Dexmedetomidine is an upcoming agent with sedative, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties. This review summarizes empirical evidence for the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative agent, and its effectiveness for small diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, in comparison with other frequently used sedatives. All randomized controlled trials on the effect of dexmedetomidine were reviewed. Pain level, patient satisfaction, operator satisfaction, procedure duration, recovery time, and hemodynamic and respiratory characteristics were examined. A total of 1993 patients (1,621 adults; 372 children) from 35 studies were included. In the adult studies, dexmedetomidine yielded significantly lower pain levels compared to the other sedatives (in 31.25% of the included studies) and significantly more patient satisfaction (68.2%). In studies on children, more favorable results concerning respiratory safety and the level of adequate sedation were found compared to the control sedatives. Implications for future studies are discussed.

In this study group, dexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil provided a high level of patient satisfaction and comfort, as well as operator comfort, without any clinically relevant adverse events. All patients were highly cooperative and instructable; incident pain needs to be closely monitored.

Many patients with established CHD and cardiovascular risk factors do not remember ever having received information about management of their risk factors. Clearly, there is a substantial potential to improve professionals' compliance to guidelines on risk factor management, including those on patient education. The perceived contribution of nurses to risk factor management is small compared to that of physicians and other caregivers. If risk factor management is felt to be a main responsibility of nurses, current nursing activities in this area should be reconsidered within an improved organisational structure.

The study has shown that improved communication between the CR centres and the GP's after CR had only a marginal effect on the quality of RF-management. One key element of secondary prevention could be to get the patient more strongly involved in reaching the targets of therapy.