Comparison of a ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray with traditional intranasal dexmedetomidine drops for sedation in preschool children: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Frontiers in Pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-01-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fphar.2025.1528612
Qi-Qi Jin, Wei-Cha Cai, Ying-Feng Zhou, Yan-Tong Zhang, Gang Chen, Meng-Ting Xu, Jun Li, Kai-Ming Yuan
{"title":"Comparison of a ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray with traditional intranasal dexmedetomidine drops for sedation in preschool children: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.","authors":"Qi-Qi Jin, Wei-Cha Cai, Ying-Feng Zhou, Yan-Tong Zhang, Gang Chen, Meng-Ting Xu, Jun Li, Kai-Ming Yuan","doi":"10.3389/fphar.2025.1528612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared the efficacy and acceptability of a ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray (DS) versus traditional drops administered by syringe (DD) in pediatric patients undergoing elective surgery.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Eighty-six preschool children were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Children were randomly assigned to receive either DS or DD. For children weighing between 10.5 and 18.5 kg, a dexmedetomidine dosage of 30 μg (two sprays) was administered, while those weighing between 18.5 and 25.5 kg received 45 μg (three sprays). In the DD group, dexmedetomidine was administered at a dose of 2 μg/kg based on body weight. The primary outcome was the proportion of children achieving a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) score of ≥3 within 30 min. Secondary outcomes included acceptance of intranasal medication, anxiety at parental separation and prior to induction, and compliance with induction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 83 cases were analyzed. The proportion of children achieving an RSS score of ≥3 within 30 min was similar between the DS and DD groups (90.7% vs. 77.5%, respectively). However, the acceptance score was significantly better in the DS group (mean difference [95%]: -0.9 [-1.267 to -0.5325], P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of successful child-parent separation (88.4% vs. 85%) or satisfactory anxiolytic effect prior to induction (95.3% vs. 92.5%). Compliance with induction was comparable, with 53.5% in the DS group and 40.0% in the DD group demonstrating \"optimal\" compliance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both intranasal spray and syringe drop methods were highly effective in providing sedation and anxiolysis, but the ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray was more acceptable to children, offering a viable alternative to the syringe method.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ChiCTR.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2400089374.</p>","PeriodicalId":12491,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Pharmacology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1528612"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11799867/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1528612","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the efficacy and acceptability of a ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray (DS) versus traditional drops administered by syringe (DD) in pediatric patients undergoing elective surgery.

Patients and methods: Eighty-six preschool children were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Children were randomly assigned to receive either DS or DD. For children weighing between 10.5 and 18.5 kg, a dexmedetomidine dosage of 30 μg (two sprays) was administered, while those weighing between 18.5 and 25.5 kg received 45 μg (three sprays). In the DD group, dexmedetomidine was administered at a dose of 2 μg/kg based on body weight. The primary outcome was the proportion of children achieving a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) score of ≥3 within 30 min. Secondary outcomes included acceptance of intranasal medication, anxiety at parental separation and prior to induction, and compliance with induction.

Results: A total of 83 cases were analyzed. The proportion of children achieving an RSS score of ≥3 within 30 min was similar between the DS and DD groups (90.7% vs. 77.5%, respectively). However, the acceptance score was significantly better in the DS group (mean difference [95%]: -0.9 [-1.267 to -0.5325], P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of successful child-parent separation (88.4% vs. 85%) or satisfactory anxiolytic effect prior to induction (95.3% vs. 92.5%). Compliance with induction was comparable, with 53.5% in the DS group and 40.0% in the DD group demonstrating "optimal" compliance.

Conclusion: Both intranasal spray and syringe drop methods were highly effective in providing sedation and anxiolysis, but the ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray was more acceptable to children, offering a viable alternative to the syringe method.

Clinical trial registration: ChiCTR.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2400089374.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Frontiers in Pharmacology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.90%
发文量
5163
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Pharmacology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across disciplines, including basic and clinical pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, pharmacy and toxicology. Field Chief Editor Heike Wulff at UC Davis is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
×
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