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.

Effect of esketamine combined with dexmedetomidine on delirium in sedation for mechanically ventilated ICU patients: protocol for a nested substudy within a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of sedatives and analgesics is associated with the occurrence of delirium in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Dexmedetomidine reduces the occurrence of delirium but may cause hypotension, bradycardia, and insufficient sedation. This substudy aims to determine whether the combination of esketamine with dexmedetomidine can reduce the side effects and risk of delirium than dexmedetomidine alone in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: This single-center, randomized, active-controlled, superiority trial will be conducted at The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. A total of 134 mechanically ventilated patients will be recruited and randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine alone or esketamine combined with dexmedetomidine, until extubation or for a maximum of 14 days. The primary outcome is the occurrence of delirium, while the second outcomes include the number of delirium-free days; subtype, severity, and duration of delirium; time to first onset of delirium; total dose of vasopressors and antipsychotics; duration of mechanical ventilation; ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS); accidental extubation, re-intubation, re-admission; and mortality in the ICU at 14 and 28 days. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need for a new combination regimen of dexmedetomidine due to its evident side effects. The combination of esketamine and dexmedetomidine has been applied throughout the perioperative period. However, there is still a lack of evidence on the effects of this regimen on delirium in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. This substudy will evaluate the effects of the combination of esketamine and dexmedetomidine in reducing the risk of delirium for mechanically ventilated patients in ICU, thus providing evidence of this combination to improve the short-term prognosis. The study protocol has obtained approval from the Medical Ethics Committee (ID: 2022-SR-450). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05466708, registered on 20 July 2022.

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.

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.

Intravenous Bolus of Dexmedetomidine for Treatment of Severe Shivering After Caesarean Delivery Under Combined Spinal-Epidural Anaesthesia: A Randomized Dose-Response Study.

Purpose: Shivering occurs frequently after caesarean delivery. The present study aimed to investigate the ED50 and ED95 of an intravenous (i.v.) bolus of dexmedetomidine for treating severe shivering after caesarean delivery under combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia. Patients and methods: Seventy-five parturients with severe shivering after caesarean delivery were randomized into one of the five groups to receive an i.v. bolus of 0.2 (Group D1), 0.25 (Group D2), 0.3 (Group D3), 0.35 (Group D4) or 0.4 (Group D5) µg/kg of dexmedetomidine. Effectiveness of shivering treatment was defined as a standardized shivering score decreasing to ≤1 within 10 min of dexmedetomidine injection. The ED50 and ED95 were determined by probit regression. Adverse effects were also compared among the groups. Results: The ED50 and ED95 of i.v. dexmedetomidine to treat severe shivering were 0.23 (95% CI, 0.16-0.26) µg/kg and 0.39 (95% CI, 0.34-0.52) µg/kg, respectively. No difference in the incidence of adverse effects was found between groups. Conclusion: An i.v. bolus of 0.39 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine will treat 95% of parturients experiencing severe shivering after caesarean delivery.

Comparison emergence of sedation, using dexmedetomidine and remimazolam, in spinal anaesthesia - double blinded randomized controlled trial.

Background: Continuous intravenous infusion of remimazolam may be suitable for sedation in patients undergoing regional anaesthesia. However, there have been no studies comparing remimazolam and dexmedetomidine for this purpose. This study compared emergence from sedation between dexmedetomidine and remimazolam following continuous intravenous infusion in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia. Methods: This double-blinded, randomised controlled trial assessed the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and remimazolam. Following spinal anaesthesia, patients were sedated using continuous intravenous infusion of either dexmedetomidine (D group) or remimazolam (R group).The D group received dexmedetomidine administered at 6 mL/kg/h (6 µg/kg/h) for 10 minutes, followed by 1 mL/kg/h (1 µg/kg/h). The R group received remimazolam administered at 6 mL/kg/h (6 mg/kg/h) for 10 minutes, followed by 1 mL/kg/h (1 mg/kg/h). Sedation levels were evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 3 from the start of drug infusion and the time to reach MOAA/S = 5 from the end of infusion were recorded. Hemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate were also monitored. Results: The R group reached MOAA/S ≤ 3 significantly faster than the D group during induction of sedation (4 ± 1 minutes and 11 ± 3 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). The R group also reached MOAA/S = 5 significantly faster than the D group during emergence from sedation (11 ± 3 minutes and 16 ± 5 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). Both groups maintained stable hemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate without any significant differences, although the mean heart rate was significantly lower in the D group than in the R group after the start of infusion. Conclusion: Remimazolam demonstrated significantly faster induction of and emergence from sedation compared to dexmedetomidine, with no significant differences in haemodynamics or respiratory depression.

Record Setting Temperatures in the Setting of SARS-CoV-2 Suggests Dexmedetomidine Drug-Induced Fever: A Case Report.

Patients infected with COVID-19 can develop coinfections or acute respiratory disorder that result in ventilation. Dexmedetomidine is a common medication used to sedate ventilated patients in the intensive care unit and for nonintubated patients prior to a surgical procedure. As a highly selective alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine provides sedation while reducing the need for anxiolytics or opioids. However, previous case reports suggest dexmedetomidine can induce fever in a variety of conditions. The purpose of this case report is to describe a patient who acquired a fever of 42.6°C in the setting of COVID-19 after administration of dexmedetomidine.

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.

Application of intranasal dexmedetomidine in magnetic resonance imaging of preterm infants: The ED50, efficacy and safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infants undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) often require pharmacological sedation. Dexmedetomidine serves as a novel sedative agent that induces a unique unconsciousness similar to natural sleep, and therefore has currently been used as the first choice for sedation in infants and young children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the 50% effective dose (ED50) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of intranasal dexmedetomidine for MRI in preterm and term infants, and to observe the incidence of adverse events. To explore whether there were differences in ED50 and 95%CI, heart rate (HR) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), the induction time and wake-up time and the incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups, so as to provide guidance for clinical safe medication for the meanwhile. METHODS: A total of 68 infants were prospectively recruited for MRI examination under drug sedation (1 week ≤ age ≤ 23 weeks or weight ≤ 5kg). The children were divided into 2 groups according to whether they had preterm birth experience (Preterm group, Atterm group). The Dixon up-and-down method was used to explore ED50. The basic vital signs of the 2 groups were recorded, and the heart rate and SpO2 were recorded every 5 minutes until the infants were discharged from the hospital. The induction time, wake-up time and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The ED50 (95%CI) of intranasal dexmedetomidine in the Preterm group and the Atterm group were 2.23 (2.03-2.66) µg/kg and 2.64 (2.49-2.83) µg/kg, respectively (P < .05). the wake-up time was longer in Preterm group (98.00min) than in Atterm group (81.00 min) (P < .05), the incidence of bradycardia in Preterm group was 3/33, which was higher than that in Atterm group (1/35). There was no difference in the induction time between the 2 groups (P > .05), and there was no significant difference in other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal dexmedetomidine can be safely used for sedation in preterm infants undergoing MRI. Compared with term infants, preterm infants have a lower dose of dexmedetomidine, a higher incidence of bradycardia, and a longer weak-up time.

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND: Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP. METHODS: Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 µg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 µg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1). RESULTS: The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

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.

Effects of different doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine on related complications and parents' satisfaction in anesthetized children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Agitation/delirium is commonly seen in children after anesthesia, and a proper dose of dexmedetomidine can prevent this complication. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different doses of Dexmedetomidine (DEX) on agitation/delirium and other complications in anesthetized children, providing clinical evidence for dose recommendations of DEX. METHODS: This study was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Two independent researchers performed literature screening, data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality. Data analysis was conducted using R and STATA 16.0. RESULTS: In the final analysis, 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2521 children were included. The results showed that in comparison to normal saline, 1 µg/kg, 1.5 µg/kg, and 2 µg/kg intranasal DEX significantly reduced the incidence of post-anesthetic emergence agitation in children with the most effective dose being 2 µg/kg (SUCRA = 0.91). Compared with normal saline, 1 µg/kg, 1.5 µg/kg, and 2 µg/kg intranasal DEX reduced patient's need for postoperative analgesia, with the most effective dose being 1.5 µg/kg (SUCRA = 0.78). However, 1 µg/kg DEX performed the best in reducing Pediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) Scale score (SUCRA = 0.88). CONCLUSION: Compared with normal saline, intranasal administration of 2 µg/kg DEX and 1.5 µg/kg DEX are the optimal doses to reduce the incidence of agitation and the need for postoperative pain relief in children under general anesthesia. Given effectiveness and safety, intranasal use of 1 µg/kg DEX appears to be the most effective dosage for anesthetized children.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of sedation with dexmedetomidine administered subcutaneously at 2 different locations on the head in dogs.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine administered to dogs subcutaneously (SC) at the Governing Vessel 20 (GV20) acupuncture point and at another point on the head. Animals and procedure: Ten client-owned dogs were included. Dogs were sedated 2 times, 14 d apart, with 200 µg/m2 of dexmedetomidine, SC, at GV20 and at a point at the base of the ear (SC-head). The sedation was assessed with a sedation scale and a Dynamic and Interactive Visual Analogue Scale (DIVAS). The ease of performing radiographic studies, physiological parameters, and adverse events were recorded. Statistical linear mixed-effect models (ANOVA) were applied. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: The time to sedation and sedation scores were similar for both groups. The level of sedation achieved was adequate to perform orthopedic radiographs for 9/10 (90%) cases in the GV20 group and 8/10 (80%) cases in the SC-head group. Heart and respiratory rates decreased significantly over time in both groups (P < 0.001). Adverse events were infrequent and self-limiting. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence that SC administration of dexmedetomidine on the head, at the GV20 point or at the base of the ear, is easy and provides a sufficient level of sedation to obtain orthopedic radiographs in dogs.

Comparaison de la sédation avec de la dexmédétomidine administrée par voie sous-cutanée à deux sites différents sur la tête de chiens. Objectif: Cette étude a pour but de comparer les effets sédatifs de la dexmédétomidine administrée par voie sous-cutanée (SC) au point d'acupuncture VG20 et à un autre point sur la tête, non lié à la relaxation/sédation, chez le chien. Animaux et procédure: Dix chiens de clients ont été inclus dans cette étude clinique, prospective, croisée, randomisée et à l'aveugle. Les chiens ont été sédatés deux fois, à 14 jours d'intervalle, avec une injection de 200 µg/m2 de dexmédétomidine sous-cutanée au point d'acupuncture VG20 et à un autre point sur la tête, à la base de l'oreille (SC-tête). La durée et la qualité de la sédation ont été évaluées avec une échelle de sédation et une échelle analogue visuelle dynamique et interactive (DIVAS). La facilité de réaliser des études radiographiques, les paramètres physiologiques et les effets secondaires ont été enregistrés. Des modèles statistiques linéaires à effet mixte (ANOVA) ont été réalisés. Les résultats étaient considérés comme significatifs quand P < 0,05. Résultats: Le temps nécessaire pour atteindre un niveau de sédation adéquat et les scores de sédation étaient comparables entre les deux groupes. Le niveau de sédation était adéquat pour réaliser des radiographies orthopédiques chez 9/10 (90 %) des cas dans le groupe VG20 et 8/10 (80 %) des cas dans le groupe SC-tête. Les fréquences cardiaque et respiratoire diminuaient significativement dans le temps pour les 2 groupes (P < 0,001). Les effets indésirables étaient peu fréquents et auto-limitants. Conclusion: Notre étude suggère que l'administration sous-cutanée de dexmédétomidine sur la tête, que ce soit au point VG20 ou à la base de l'oreille, est facile et permet d'obtenir un niveau de sédation suffisant pour réaliser des radiographies orthopédiques chez des chiens sains.(Traduit par les auteurs).