Comparison of analgesic efficacy and safety of caudal dexmedetomidine versus intranasal dexmedetomidine in paediatric infraumbilical surgeries: A randomised controlled trial.

IF 6.8 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-27 DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000002228
Ayushi Agarwal, Shreya B Shah, Renu Sinha, Ganga Prasad, Kelika Prakash, Prabudh Goel
{"title":"Comparison of analgesic efficacy and safety of caudal dexmedetomidine versus intranasal dexmedetomidine in paediatric infraumbilical surgeries: A randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Ayushi Agarwal, Shreya B Shah, Renu Sinha, Ganga Prasad, Kelika Prakash, Prabudh Goel","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The established analgesic efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in children has demonstrated a rise in its use and various administration routes have been explored. However, clinical comparisons between caudal and intranasal dexmedetomidine are lacking.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy, postanaesthesia recovery characteristics and side effects associated with caudal versus intranasal dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to a single-shot caudal block in paediatric infraumbilical surgeries.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A noninferiority randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A tertiary care hospital from November 2022 to May 2024.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Sixty-four children aged 1 to 8 years undergoing infraumbilical surgeries under general anaesthesia supplemented with caudal analgesia.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomised to receive either caudal dexmedetomidine (1 ml kg -1 caudal 0.2% ropivacaine + 1 μg kg -1 caudal dexmedetomidine) or intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 ml kg -1 caudal 0.2% ropivacaine + 1 μg kg -1 intranasal dexmedetomidine).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the duration of postoperative analgesia. Other outcomes assessed included postoperative pain scores, peri-operative analgesic consumption, peri-operative haemodynamics, postoperative recovery profile and adverse events for 24 h postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The duration of postoperative analgesia in caudal and intranasal group was 527 ± 83 and 545 ± 90 min, respectively ( P   =  0.422). There was a comparable decrease in the intra-operative heart rate. The greater number of episodes of intra-operative hypotension in the caudal group ( P   =  0.016) did not warrant vasopressors. Children in the caudal group were more sedated until 2 h postsurgery following which the sedation scores in both the groups were equivalent. Postoperative pain scores, peri-operative analgesic consumption and the incidence of emergence delirium was comparable. No adverse events were reported in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intranasal dexmedetomidine can be considered a feasible analgesic adjunct to a single-injection caudal block in children undergoing infraumbilical surgeries associated with a smooth recovery profile and no associated adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2022/09/045492; http://www.ctri.nic.in ).</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"899-906"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002228","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The established analgesic efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in children has demonstrated a rise in its use and various administration routes have been explored. However, clinical comparisons between caudal and intranasal dexmedetomidine are lacking.

Objectives: We aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy, postanaesthesia recovery characteristics and side effects associated with caudal versus intranasal dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to a single-shot caudal block in paediatric infraumbilical surgeries.

Design: A noninferiority randomised controlled trial.

Setting: A tertiary care hospital from November 2022 to May 2024.

Patients: Sixty-four children aged 1 to 8 years undergoing infraumbilical surgeries under general anaesthesia supplemented with caudal analgesia.

Interventions: Patients were randomised to receive either caudal dexmedetomidine (1 ml kg -1 caudal 0.2% ropivacaine + 1 μg kg -1 caudal dexmedetomidine) or intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 ml kg -1 caudal 0.2% ropivacaine + 1 μg kg -1 intranasal dexmedetomidine).

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the duration of postoperative analgesia. Other outcomes assessed included postoperative pain scores, peri-operative analgesic consumption, peri-operative haemodynamics, postoperative recovery profile and adverse events for 24 h postoperatively.

Results: The duration of postoperative analgesia in caudal and intranasal group was 527 ± 83 and 545 ± 90 min, respectively ( P   =  0.422). There was a comparable decrease in the intra-operative heart rate. The greater number of episodes of intra-operative hypotension in the caudal group ( P   =  0.016) did not warrant vasopressors. Children in the caudal group were more sedated until 2 h postsurgery following which the sedation scores in both the groups were equivalent. Postoperative pain scores, peri-operative analgesic consumption and the incidence of emergence delirium was comparable. No adverse events were reported in either group.

Conclusion: Intranasal dexmedetomidine can be considered a feasible analgesic adjunct to a single-injection caudal block in children undergoing infraumbilical surgeries associated with a smooth recovery profile and no associated adverse effects.

Clinical trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2022/09/045492; http://www.ctri.nic.in ).

尾用右美托咪定与鼻用右美托咪定在儿科脐下手术中的镇痛疗效和安全性比较:一项随机对照试验。
背景:右美托咪定在儿童中的镇痛疗效和安全性已得到证实,其应用不断增加,各种给药途径已被探索。然而,缺乏尾用和鼻用右美托咪定的临床比较。目的:我们的目的是比较尾侧与鼻内右美托咪定作为儿科脐下手术单次尾侧阻滞的辅助手段的镇痛效果、麻醉后恢复特征和副作用。设计:非劣效性随机对照试验。环境:三级医院,2022年11月至2024年5月。患者:64例1 ~ 8岁儿童在全麻加尾侧镇痛下行脐下手术。干预措施:患者随机接受尾侧右美托咪定(1ml kg-1尾侧0.2%罗哌卡因+ 1 μg kg-1尾侧右美托咪定)或鼻内右美托咪定(1ml kg-1尾侧0.2%罗哌卡因+ 1 μg kg-1鼻内右美托咪定)。主要观察指标:主要观察指标为术后镇痛持续时间。其他评估结果包括术后疼痛评分、围术期镇痛药消耗、围术期血流动力学、术后恢复情况和术后24小时的不良事件。结果:尾侧组和鼻内组术后镇痛时间分别为527±83 min和545±90 min (P = 0.422)。术中心率也有相应的下降。尾侧组术中低血压发作次数较多(P = 0.016),但不需要使用血管加压剂。尾侧组患儿在术后2小时镇静效果较好,此后两组镇静评分相当。术后疼痛评分、围手术期镇痛药用量和出现谵妄的发生率具有可比性。两组均无不良事件报告。结论:对于接受脐下手术的儿童,鼻内右美托咪定可被认为是单次注射尾侧阻滞的一种可行的镇痛辅助药物,其恢复平稳且无相关不良反应。临床试验注册:印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI/2022/09/045492;http://www.ctri.nic.in)。
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
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信