubMed and Embase. The primary outcome measured the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) in the ICU, and the secondary outcome encompassed the length of stay (LOS) in the ICU and hospital and the monitoring adverse events. RESULTS: The literature included 18 RCTs (1652 patients) with 13 sedation regimens. Dexmedetomidine plus ketamine and sevoflurane were associated with a significantly reduced duration of MV when compared with propofol. Our results also suggested that dexmedetomidine plus ketamine may associated with a shorter LOS in ICU, and sevoflurane associated with a shorter LOS in the hospital, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine seems to be a better option for adult patients needing sedation after cardiac surgery, and the incidence of side effects is lower with dexmedetomidine. These findings have potential implications for medication management in the perioperative pharmacotherapy of cardiac surgery patients.

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-midazolam for patient sedation during flexible bronchoscopy: a prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sedation during flexible bronchoscopy (FB) should maintain an adequate respiratory drive, ensure maximum comfort for the patient, and warrant that the objectives of the procedure are achieved. Nevertheless, the optimal sedation method for FB has yet to be established. This study aimed to compare the standard recommended combination of midazolam-fentanyl (MF) with that of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) for patient sedation during FB. METHODS: Patients subjected to FB were randomly assigned to a DK (n = 25) and an MF group (n = 25). The primary outcome was the rate of critical desaturation events (arterial oxygen saturation < 80% with nasal oxygen supply 2 L/min). Secondary outcomes included sedation depth, hemodynamic complications, adverse events, and patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction. RESULTS: The incidence rates of critical desaturation events were similar between the two groups (DK: 12% vs. MF: 28%, p = 0.289). DK achieved deeper maximum sedation levels (higher Ramsay - lower Riker scale; p < 0.001) and was associated with longer recovery times (p < 0.001). Both groups had comparable rates of hemodynamic and other complications. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups, but bronchoscopist satisfaction was higher with the DK combination (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: DK demonstrated a good safety profile in patients subjected to FB and achieved more profound sedation and better bronchoscopist satisfaction than the standard MF combination without increasing the rate of adverse events.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded. RESULTS: The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group. CONCLUSION: A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Besylate versus Dexmedetomidine for Patients Undergoing Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: Remimazolam besylate is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that is rapidly hydrolyzed to zolpidem propionic acid by tissue lipases. We designed this study to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate alfentanil versus dexmedetomidine-alfentanil for fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FB). Methods: One hundred and twenty patients undergoing FB into this prospective randomized controlled trial were divided into two groups. The anesthesia induction consisted of 6 mg/kg/h of remimazolam besylate in the RA group and 0.5 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine in the DA group. 1-2 mg/kg/h of remimazolam besylate or 0.2-0.7 µg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine were administered to maintain during FB. The lowest oxygen saturation, success rate of FB, hemodynamics, time metrics, bronchoscopy feasibility, drug dose requirements, patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction scores, occurrence of intraoperative awareness, number of patients willing to repeat FB with the same sedation regimen, and occurrence and severity of adverse events. Results: The lowest oxygen saturation during the FB was significantly higher in the RA group (P = 0.001). Compared with the variables in the DA group, peripheral oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were significantly lower at T2 and T3 in the RA group (P < 0.05). Heart rates were significantly higher from T2 to T4 in the DA group (P < 0.05). More patients experienced bradycardia in the DA group (P = 0.041). Compared with time metrics in the DA group, the induction time, fully-alert time, and recovery room-leaving time were all significantly shorter in the RA group (P < 0.05). The bronchoscopy feasibility scores in the RA group were significantly lower at T2, whereas they were lower at T3 in the DA group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Remimazolam besylate is superior to dexmedetomidine when combined with alfentanil during FB, promoting faster patients' recovery, better operative conditions and respiratory stability with similar rates of occurrence and severity of adverse events.

Use of orally administered dexmedetomidine to induce emesis in cats.

CASE SERIES SUMMARY: This case series describes the use of orally administered dexmedetomidine at a dose of 20 µg/kg to induce emesis in six cats. Emesis was successfully induced in 5/6 cats, with each of the cats vomiting once. The reasons for inducing vomiting included known or suspected ingestion of lilies, onions, acetaminophen (paracetamol) or acetylsalicylic acid. Four of the five cats in which emesis induction was successful did not develop any clinical signs of toxicity associated with the toxin ingested; the fifth cat developed clinicopathological changes consistent with acetaminophen toxicity. All six cats exhibited moderate to profound sedation, as expected, but no other adverse effects were documented. RELEVANCE AND NOVEL INFORMATION: Induction of emesis in cats is notoriously difficult. This case series describes a novel route of administration of dexmedetomidine, a commonly available medication, with a high success rate observed for inducing emesis in this group of cats.

Cats are notoriously more difficult to elicit vomiting in than dogs. This case series describes the use of a novel way of giving cats a commonly available veterinary medication to cause vomiting. The medication, dexmedetomidine, was given by mouth to six cats, of which five vomited. All six cats had eaten toxins: lilies, acetaminophen (paracetamol), aspirin or onions. Four of the five cats that vomited did not develop any signs of toxicity. All six cats that received the medication became sedated, but no other side effects were noted.

Dexmedetomidine for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are drugs currently used for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly being used in children and infants despite not being licenced for analgesia in this group. OBJECTIVES: To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing use of dexmedetomidine, there is insufficient evidence supporting its routine use for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, data on dexmedetomidine safety are scarce, and there are no data available on its long-term effects. Future studies should address the efficacy, safety, and long-term effects of dexmedetomidine as a single drug therapy for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants.

The Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared to Dexmedetomidine for Awake Tracheal Intubation by Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial.

Background: Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that has the potential to be an alternative for procedural sedation due to its rapid sedation and recovery, no accumulation effect, stable hemodynamics, minimal respiratory depression, anterograde amnesia effect, and specific antagonist. Here, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam with dexmedetomidine for awake tracheal intubation by flexible bronchoscopy (ATI-FB). Methods: Ninety patients scheduled for ATI-FB were randomly divided into three groups, each consisting of 30 cases: dexmedetomidine 0.6 µg/kg + sufentanil (group DS), remimazolam 0.073 mg/kg + sufentanil (group R1S), or remimazolam 0.093 mg/kg + sufentanil (group R2S). The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes were MOAA/S scores, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, intubation conditions, intubation time, tracheal intubation amnesia, and adverse events. Results: The success rates of sedation in groups R2S and DS were higher than that in group R1S (93.3%, 86.7%, respectively, vs 58.6%; P = 0.002), and intubation conditions were better than those in group R1S (P < 0.05). Group R2S had shorter intubation times than groups R1S and DS (P = 0.003), and a higher incidence of tracheal intubation amnesia than group DS (P = 0.006). No patient in the three groups developed hypoxemia or hypotension, and there were no significant differences in oligopnea, PetCO2, or bradycardia (P > 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, both DS and R2S had higher success rates of sedation, better intubation conditions, and minor respiratory depression, but R2S, with its shorter intubation time, higher incidence of anterograde amnesia, and ability to be antagonized by specific antagonists, may be a good alternative sedation regimen for patients undergoing ATI-FB.

Comparative evaluation of nebulized versus intravenous dexmedetomidine on intubating conditions during awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation.

BACKGROUND: There is a search for an ideal agent to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 agonist which can be administered through intravenous, intramuscular, buccal, intranasal & inhalational routes. It provides good intubation conditions without oxygen desaturation but may cause hypotension and bradycardia when administered intravenously. Hence, alternative routes of administering dexmedetomidine which may improve its safety profile are worth exploring. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 46 ASA I/II adult participants scheduled for elective ENT surgery were randomly allocated to Group ND (Nebulised Dexmedetomidine) (n = 23) to receive nebulisation with dexmedetomidine 1µg.kg-1 and Group ID (Intravenous Dexmedetomidine) (n = 23) to receive intravenous dexmedetomidine 1µg.kg-1 before AFOI. All the patients received injection midazolam 1 mg i.v. as premedication before anaesthesia was initiated. The primary outcome was the cough score. The secondary outcomes were the RSS, SAYGO boluses, post-intubation score, hemodynamic parameters, recall of the procedure, patient satisfaction score and any side effects. RESULTS: The cough score was significantly lower in nebulized group (2.43 ± 0.992 vs 3.52 ± 1.082) with p = 0.001. RSS(3.30 ± 0.926 vs 4.22 ± 1.126; p = 0.004), number of SAYGO boluses required (2.74 ± 0.864 vs 3.57 ± 1.161; p = 0.009) & the post intubation score (1.48 ± 0.593 vs 2.17 ± 0.778; p = 0.001) were also significantly lower in nebulized group. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulisation with dexmedetomidine results in desirable degree of sedation and better tolerance of the procedure with adequate attenuation of the haemodynamic responses to intubation.

Mechanism of dexmedetomidine protection against cisplatin induced acute kidney injury in rats.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored the molecular mechanisms by which dexmedetomidine (Dex) alleviates cisplatin (CP)-induced acute kidney injury (AKI) in rats. METHODS: CP-induced AKI models were established, and Dex was intraperitoneally injected at different concentrations into rats in the model groups. Subsequently, rats were assigned to the control, CP, CP + Dex 10 µg/kg, and CP + Dex 25 µg/kg groups. After weighing the kidneys of the rats, the kidney arterial resistive index was calculated, and CP-induced AKI was evaluated. In addition, four serum biochemical indices were measured: histopathological damage in rat kidneys was detected; levels of inflammatory factors, interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-18, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor alpha, in kidney tissue homogenate of rats were assessed through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); and levels of NLRP-3, caspase-1, cleaved caspase-1, gasdermin D (GSDMD), and GSDMD-N in kidney tissues of rats were determined via western blotting. RESULTS: Dex treatment reduced nephromegaly and serum clinical marker upregulation caused by CP-induced AKI. In addition, hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed that Dex treatment relieved CP-induced kidney tissue injury in AKI rats. ELISA analyses demonstrated that Dex treatment reduced the upregulated levels of proinflammatory cytokines in the kidney tissue of AKI rats induced by CP, thereby alleviating kidney tissue injury. Western blotting indicated that Dex alleviated CP-induced AKI by inhibiting pyroptosis mediated by NLRP-3 and caspase-1. CONCLUSION: Dex protected rats from CP-induced AKI, and the mechanism may be related to NLRP-3/Caspase-1-mediated pyroptosis.

Dexmedetomidine Pretreatment Confers Myocardial Protection and Reduces Mechanical Ventilation Duration for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Valve Replacement under Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

PURPOSE: The study aims to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) pretreatment on patients during cardiac valve replacement under cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: For patients in the Dex group (n = 52), 0.5 µg/kg Dex was given before anesthesia induction, followed by 0.5 µg/kg/h pumping injection before aortic occlusion. For patients in the control group (n = 52), 0.125 ml/kg normal saline was given instead of Dex. RESULTS: The patients in the Dex group had longer time to first dose of rescue propofol than the control group (P = 0.003). The Dex group required less total dosage of propofol than the control group (P = 0.0001). The levels of cardiac troponin I (cTnI), creatine kinase isoenzyme MB (CK-MB), malondialdehyde (MDA), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were lower in the Dex group than the control group at T4, 8 h after the operation (T5), and 24 h after the operation (T6) (P <0.01). The Dex group required less time for mechanical ventilation than the control group (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that 0.50 µg/kg Dex pretreatment could reduce propofol use and the duration of mechanical ventilation, and confer myocardial protection without increased adverse events during cardiac valve replacement.

Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence. METHODS: Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients. CONCLUSION: Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.

Safety and effcacy of remimazolam tosilate for sedation during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for orthopedic procedures: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of Remimazolam in the context of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for sedation during orthopedic surgery. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial enrolled patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (N = 80), who were randomly allocated to receive either dexmedetomidine (Group-D) or remimazolam (Group-R). The target sedation range aimed for a Ramsay score of 2-5 or a BIS value of 60-80 to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam during sedation. RESULTS: The time taken to achieve the desired level of sedation was significantly shorter in the remimazolam group compared to the dexmedetomidine group (3.69 ± 0.75 vs. 9.59 ± 1.03; P < 0.0001). Patients in the remimazolam group exhibited quicker recovery, fewer intraoperative adverse events, more consistent vital signs, and greater satisfaction at various time points throughout the surgery. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study demonstrates that remimazolam tosilate serves as a safe and effective sedative for orthopedic surgery performed under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, in comparison with dexmedetomidine.

Retrospective Analysis of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine Use in Retina Surgeries: Impact on Postanesthesia Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dexmedetomidine (Precedex®) has been linked to depressive hemodynamic effects and increased length of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) when used in ambulatory phacoemulsification procedures. We aimed to determine the prevalence and impact of dexmedetomidine use during ambulatory vitreoretinal procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved 9,666 adult vitrectomies. Cases were divided into groups by anesthesia type: general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC). For each group, various factors were compared between those who did and did not receive dexmedetomidine. Chi-squared and t tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Changes in mean arterial pressure in the MAC group were -1.69 ± 0.23 mmHg for no dexmedetomidine patients and -6.31 ± 0.39 mmHg for dexmedetomidine patients (P < 0.01). In the GA group, mean arterial pressure was -6.1 ± 0.35 mmHg for no dexmedetomidine patients and -11.18 ± 0.88 mmHg for dexmedetomidine patients (P < 0.01). PACU Phase II time in the MAC group was 36.93 ± 0.37 minutes and 40.67 ± 0.86 minutes for no dexmedetomidine and dexmedetomidine patients, respectively (P < 0.01). In the GA group, PACU Phase II time was 58.63 ± 0.95 minutes and 65.19 ± 2.38 minutes for no dexmedetomidine and dexmedetomidine patients, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine use in vitrectomies was associated with significant PACU delays. These delays may stem from adverse hemodynamic effects. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2024;55:86-91.].

Dexmedetomidine and acute kidney injury after non-cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication after surgery and is associated with detrimental outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated perioperative dexmedetomidine on AKI and renal function after non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until August 2023 for randomised trials comparing dexmedetomidine with normal saline on AKI and renal function in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI (according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes or Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria). Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. We conducted sensitivity analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation level of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials involving 2440 patients were included. Dexmedetomidine administration, as compared to normal saline, significantly reduced the incidence of AKI (7.4% vs. 13.2%; risk ratio = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.40-0.83, P = 0.003, I2 = 0%; a high level of evidence); TSA and sensitivity analyses suggested the robustness of this outcome. For the renal function and inflammation parameters, dexmedetomidine decreased serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, cystatin C, tumour necrosis factor-α, and interleukin-6, and increased urine output and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Additionally, dexmedetomidine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting and length of hospital stay. Dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased rate of bradycardia, but not hypotension. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine administration reduced the incidence of AKI and improved renal function after non-cardiac surgery. Based on a high level of evidence, dexmedetomidine is recommended as a component of perioperative renoprotection. REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; Registration number: CRD42022299252.