Article Data

  • Views 1097
  • Dowloads 196

Original Research

Open Access

Safety and Efficacy of IV Dexmedetomidine as an Adjunct to Propofol to Sedate Anxious and Uncooperative Pediatric Dental Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Ferah Rehman1,*,
  • Ashima Goyal2
  • Krishan Gauba2
  • Kajal Jain3
  • Aditi Kapur2

1Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India

2Unit of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

3Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-45.6.10 Vol.45,Issue 6,December 2021 pp.428-432

Published: 01 December 2021

*Corresponding Author(s): Ferah Rehman E-mail: drferahrehman@gmail.com

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine (dex) as an adjunct to propofol sedation in pediatric dental patients. Study design: This RCT enrolled 30 anxious ASA-I 2-5 year olds. Allocated into 2 groups either receiving IV propofol (1 mg/kg)(Gp-P) or [IV dex (1ug/kg) with propofol(1 mg/kg)] (Gp-D) after oral midazolam premedication (0.5 mg/kg). Sedation maintained with propofol infusion at 50–75ug/kg/min. Additional bolus/es of propofol (1mg/kg) was/were administered in case of inadequate sedation. Primary outcome was to compare requirement of propofol in two groups. Secondary outcomes were to compare vital signs, depth of sedation, induction, treatment and recovery time, intra & post-operative complications and analgesic requirement post-operatively.

Keywords

Dexmedetomidine; Deep sedation; Analgesia; Propofol; Outpatient; Pediatric dentistry

Cite and Share

Ferah Rehman,Ashima Goyal,Krishan Gauba,Kajal Jain,Aditi Kapur. Safety and Efficacy of IV Dexmedetomidine as an Adjunct to Propofol to Sedate Anxious and Uncooperative Pediatric Dental Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021. 45(6);428-432.

References

1 Jason Leitch and Avril Macpherson Current state of sedation/analgesia care in dentistry. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2007;20:384–387.

2 M. O. Folayan, A. Faponle & A. Lamikanra. A review of the pharmacological approach to the management of dental anxiety in children. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2002;12:347–354.

3 Malviya S, Voepel LT, Eldevik OP et al. Sedation and general anaesthesia in children undergoing MRI and CT: adverse events and outcomes. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 743–8.

4 Tramer MR, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Propofol and bradycardia: causation, frequency and severity. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 642–51

5 Aun CS. New i.v. agents for paediatric patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 83: 29–41.

6 Bhana N, Goa KL, McClellan KJ. Dexmedetomidine. Drugs 2000;59:263–70.

7 Khan ZP, Ferguson CN, Jones RM. Alpha-2 and imidazoline receptor agonists. Their pharmacology and therapeutic role. Anaesthesia 1999;54:146–65.

8 Bekker A, Sturaitis MK. Dexmedetomidine for neurological surgery. Neurosurgery 2005;57(1 Suppl.):110.

9 Hall JE, Uhrich TD, Barney JA, Arain SR, Ebert TJ. Sedative, amnestic, and analgesic properties of small-dose dexmedetomidine infusions. Anesth Analg 2000;90:699–705.

10 UstunY, GunduzM,Erdogan O, BenlidayiME. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in outpatient third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:1353–8.

11 Takayuki Kunisawa. Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride as a long-term Sedative. Review. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2011:7 291–299.

12 Koroglu A, Teksan H, Sagir O, et al. A comparison of the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Anesth Analg 2006;103:63-67.

13 Uzümcügil F, Canbay O, Celebi N, Karagoz AH, Ozgen S. Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol vs. fentanyl-propofol for laryngeal mask insertion. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25(8):675-80.

14 Heard C, Burrows F, Johnson K, et al. A comparison of dexmedetomidine- midazolam with propofol for maintenance of anesthesia in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Anesth Analg 2008;107:1832-1839.

15 Mahmoud M, Gunter J, Donnelly LF, et al. A comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol for magnetic resonance imaging sleep studies in children. Anesth Analg 2009;109:745-753.

16 Koruk S, Mizrak A, Kaya Ugur B, Ilhan O, Baspinar O, Oner U. Propofol/ dexmedetomidine and propofol/ketamine combinations for anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing transcatheter atrial septal defect closure: a prospective randomized study. Clin Ther. 2010;32(4):701-9.

17 Venn RM, Grounds RM.Comparison between dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit: patient and clinician perceptions. Br J Anaesth. 2001;87 (5):684-90.

18 Samia Elbaradie, Faten H. EL Mahalawy and Amira H. Solyman. Dexmedetomidine vs. Propofol for Short-Term Sedation of Postoperative Mechanically Ventilated Patients. Journal of the Egyptian Nat. Cancer Inst. 2004;16(3): 153-158.

19 Tsai CJ, Chu KS, Chen TI, Lu DV, Wang HM, Lu IC.A comparison of the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine versus propofol target-controlled infusion for sedation during fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(3):254-9.

20 Yokota H, Yokoyama K, Noguchi H, Nishioka T, Umegaki O, Komatsu H, Sakaki T.Post-operative dexmedetomidine-based sedation after uneventful intracranial surgery for unruptured cerebral aneurysm: comparison with propofol-based sedation. Neurocrit Care. 2011;14(2):182-7.

21 Woon-Seok Kang, Sung-Yun Kim et al. The effect of dexmedetomidine on the adjuvant propofol requirement and intraoperative hemodynamics during remifentanil-based anesthesia. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 62(2): 113-118.

22 Mason KP, Zgleszewski SE, Dearden JL, et al. Dexmedetomidine for pediatric sedation for CT imaging studies. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:57-62.

23 Jalonen J, Hynynen M, Kuitunen A, Heikkila H, Perttila J, Salmenpera M, Valtonen M, Aantaa R, Kallio A. Dexmedetomidine as an anesthetic adjunct in coronary artery bypass grafting. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:331–45.

24 Guler G, Akin A, Tosun Z, et al. Single-dose dexmedetomidine reduces agitation and provides smooth extubation after pediatric adenotonsillectomy. Pediatr Anesth 2005;15:762-6.

25 Erdil F, Demirbilek S, Begec Z, et al. The effects of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on emergence characteristics after adenoidectomy in children. Anaesth Intensive Care 2009;37:571-6.

26 Ibacache ME, Munoz HR, Brandes V, Morales AL. Single-dose dexmedetomidine reduces agitation after sevoflurane anesthesia in children. Anesth Analg 2004;98:60-3.

27 Isik B, Arslan M, Tunga AD, Kurtipek O. Dexmedetomidine decreases emergence agitation in pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia without surgery. Pediatr Anesth 2006;16:748-53.

28 Erdil F, Demirbilek S, Begec Z, et al. The effects of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on emergence characteristics after adenoidectomy in children. Anaesth Intensive Care 2009;37:571-6.

29 Ibacache ME, Munoz HR, Brandes V, Morales AL. Single-dose dexmedetomidine reduces agitation after sevoflurane anesthesia in children. Anesth Analg 2004;98:60-3.

30 Tramer MR, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Propofol and bradycardia: causation,frequency and severity. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 642–51

31 Aun CS. New i.v. agents for paediatric patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 83: 29–41.

32 Rajashekhar Siddappa, Jessica Riggins, Shathabish Kariyanna, Paul Calkins and Alexandre T. Rotta. High-dose dexmedetomidine sedation for pediatric MRI. Pediatric Anesthesia 2011;21:153–158.

33 Takayuki Kunisawa et al. Dexmedetomidine can stabilize hemodynamics and spare anesthetics before cardiopulmonary bypass. J Anesth 2011; 25:818–822.

34 Woon-Seok Kang, Sung-Yun Kim et al. The effect of dexmedetomidine on the adjuvant propofol requirement and intraoperative hemodynamics during remifentanil-based anesthesia. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 62(2): 113-118.

35 Cheung CW et al. Evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of local dexmedetomidine application. Clin J Pain. 2011;27(5):377-82.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top