右美托咪定鼻内与咪达唑仑鼻内治疗小儿突发性谵妄的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Ashlee M Ericksen, Terri D Kane, Tito D Tubog
{"title":"右美托咪定鼻内与咪达唑仑鼻内治疗小儿突发性谵妄的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ashlee M Ericksen, Terri D Kane, Tito D Tubog","doi":"10.1016/j.jopan.2025.01.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Evaluate the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared with intranasal midazolam in reducing pediatric emergence delirium (ED).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, the Cochrane Review Database, Google Scholar, and gray literature to identify relevant studies. Risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences were calculated to estimate the outcomes, using appropriate effect models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool and evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Twelve studies (N = 1,133) were included in the review. Intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of ED (RR 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.90, P = .02) compared with midazolam. Intranasal dexmedetomidine also demonstrated significantly improved sedation levels (standardized mean differences -0.48, 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.04, P = .03) compared with midazolam. However, no significant differences were observed in parental separation (RR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.39, P = .19), mask acceptance (RR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.34, P = .67), or postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.61, P = .61). The overall quality of evidence was rated as low, primarily due to the small number of studies included.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly reduces pediatric ED and improves sedation levels compared with midazolam, but both drugs show similar effects on parental separation, mask acceptance, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Intranasal administration offers a noninvasive, effective option for pediatric sedation. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings, as current evidence is limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":49028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Compared With Intranasal Midazolam for Pediatric Emergence Delirium: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ashlee M Ericksen, Terri D Kane, Tito D Tubog\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jopan.2025.01.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Evaluate the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared with intranasal midazolam in reducing pediatric emergence delirium (ED).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, the Cochrane Review Database, Google Scholar, and gray literature to identify relevant studies. Risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences were calculated to estimate the outcomes, using appropriate effect models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool and evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Twelve studies (N = 1,133) were included in the review. Intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of ED (RR 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.90, P = .02) compared with midazolam. Intranasal dexmedetomidine also demonstrated significantly improved sedation levels (standardized mean differences -0.48, 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.04, P = .03) compared with midazolam. However, no significant differences were observed in parental separation (RR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.39, P = .19), mask acceptance (RR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.34, P = .67), or postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.61, P = .61). The overall quality of evidence was rated as low, primarily due to the small number of studies included.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly reduces pediatric ED and improves sedation levels compared with midazolam, but both drugs show similar effects on parental separation, mask acceptance, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Intranasal administration offers a noninvasive, effective option for pediatric sedation. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings, as current evidence is limited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-25\",\"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.2025.01.011\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2025.01.011","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

摘要

目的:评价右美托咪定鼻内与咪达唑仑鼻内减少小儿急诊谵妄(ED)的疗效。设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:综合检索MEDLINE (PubMed)、CINAHL、Cochrane Review Database、谷歌Scholar和灰色文献,确定相关研究。采用适当的效应模型,计算风险比(RR)和标准化平均差异来估计结果。使用偏倚风险工具评估证据的质量,并根据推荐、评估、发展和评价方法的等级进行评估。结果:12项研究(N = 1133)纳入本综述。与咪达唑仑相比,鼻用右美托咪定显著降低ED的发生率(RR 0.52, 95%可信区间[CI], 0.29 ~ 0.90, P = 0.02)。与咪达唑仑相比,鼻内右美托咪定也能显著改善镇静水平(标准化平均差异为-0.48,95% CI, -0.92至-0.04,P = 0.03)。然而,在父母分离(RR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.94 ~ 1.39, P = 0.19)、口罩接受度(RR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.83 ~ 1.34, P = 0.67)或术后恶心和呕吐(RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.44 ~ 1.61, P = 0.61)方面没有观察到显著差异。证据的总体质量被评为低,主要是由于纳入的研究数量少。结论:与咪达唑仑相比,鼻用右美托咪定可显著降低儿童ED并提高镇静水平,但两种药物在父母分离、口罩接受和术后恶心呕吐方面的效果相似。鼻内给药为小儿镇静提供了一种无创、有效的选择。由于目前的证据有限,需要更大规模的研究来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Compared With Intranasal Midazolam for Pediatric Emergence Delirium: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Purpose: Evaluate the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared with intranasal midazolam in reducing pediatric emergence delirium (ED).

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, the Cochrane Review Database, Google Scholar, and gray literature to identify relevant studies. Risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences were calculated to estimate the outcomes, using appropriate effect models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool and evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Findings: Twelve studies (N = 1,133) were included in the review. Intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of ED (RR 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.90, P = .02) compared with midazolam. Intranasal dexmedetomidine also demonstrated significantly improved sedation levels (standardized mean differences -0.48, 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.04, P = .03) compared with midazolam. However, no significant differences were observed in parental separation (RR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.39, P = .19), mask acceptance (RR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.34, P = .67), or postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.61, P = .61). The overall quality of evidence was rated as low, primarily due to the small number of studies included.

Conclusions: Intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly reduces pediatric ED and improves sedation levels compared with midazolam, but both drugs show similar effects on parental separation, mask acceptance, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Intranasal administration offers a noninvasive, effective option for pediatric sedation. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings, as current evidence is limited.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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