Efficacy of Intraoperative Dexmedetomidine Compared with Placebo for Postoperative Pain Management: A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies

Myriam Bellon, Alix Le Bot, Daphnée Michelet, Julie Hilly, Mathieu Maesani, Christopher Brasher, Souhayl Dahmani, Myriam Bellon, Alix Le Bot, Daphnée Michelet, Julie Hilly, Mathieu Maesani, Christopher Brasher, Souhayl Dahmani

Abstract

Introduction: Dexmedetomidine (Dex) has sedative, analgesic, and anesthetic-sparing effects. This meta-analysis examines demonstrated intraoperative and postoperative effects of intraoperative Dex administration during pediatric surgery.

Methods: A search for randomized placebo-controlled trials was conducted to identify clinical trials examining intraoperative Dex use in children, infants, and neonates. Primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption; secondary outcomes were: postoperative pain intensity and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Results: Fourteen randomized controlled trials performed during painful procedures were analyzed. Intraoperative Dex administration was associated with significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption in the postanesthesia care unit [PACU; risk ratio (RR) = 0.31 (0.17, 0.59), I (2) = 76%, p < 0.0001 and cumulative z score using trial sequential analysis], decreased pain intensity in PACU [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.18 (-1.88, -0.48), I (2) = 91%, p < 0.0001] but had no effect upon PONV incidence [RR = 0.67 (0.41, 1.08), I (2) = 0%, p = 0.48]. Subgroup analyses found administering Dex during adenotonsillectomy and using a bolus <0.5 µg/kg (irrespective to the use of a continuous administration) without effects on studies outcomes. Heterogeneity was high among results and a high suspicion of publication bias was present for all analyzed outcomes.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that intraoperative Dex administration in children reduces postoperative opioids consumption and postoperative pain in PACU. According to our results, optimal bolus dose was found to be ≥0.5 µg/kg. Future studies have to explore this particular point and the postoperative analgesic effects of Dex during longer periods.

Keywords: Analgesia; Children; Dexmedetomidine; Meta-analysis; Postoperative pain; Recovery.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Meta-analysis flowchart. IQR interquartile range, RCT randomized controlled trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Forest plot of meta-analysis of the effects of Dex versus placebo on opioid consumption in the PACU. b Forest plot of meta-analysis of the effects of Dex versus placebo on postoperative pain intensity in the PACU. c Forest plot of meta-analysis of the effects of dexmedetomidine versus placebo on postoperative nausea and vomiting in the PACU. The squarein front of each study (first author and year of publication) is the RR for individual trials, and the corresponding horizontal line is the 95% CI. The lozenge at the bottom represents pooled OR with 95% CI. Studies with more than one Dex arm are displayed as author, name, year of publication_1, and author name year of publication_2 (see Table 1 for exact description of each arm). CI confidence interval, Dex dexmedetomidine, OR odds ratio, PACU postanesthesia care unit, RR risk ratio, SE standard error, SMD standardized mean difference
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of subgroup analysis of the effect a of the surgery, b of the bolus mode versus the bolus plus continuous mode, and c the effect of a bolus of ≥0.5 µg/kg versus a bolus <0.5 µg/kg, on Dex opioid-sparing effect in the postanesthesia care unit. The square in front of each study (first author and year of publication) is the RR for individual trials, and the corresponding horizontal line is the 95% CI. The lozenge at the bottom represents pooled OR with 95% CI. The test for subgroup difference represents the interaction test between groups. Studies with more than one Dex arm are displayed as author name, year of publication_1, and author name, year of publication_2 (see Table 1 for exact description of each arm). CI confidence interval, Dex dexmedetomidine, RR risk ratio, SE standard error
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot of subgroup analysis of a the surgery, b the bolus mode versus the bolus plus continuous mode, and c the effect of a bolus of Dex ≥0.5 µg/kg versus a bolus <0.5 µg/kg, on Dex effect on postoperative pain intensity in the postanesthesia care unit. The square in front of each study (first author and year of publication) is the SMD for individual trials, and the corresponding horizontal line is the 95% CI. The lozenge at the bottom represents pooled OR with 95% CI. The test for subgroup difference represents the interaction test between groups. Studies with more than one Dex arm are displayed as author name, year of publication_1, and author name year of publication_2 (see Table 1 for exact description of each arm). CI confidence interval, Dex dexmedetomidine SE standard error, SMD standardized mean difference
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
a Trial sequential analysis graph (x-axis studies effect, y-axis cumulative z scores). The displaying in the full line displays the cumulative z score, thehorizontal dotted line the boundaries of significance (results in the region within these boundaries are non-significant), thevertical line the meta-analysis information size (size of patients to be included in order to show a significant outcome: 525). The etched lines the upper inward-sloping represents the trial sequential monitoring boundary and the lower outward-sloping the futility region. Given the evolution of the z score outside the futility region and crossing the monitoring boundary curve (constructed with low-risk bias studies), the opioid-sparing effect of dexmedetomidine is confirmed. b Correction for previous meta-analyses of trial sequential analysis graph: (x-axis studies effect, y-axis cumulative z scores). The upper curve represents the actual z scores analysis without correction and the lower one the corrected z scores taking in account previous analyses
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
a Funnel plot of Dex effect upon opioid consumption in PACU. b Funnel plot of Dex effect upon postoperative pain intensity in PACU. Graphs display the intervention effect (RR or SMD) estimates from individual studies in the x-axis against some measure of each study’s size or precision (standard error of the intervention effect) in the y-axis. Dex dexmedetomidine, PACU postanesthesia care unit, RR risk ratio, SE standard error, SMD standardized mean difference

References

    1. Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, Ely EW, Gélinas C, Dasta JF, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(1):263–306.
    1. Mahmoud M, Mason KP. Dexmedetomidine: review, update, and future considerations of paediatric perioperative and periprocedural applications and limitations. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(2):171–182. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev226.
    1. Mantz J, Josserand J, Hamada S. Dexmedetomidine: new insights. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28(1):3–6. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833e266d.
    1. Le Bot A, Michelet D, Hilly J, Maesani M, Dilly MP, Brasher C, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative dexmedetomidine compared with placebo for surgery in adults: a meta-analysis of published studies. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81(10):1105–1117.
    1. Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Poepping DM, Kranke P, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Zahn PK. Efficacy and safety of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for acute postoperative pain in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Paediatr Anaesth. 2013;23(2):170–179. doi: 10.1111/pan.12030.
    1. Zhu M, Wang H, Zhu A, Niu K, Wang G. Meta-analysis of dexmedetomidine on emergence agitation and recovery profiles in children after sevoflurane anesthesia: different administration and different dosage. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0123728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123728.
    1. Zhang C, Hu J, Liu X, Yan J. Effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine on emergence agitation in children under sevoflurane anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e99718. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099718.
    1. Cochrane collaborative. Cochrane handbook. 2015. . Accessed 31 Dec 2015.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
    1. Crellin D, Sullivan TP, Babl FE, O’Sullivan R, Hutchinson A. Analysis of the validation of existing behavioral pain and distress scales for use in the procedural setting. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007;17(8):720–33.
    1. Voepel-Lewis T, Zanotti J, Dammeyer JA, Merkel S. Reliability and validity of the face, legs, activity, cry, consolability behavioral tool in assessing acute pain in critically ill patients. Am J Crit Care. 2010;19(1):55–61 (quiz 2).
    1. Solodiuk JC, Scott-Sutherland J, Meyers M, Myette B, Shusterman C, Karian VE, et al. Validation of the Individualized Numeric Rating Scale (INRS): a pain assessment tool for nonverbal children with intellectual disability. Pain. 2010;150(2):231–6.
    1. von Baeyer CL, Spagrud LJ. Systematic review of observational (behavioral) measures of pain for children and adolescents aged 3 to 18 years. Pain. 2007;127(1–2):140–50.
    1. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5(1):13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13.
    1. Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2000;19(22):3127–3131. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::AID-SIM784>;2-M.
    1. Afshari A, Wetterslev J. When may systematic reviews and meta-analyses be considered reliable? Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32(2):85–87. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000186.
    1. Higgins JP, Whitehead A, Simmonds M. Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2015;30(9):903–921. doi: 10.1002/sim.4088.
    1. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323(7304):101–105. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101.
    1. Sutton AJ, Higgins JP. Recent developments in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2008;27(5):625–650. doi: 10.1002/sim.2934.
    1. Ali MA, Abdellatif AA. Prevention of sevoflurane related emergence agitation in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy: a comparison of dexmedetomidine and propofol. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013;7(3):296–300. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.115363.
    1. Al-Zaben KR, Qudaisat IY, Al-Ghanem SM, Massad IM, Al-Mustafa MM, Al-Oweidi AS, et al. Intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine reduces the analgesic requirements for children undergoing hypospadius surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27(3):247–252. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833522bf.
    1. Erdil F, Demirbilek S, Begec Z, Ozturk E, Ulger MH, Ersoy MO. The effects of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on emergence characteristics after adenoidectomy in children. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2009;37(4):571–576.
    1. Ghai B, Jain D, Coutinho P, Wig J. Effect of low dose dexmedetomidine on emergence delirium and recovery profile following sevoflurane induction in pediatric cataract surgeries, effect of low dose dexmedetomidine on emergence delirium and recovery profile following sevoflurane induction in pediatric cataract surgeries. J Anesthesiol. 2015;2015/11/02/2015/11/02;2015, 2015:e617074.
    1. Guler G, Akin A, Tosun Z, Ors S, Esmaoglu A, Boyaci A. Single-dose dexmedetomidine reduces agitation and provides smooth extubation after pediatric adenotonsillectomy. Paediatr Anaesth. 2005;15(9):762–766. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01541.x.
    1. Hauber JA, Davis PJ, Bendel LP, Martyn SV, McCarthy DL, Evans MC, et al. Dexmedetomidine as a rapid bolus for treatment and prophylactic prevention of emergence agitation in anesthetized children. Anesth Analg. 2015;121(5):1308–1315. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000931.
    1. Kim J, Kim SY, Lee JH, Kang YR, Koo BN. Low-dose dexmedetomidine reduces emergence agitation after desflurane anaesthesia in children undergoing strabismus surgery. Yonsei Med J. 2014;55(2):508–516. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.2.508.
    1. Kim NY, Kim SY, Yoon HJ, Kil HK. Effect of dexmedetomidine on sevoflurane requirements and emergence agitation in children undergoing ambulatory surgery. Yonsei Med J. 2014;55(1):209–215. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.1.209.
    1. Meng QT, Xia ZY, Luo T, Wu Y, Tang LH, Zhao B, et al. Dexmedetomidine reduces emergence agitation after tonsillectomy in children by sevoflurane anesthesia: a case-control study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(7):1036–1041. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.03.028.
    1. Patel A, Davidson M, Tran MC, Quraishi H, Schoenberg C, Sant M, et al. Dexmedetomidine infusion for analgesia and prevention of emergence agitation in children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome undergoing tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(4):1004–1010.
    1. Pestieau SR, Quezado ZM, Johnson YJ, Anderson JL, Cheng YI, McCarter RJ, et al. High-dose dexmedetomidine increases the opioid-free interval and decreases opioid requirement after tonsillectomy in children. Can J Anaesth. 2011;58(6):540–550. doi: 10.1007/s12630-011-9493-7.
    1. Sato M, Shirakami G, Tazuke-Nishimura M, Matsuura S, Tanimoto K, Fukuda K. Effect of single-dose dexmedetomidine on emergence agitation and recovery profiles after sevoflurane anesthesia in pediatric ambulatory surgery. J Anesth. 2010;24(5):675–682. doi: 10.1007/s00540-010-0976-4.
    1. Shukry M, Clyde MC, Kalarickal PL, Ramadhyani U. Does dexmedetomidine prevent emergence delirium in children after sevoflurane-based general anesthesia? Paediatr Anaesth. 2005;15(12):1098–1104. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01660.x.
    1. Soliman R, Alshehri A. Effect of dexmedetomidine on emergence agitation in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy under sevoflurane anesthesia: a randomized controlled study. Egypt J Anaesth. 2015;31:283–9.
    1. Belgrade M, Hall S. Dexmedetomidine infusion for the management of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Pain Med. 2010;11(12):1819–1826. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00973.x.
    1. Hallett BR, Chalkiadis GA. Suspected opioid-induced hyperalgesia in an infant. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(1):116–118. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer332.
    1. Kim SH, Stoicea N, Soghomonyan S, Bergese SD. Intraoperative use of remifentanil and opioid induced hyperalgesia/acute opioid tolerance: systematic review. Front Pharmacol. 2014;5:108. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2014.00108.
    1. Lee M, Silverman SM, Hansen H, Patel VB, Manchikanti L. A comprehensive review of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Pain Physician. 2011;14(2):145–61.
    1. Fang H, Yang L, Wang X, Zhu H. Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(8):11881–11889.
    1. Liang X, Zhou M, Feng JJ, Wu L, Fang SP, Ge XY, et al. Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(6):8450–8471.
    1. Kehlet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78(5):606–617. doi: 10.1093/bja/78.5.606.
    1. Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Pain management and accelerated rehabilitation for total hip and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7 Suppl 3):12–15. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.040.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅