Comparison between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine for attenuation of cough response during tracheal extubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Aanchal Purohit, Mohan Kumar, Niraj Kumar, A. Bindra, Sharmishtha Pathak, Anuradha Yadav
{"title":"Comparison between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine for attenuation of cough response during tracheal extubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Aanchal Purohit, Mohan Kumar, Niraj Kumar, A. Bindra, Sharmishtha Pathak, Anuradha Yadav","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_790_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Tracheal extubation often causes cardiovascular and airway responses, potentially resulting in hazardous consequences. It remains unknown whether dexmedetomidine or lidocaine is more effective for cough suppression. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine in reducing cough response after tracheal extubation in adult patients.\n \n \n \n A thorough search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify relevant studies (from inception to 31 January 2023). Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine versus IV lidocaine administration during emergence from anaesthesia to prevent tracheal extubation response in adult patients under general anaesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of post-extubation cough. Secondary outcomes included emergence time, extubation time, residual sedation, and incidences of bradycardia. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the potential risk for bias.\n \n \n \n In total, seven studies with 450 participants were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cough between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine groups [Risk Ratio = 0.76; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.46, 1.24]. Emergence and extubation times were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analysis revealed a higher incidence of bradycardia and residual sedation in dexmedetomidine compared to the lidocaine group.\n \n \n \n This meta-analysis found no difference in cough, emergence, and extubation time between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine after tracheal extubation. However, residual sedation and bradycardia were more significant in dexmedetomidine than in lidocaine.\n","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_790_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Tracheal extubation often causes cardiovascular and airway responses, potentially resulting in hazardous consequences. It remains unknown whether dexmedetomidine or lidocaine is more effective for cough suppression. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine in reducing cough response after tracheal extubation in adult patients. A thorough search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify relevant studies (from inception to 31 January 2023). Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine versus IV lidocaine administration during emergence from anaesthesia to prevent tracheal extubation response in adult patients under general anaesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of post-extubation cough. Secondary outcomes included emergence time, extubation time, residual sedation, and incidences of bradycardia. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the potential risk for bias. In total, seven studies with 450 participants were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cough between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine groups [Risk Ratio = 0.76; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.46, 1.24]. Emergence and extubation times were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analysis revealed a higher incidence of bradycardia and residual sedation in dexmedetomidine compared to the lidocaine group. This meta-analysis found no difference in cough, emergence, and extubation time between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine after tracheal extubation. However, residual sedation and bradycardia were more significant in dexmedetomidine than in lidocaine.
比较右美托咪定和利多卡因在气管插管时减轻咳嗽反应的效果:系统回顾和荟萃分析
气管拔管通常会引起心血管和气道反应,可能导致危险后果。目前仍不清楚右美托咪定和利多卡因的镇咳效果哪个更好。因此,我们对随机对照试验进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以比较右美托咪定和利多卡因在减少成人患者气管插管后咳嗽反应方面的有效性和安全性。 我们对电子数据库(包括 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science)进行了全面检索,以确定相关研究(从开始到 2023 年 1 月 31 日)。纳入的随机对照试验比较了在全身麻醉的成年患者麻醉苏醒期间静脉注射右美托咪定和静脉注射利多卡因以预防气管拔管反应。主要结果是拔管后咳嗽的发生率。次要结果包括出现时间、拔管时间、残留镇静剂和心动过缓的发生率。统计分析使用 RevMan 软件进行。科克伦偏倚风险工具用于评估潜在的偏倚风险。 共纳入了 7 项研究,450 名参与者。右美托咪定组与利多卡因组的咳嗽发生率无统计学差异[风险比 = 0.76;95% 置信区间:0.46, 1.24]。两组患者的清醒时间和拔管时间无明显差异。荟萃分析显示,右美托咪定组心动过缓和残余镇静的发生率高于利多卡因组。 该荟萃分析发现,右美托咪定和利多卡因在气管插管后的咳嗽、起立和拔管时间上没有差异。不过,右美托咪定的残余镇静和心动过缓比利多卡因更明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信