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.

Background:During the lead implantation of most spinal cord neurostimulators, the patient has to be comfortable and without pain. However, the patient is expected to provide feedback during electrical mapping. Titrating sedatives and analgesics for this double goal can be challenging. In comparison with our standard sedative agent propofol, the pharmacological profile of dexmedetomidine is more conducive to produce arousable sedation. The latter, however, is associated with hemodynamic side effects. We investigated whether dexmedetomidine is preferable over propofol during neurostimulator implantation.Methods: This single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial included 72 patients with an indication for a neurostimulator, randomized to sedation with either propofol (0.5 mg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 2.0 mg/kg/h) or dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the sedation. The secondary outcomes were patient's and operator's comfort, number of titration adjustments, standard intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and side effects. Results: Data of 69 patients (dexmedetomidine n = 35; propofol n = 34) were analyzed. Those receiving dexmedetomidine were more satisfied with the sedation than those receiving propofol; i.e. with sedation delivery (median 100.0 vs 83.3, P < .01), procedural recall (median 95.8 vs 83.3, P = .03), and sedation side effects (median 90.0 vs 83.3, P = .01). Fewer changes in the dexmedetomidine titration were necessary to maintain arousable sedation. Over time, mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group. Hemodynamic side effects were comparable across groups.Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine sedation resulted in higher patient satisfaction and allowed for better arousable sedation than sedation with propofol. Although differences in hemodynamic parameters were found between the groups, these differences were not regarded as clinically relevant. 1322 | ter BrUGGeN et al. S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. How to cite this article: ter Bruggen FFJA, Ceuppens C, Leliveld L, Stronks DL, Huygen FJPM. Dexmedetomidine vs propofol as sedation for implantation of neurostimulators: A single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Acta

No abstract

Background and aims During implantation of most spinal cord neurostimulators, patients need to be cooperative to give feedback during lead placement, and also be comfortable. Sedation and analgesia can support these conditions. This survey aimed to provide an overview of the sedation-analgesia regimens currently used among Dutch pain specialists. The survey focused on the sedative agent “dexmedetomidine” due to its attractive pharmacological profile and its promising results during awake procedures. Methods A 27-item survey was sent to the 65 pain specialists involved in neurostimulation in the Netherlands. The survey consisted of questions related to different aspects of sedation and analgesia during neurostimulation, e.g. the current regimen, the opinion on and experience with dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent, and preferences regarding different aspects of sedation (i.e. production of arousable sedation, pain management, quality of patient’s feedback and overall preference). Results Of 65 pain specialists, 45 (69%) completed the survey. Most commonly used sedative was propofol (91%) and most common used analgesic was remifentanil (78%). Of the 45 respondents, 21 (47%) considered the use of dexmedetomidine, whereas 13 (29%) had experience with dexmedetomidine during neurostimulation. The most frequently mentioned positive property of dexmedetomidine was the easy production of arousable sedation. Most respondents who used dexmedetomidine preferred dexmedetomidine sedation over propofol sedation regarding all aspects of sedation. Conclusions The most commonly used sedation-analgesia regimen is the combination of propofol-remifentanil during the implantation of a neurostimulator among Dutch pain specialists. Only a small percentage of respondents had experience with the use of dexmedetomidine, despite its reported advantages. Implications When implanting a spinal cord neurostimulator, dexmedetomidine could be considered as a sedative, given its allowance for and preservation of a state of easy arousable sedation.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: The success of neurostimulation depends partly on the amount of coverage of the neurostimulation-induced paresthesia of the painful area. This is often achieved by asking feedback from patients intraoperatively. If sedation analgesia is used, it is important that the patient is comfortable during sedation and easily arousable. If the patient is not well sedated or experiences residual effects of the sedation during testing, this can directly influence the ideal placement of the leads and indirectly the long-term effect of the treatment. It is our hypothesis that the quality of the sedation is directly coupled to the adequacy of lead placement and in this way in the result of the treatment. Dexmedetomidine is known for its easy production of arousable sedation. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term effect of using dexmedetomidine versus propofol during the implantation of a neurostimulator. Materials and Methods: This is a post-trial follow-up analysis of the DexMedPro cohort. The primary outcome was global perceived effect (GPE). The secondary outcomes were the course of pain intensity, the emotional and physical functioning at the time of follow-up, and the course of neurostimulation treatment. In this study, we used the patient satisfaction with sedation as a measure for sedation quality. Results: Regarding the GPE, no statistically significant differences were found between the experimental groups in either subscale (ie, recovery (p=0.82) and satisfaction with the neurostimulation treatment at follow-up (p=0.06)). The same was found regarding the secondary parameters. A correlation was found between patient satisfaction with sedation during the lead implantation (side effects and procedural recall) and satisfaction at follow-up. Conclusion: Regarding the long-term efficacy of neurostimulation treatment, no statistically significant differences were found between the dexmedetomidine and the propofol group. We observed a trend towards greater satisfaction with the neurostimulation treatment at followup in the dexmedetomidine group, compared to the propofol group.