Dexmedetomidine is an α2-adrenoceptor agonist with sedative, anxiolytic, sympatholytic, and analgesic-sparing effects, and minimal depression of respiratory function. It is potent and highly selective for α2-receptors with an α2:α1 ratio of 1620:1. Hemodynamic effects, which include transient hypertension, bradycardia, and hypotension, result from the drug’s peripheral vasoconstrictive and sympatholytic properties. Dexmedetomidine exerts its hypnotic action through activation of central pre- and postsynaptic α2-receptors in the locus coeruleus, thereby inducting a state of unconsciousness similar to natural sleep, with the unique aspect that patients remain easily rousable and cooperative. Dexmedetomidine is rapidly distributed and is mainly hepatically metabolized into inactive metabolites by glucuronidation and hydroxylation. A high inter-individual variability in dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics has been described, especially in the intensive care unit population. In recent years, multiple pharmacokinetic non-compartmental analyses as well as population pharmacokinetic studies have been performed. Body size, hepatic impairment, and presumably plasma albumin and cardiac output have a significant impact on dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics. Results regarding other covariates remain inconclusive and warrant further research. Although initially approved for intravenous use for up to 24 h in the adult intensive care unit population only, applications of dexmedetomidine in clinical practice have been widened over the past few years. Procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine was additionally approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2003 and dexmedetomidine has appeared useful in multiple off-label applications such as pediatric sedation, intranasal or buccal administration, and use as an adjuvant to local analgesia techniques.

ObjectivesTo systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation.Materials and MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (≥18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for conscious sedation and at least one group receiving dexmedetomidine and one group receiving midazolam. Exclusion criteria: patients in intensive care, pediatric subjects and per protocol use of additional sedative medication other than rescue medication. Outcome measures for efficacy comparison were patient and clinician satisfaction scores and pain scores; outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications.ResultsWe identified 89 papers, of which 12 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 883 patients were included in these studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher patient and operator satisfaction than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced less pain and had lower analgesic requirements. Respiratory and hemodynamic safety were similar.ConclusionsDexmedetomidine is a promising alternative to midazolam for use in procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine provides more comfort during the procedure for the patient and clinician. If carefully titrated, the safety profiles are similar.

Background: Intraoperative and postoperative hypotension occur commonly and are associated with organ injury and poor outcomes. Changes in arterial blood pressure (BP) during procedural sedation are not well described. Methods: Individual patient data from five trials of propofol sedation for colonoscopy and a clinical database were pooled and explored with logistic and linear regression. A literature search and focused meta-analysis compared the incidence of hypotension with propofol and alternative forms of procedural sedation. Hypotensive episodes were characterised by the original authors' definitions (typically systolic BP <90 mm Hg). Results: In pooled individual patient data (n¼939), 36% of procedures were associated with episodes of hypotension. Longer periods of propofol sedation and larger propofol doses were associated with longer-lasting and more-profound hypotension. Amongst 380 patients for whom individual BP measurements were available, 107 (28%) experienced systolic BP <90 mm Hg for >5 min, and in 89 (23%) the episodes exceeded 10 min. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs identified an increased risk ratio for the development of hypotension in procedures where propofol was used compared with the use of etomidate (two studies; n¼260; risk ratio [RR] 2.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.37e2.92]; P¼0.0003), remimazolam (one study; n¼384; RR 2.15 [1.61e2.87]; P¼0.0001), midazolam (14 studies; n¼2218; RR 1.46 [1.18e1.79]; P¼0.0004), or all benzodiazepines (15 studies; n¼2602; 1.67 [1.41e1.98]; P<0.00001). Hypotension was less likely with propofol than with dexmedetomidine (one study; n¼60; RR 0.24 [0.09e0.62]; P¼0.003). Conclusions: Hypotension is common during propofol sedation for colonoscopy and of a magnitude and duration associated with harm in surgical patients.

Background: Dexmedetomidine is a sedative with modest analgesic efficacy, whereas remifentanil is an opioid analgesic with modest sedative potency. Synergy is often observed when sedative-hypnotics are combined with opioid analgesics in anesthetic practice. A three-phase crossover trial was conducted to study the pharmacodynamic interaction between remifentanil and dexmedetomidine. Methods: After institutional review board approval, 30 age-and sex-stratified healthy volunteers were studied. The subjects received consecutive stepwise increasing target-controlled infusions of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and remifentanil with a fixed dexmedetomidine background concentration. Drug effects were measured using binary (yes or no) endpoints: no response to calling the subject by name, tolerance of shaking the patient while shouting the name ("shake and shout"), tolerance of deep trapezius squeeze, and tolerance of laryngoscopy. The drug effect was measured using the electroencephalogram-derived "Patient State Index." Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling related the administered dexmedetomidine and remifentanil concentration to these observed effects. results: The binary endpoints were correlated with dexmedetomidine concentrations, with increasing concentrations required for increasing stimulus intensity. Estimated model parameters for the dexmedetomidine EC50 were 2.1 [90% CI, 1.6 to 2.8], 9.2 [6.8 to 13], 24 [16 to 35], and 35 [23 to 56] ng/ml, respectively. Age was inversely correlated with dexmedetomidine EC50 for all four stimuli. Adding remifentanil did not increase the probability of tolerance of any of the stimuli. The cerebral drug effect as measured by the Patient State Index was best described by the Hierarchical interaction model with an estimated dexmedetomidine EC 50 of 0.49 [0.20 to 0.99] ng/ml and remifentanil EC 50 of 1.6 [0.87 to 2.7] ng/ml. conclusions: Low dexmedetomidine concentrations (EC 50 of 0.49 ng/ml) are required to induce sedation as measured by the Patient State Index. Sensitivity to dexmedetomidine increases with age. Despite falling asleep, the majority of subjects remained arousable by calling the subject's name, "shake and shout," or a trapezius squeeze, even when reaching supraclinical concentrations. Adding remifentanil does not alter the likelihood of response to graded stimuli.

What is the incidence of events with potential adverse health consequences during moderate-to-deep sedation provided by nursing staff trained and supervised by the anesthesia department using target-controlled infusions (TCIs) of propofol and remifentanil? • Findings: Moderate-to-deep sedation (MDS) provided by sedation practitioners using TCI propofol and remifentanil under indirect supervision of an anesthesiologist has a low incidence of sedation-related events: 0% and 1.1% for catastrophic events and significant events, respectively. • Meaning: These findings suggest that this service model, where nursing staff trained by the anesthesia department use TCI of propofol and remifentanil to provide MDS under indirect supervision of an anesthesiologist, is associated with an incidence of sedation-related events that is consistent with the results of published studies of other MDS service models.BACKGROUND: In the University Medical Center Groningen in Groningen, the Netherlands, moderateto-deep sedation is provided by nursing staff trained and supervised by the anesthesia department using protocol-based target-controlled infusions (TCIs) of propofol and remifentanil. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the incidence of events with potential adverse health consequences within this service model and the risk factors for the occurrence of these events. METHODS: We retrospectively interrogated a database containing the computerized anesthetic records of 2937 procedures where moderate-to-deep sedation was provided using TCI administration of propofol and remifentanil between May 2014 and October 2017. The primary outcome measures were the incidence of sedation-related events with potential adverse health consequences and risk factors for the occurrence of such events. The events under investigation were unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), death on the day of the procedure due to sedation-related events, cardiovascular events (arrhythmias, hypertension, and hypotension), pulmonary events (aspiration, desaturation, unplanned tracheal intubation), anaphylactic or allergic reactions, and the termination of the procedure due to sedation-related events. Cardiovascular and pulmonary events were classified as severe, significant, or moderate. Events were identified by using computer algorithms to search the computerized records from all included procedures. RESULTS: Data from 2937 procedures were analyzed. No patients suffered catastrophic events (death, need for CPR, or unplanned ICU admission). Thirty-two severe sedation-related events occurred in 32 procedures. Severe desaturation (0.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-0.9) and severe hypertension (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.04-0.37) were the most common severe events. Significant hypotension (8.8%; 95% CI, 7.73-9.77) and significant desaturation (1.6%; 95% CI, 1.12-2.02) were found to be the most common events with potential adverse health consequences. No patient suffered lasting health consequences...

No abstract

The properties that would constitute the ideal sedative have yet to be combined in one drug. The selection of the drugs used for ambulatory sedation depends on many factors such as procedure type, patient characteristics and the expectations of patients and the healthcare provider. Because of this, the literature cannot yet provide a definitive answer to the question which drug is best selected in a specific situation.

No abstract