OBJECTIVES: To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing use of dexmedetomidine, there is insufficient evidence supporting its routine use for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, data on dexmedetomidine safety are scarce, and there are no data available on its long-term effects. Future studies should address the efficacy, safety, and long-term effects of dexmedetomidine as a single drug therapy for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants.
OBJECTIVES: The present study was performed to investigate the discriminative stimulus effects of MG in rats. The pharmacological mechanism of MG action and its derivative, 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-HMG) with a specific focus on opioid receptor involvement was examined in rats trained to discriminate morphine from vehicle. In order to study the dual actions of MG, the effect of cocaine substitution to the MG discriminative stimulus was also performed in MG-trained rats.
METHODS: Male Sprague Dawley rats were trained to discriminate MG from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure under a tandem variable-interval (VI 60') fixed-ratio (FR 10) schedule of food reinforcement.
RESULTS: Rats acquired the MG discrimination (15.0 mg/kg, i.p.) which was similar to the acquisition of morphine discrimination (5.0 mg/kg, i.p.) in another group of rats. MG substituted fully to the morphine discriminative stimulus in a dose-dependent manner, suggesting pharmacological similarities between the two drugs. The administration of 7-HMG derivative in 3.0 mg/kg (i.p.) dose engendered full generalisation to the morphine discriminative stimulus. In addition, the MG stimulus also partially generalised to cocaine (10.0 mg/kg, i.p.) stimulus.
CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that the discriminative stimulus effect of MG possesses both opioid- and psychostimulant-like subjective effects.
METHOD: A randomized controlled open-label study was performed at the cardiothoracic intensive care unit of Penang Hospital, Malaysia. A total of 28 patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine or morphine. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative baseline characteristics. Efficacy measures included sedation scores and pain intensity and requirements for additional sedative/analgesic. Mean heart rate and arterial blood pressure were used as safety measures. Other measures were additional inotropes, extubation time and other concurrent medications.
RESULTS: The mean dose of dexmedetomidine infused was 0.12 [SD 0.03] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, while that of morphine was 13.2 [SD 5.84] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine group showed more benefits in sedation and pain levels, additional sedative/analgesic requirements, and extubation time. No significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures, except heart rate, which was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine was at least comparable to morphine in terms of efficacy and safety among cardiac surgery patients. Further studies with larger samples are recommended in order to determine the significant effects of the outcome measures.