Linji Li1,2, Jiaojiao Zhou3, Deshui Yu4, Xuechao Hao1, Ying Xie2, Tao Zhu1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Clinical College of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong. 3. Division of Ultrasound, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, The Second People's Hospital of Yibin, Yibin, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intranasal dexmedetomidine is a relatively new way to sedate young children undergoing nonpainful diagnostic procedures. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine in young children with those of oral chloral hydrate, which has been a commonly used method for decades. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for all randomized controlled trials that compared intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral chloral hydrate in children undergoing diagnostic procedures. Data on success rate of sedation, onset time, recovery time, and adverse effects were extracted and respectively analyzed. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 720 patients met the inclusion criteria. Intranasal dexmedetomidine provided significant higher success rate of sedation (relative risk [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.24; P = .02; I = 74%) than oral chloral hydrate. Furthermore, it experienced significantly shorter onset time (weight mean difference [WMD], -1.79; 95% CI, -3.23 to -0.34; P = .02; I = 69%). Nevertheless, there were no statistically differences in recovery time (WMD, -10.53; 95% CI, -24.17 to 3.11; P = .13; I = 92%) and the proportion of patients back to normal activities (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.77-1.60; P = .57; I = 0%). Intranasal dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.22; P < .0001; I = 0%) than oral chloral hydrate. Although adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension and hypoxia were not synthetized due to lack of data, no clinical interventions except oxygen supplementation were required in any patients. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis revealed that intranasal dexmedetomidine is possibly a more effective and acceptable sedation method for infants and toddlers undergoing diagnostic procedures than oral chloral hydrate. Additionally, it shows similar safety profile and could be a potential alternative to oral chloral hydrate.
BACKGROUND: Intranasal dexmedetomidine is a relatively new way to sedate young children undergoing nonpainful diagnostic procedures. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine in young children with those of oral chloral hydrate, which has been a commonly used method for decades. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for all randomized controlled trials that compared intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral chloral hydrate in children undergoing diagnostic procedures. Data on success rate of sedation, onset time, recovery time, and adverse effects were extracted and respectively analyzed. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 720 patients met the inclusion criteria. Intranasal dexmedetomidine provided significant higher success rate of sedation (relative risk [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.24; P = .02; I = 74%) than oral chloral hydrate. Furthermore, it experienced significantly shorter onset time (weight mean difference [WMD], -1.79; 95% CI, -3.23 to -0.34; P = .02; I = 69%). Nevertheless, there were no statistically differences in recovery time (WMD, -10.53; 95% CI, -24.17 to 3.11; P = .13; I = 92%) and the proportion of patients back to normal activities (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.77-1.60; P = .57; I = 0%). Intranasal dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.22; P < .0001; I = 0%) than oral chloral hydrate. Although adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension and hypoxia were not synthetized due to lack of data, no clinical interventions except oxygen supplementation were required in any patients. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis revealed that intranasal dexmedetomidine is possibly a more effective and acceptable sedation method for infants and toddlers undergoing diagnostic procedures than oral chloral hydrate. Additionally, it shows similar safety profile and could be a potential alternative to oral chloral hydrate.
Authors: Jolien J M Freriksen; Tjitske M van der Zanden; Inge G A Holsappel; Bouwe Molenbuur; Saskia N de Wildt Journal: Paediatr Drugs Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.930
Authors: Kristina Liaudanskytė; Ilona Razlevičė; Tomas Bukauskas; Vilija Stremaitytė; Laura Lukošienė; Andrius Macas Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2022-07-24