Nebulized Dexmedetomidine for Sedation and Mask Acceptance in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Cameron Blissell, Matthew Hatch, Nathan Fox, Tito D Tubog
{"title":"Nebulized Dexmedetomidine for Sedation and Mask Acceptance in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Cameron Blissell, Matthew Hatch, Nathan Fox, Tito D Tubog","doi":"10.1016/j.jopan.2024.08.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Compare nebulized dexmedetomidine to other sedatives while assessing the level of sedation, mask acceptance, and parental separation anxiety in the pediatric population undergoing surgery.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar, CINAHL, the Cochrane Review Database, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched for evidence. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used to estimate outcomes with suitable effect models. The quality of evidence was rated using the Risk of Bias and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Eight studies (n = 615) were included in the review. Over 30 minutes following premedication, nebulized dexmedetomidine yielded comparable sedation scores to other nebulized treatments (SMD, -0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.45 to 0.28; P = .64). Subgroup analyses revealed that nebulized dexmedetomidine provided more satisfactory sedation levels compared with midazolam (SMD, -0.82; 95% CI, -1.37 to -0.26; P = .004), although it did not provide a satisfactory sedation level as ketamine (SMD, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.67; P = .04). Furthermore, patients receiving nebulized dexmedetomidine showed higher rates of satisfactory mask acceptance (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.59; P = .007) and favorable parental separation outcomes (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32; P = .01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nebulized dexmedetomidine is efficacious versus nebulized midazolam but not nebulized ketamine for preprocedural sedation for pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. Nonetheless, it demonstrated superior results in facilitating parental separation and mask acceptance.</p>","PeriodicalId":49028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2024.08.001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Compare nebulized dexmedetomidine to other sedatives while assessing the level of sedation, mask acceptance, and parental separation anxiety in the pediatric population undergoing surgery.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar, CINAHL, the Cochrane Review Database, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched for evidence. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used to estimate outcomes with suitable effect models. The quality of evidence was rated using the Risk of Bias and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Findings: Eight studies (n = 615) were included in the review. Over 30 minutes following premedication, nebulized dexmedetomidine yielded comparable sedation scores to other nebulized treatments (SMD, -0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.45 to 0.28; P = .64). Subgroup analyses revealed that nebulized dexmedetomidine provided more satisfactory sedation levels compared with midazolam (SMD, -0.82; 95% CI, -1.37 to -0.26; P = .004), although it did not provide a satisfactory sedation level as ketamine (SMD, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.67; P = .04). Furthermore, patients receiving nebulized dexmedetomidine showed higher rates of satisfactory mask acceptance (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.59; P = .007) and favorable parental separation outcomes (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32; P = .01).

Conclusions: Nebulized dexmedetomidine is efficacious versus nebulized midazolam but not nebulized ketamine for preprocedural sedation for pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. Nonetheless, it demonstrated superior results in facilitating parental separation and mask acceptance.

雾化右美托咪定用于接受手术的儿科患者的镇静和面罩接受度:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。
目的:比较雾化右美托咪定和其他镇静剂,同时评估接受手术的儿科患者的镇静水平、面罩接受度和父母的分离焦虑:设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析:方法:对 MEDLINE (PubMed)、Google Scholar、CINAHL、Cochrane Review Database、Google Scholar 和灰色文献进行证据检索。使用风险比(RR)和标准化平均差(SMD)与合适的效应模型来估计结果。采用偏倚风险和推荐、评估、发展和评价等级法对证据质量进行评级:八项研究(n = 615)被纳入审查范围。在预处理后的 30 分钟内,雾化右美托咪定产生的镇静评分与其他雾化疗法相当(SMD,-0.09;95% 置信区间 [CI],-0.45 至 0.28;P = .64)。亚组分析显示,与咪达唑仑相比,雾化右美托咪定能提供更令人满意的镇静水平(SMD,-0.82;95% CI,-1.37 至 -0.26;P = .004),但与氯胺酮相比,它不能提供令人满意的镇静水平(SMD,0.34;95% CI,0.01 至 0.67;P = .04)。此外,接受雾化右美托咪定治疗的患者接受喉罩的满意度更高(RR,1.32;95% CI,1.08 至 1.59;P = .007),父母分离的结果也更好(RR,1.17;95% CI,1.04 至 1.32;P = .01):结论:雾化右美托咪定与雾化咪达唑仑相比,在对接受全身麻醉的儿科患者进行术前镇静时具有疗效,但与雾化氯胺酮相比则没有疗效。尽管如此,雾化右美托咪定在促进父母分离和接受喉罩方面表现出更优越的效果。
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
2.20
自引率
17.60%
发文量
279
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing provides original, peer-reviewed research for a primary audience that includes nurses in perianesthesia settings, including ambulatory surgery, preadmission testing, postanesthesia care (Phases I and II), extended observation, and pain management. The Journal provides a forum for sharing professional knowledge and experience relating to management, ethics, legislation, research, and other aspects of perianesthesia nursing.
×
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