Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Toshihiro Nishizawa, Hidekazu Suzuki, Seiji Sagara, Takanori Kanai, Naohisa Yahagi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aim Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require sedatives such as midazolam and the more recently developed alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine. To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with midazolam. Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD). Results We identified nine randomized trials from the database search. Compared to that of midazolam, the pooled OR for restlessness of dexmedetomidine was 0.078 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.013-0.453, P < 0.0001), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. Dexmedetomidine significantly increased Ramsay sedation score compared with midazolam (WMD: 0.401, 95% CI: 0.110-0.692, P = 0.0069), without significant heterogeneity. Compared with midazolam, the pooled OR for hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were 0.454 (95% CI: 0.098-2.11), 1.370 (95% CI: 0.516-3.637), and 2.575 (95% CI: 0.978-6.785), respectively, with no significant differences detected between the groups. Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)8-15
Number of pages8
JournalDigestive Endoscopy
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Dexmedetomidine
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Midazolam
Meta-Analysis
Confidence Intervals
Odds Ratio
Hypnotics and Sedatives
Databases
Psychomotor Agitation
Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Bradycardia
PubMed
Hypotension
Libraries
Randomized Controlled Trials
Safety

Keywords

  • dexmedetomidine
  • endoscopy
  • meta-analysis
  • midazolam
  • sedative agent

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy : A meta-analysis. / Nishizawa, Toshihiro; Suzuki, Hidekazu; Sagara, Seiji; Kanai, Takanori; Yahagi, Naohisa.

In: Digestive Endoscopy, Vol. 27, No. 1, 01.01.2015, p. 8-15.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nishizawa, Toshihiro ; Suzuki, Hidekazu ; Sagara, Seiji ; Kanai, Takanori ; Yahagi, Naohisa. / Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy : A meta-analysis. In: Digestive Endoscopy. 2015 ; Vol. 27, No. 1. pp. 8-15.
@article{a90730cad27e471182a1fc6e11754edc,
title = "Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background and Aim Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require sedatives such as midazolam and the more recently developed alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine. To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with midazolam. Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD). Results We identified nine randomized trials from the database search. Compared to that of midazolam, the pooled OR for restlessness of dexmedetomidine was 0.078 (95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 0.013-0.453, P < 0.0001), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. Dexmedetomidine significantly increased Ramsay sedation score compared with midazolam (WMD: 0.401, 95{\%} CI: 0.110-0.692, P = 0.0069), without significant heterogeneity. Compared with midazolam, the pooled OR for hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were 0.454 (95{\%} CI: 0.098-2.11), 1.370 (95{\%} CI: 0.516-3.637), and 2.575 (95{\%} CI: 0.978-6.785), respectively, with no significant differences detected between the groups. Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic submucosal dissection.",
keywords = "dexmedetomidine, endoscopy, meta-analysis, midazolam, sedative agent",
author = "Toshihiro Nishizawa and Hidekazu Suzuki and Seiji Sagara and Takanori Kanai and Naohisa Yahagi",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/den.12399",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "8--15",
journal = "Digestive Endoscopy",
issn = "0915-5635",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Nishizawa, Toshihiro

AU - Suzuki, Hidekazu

AU - Sagara, Seiji

AU - Kanai, Takanori

AU - Yahagi, Naohisa

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Background and Aim Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require sedatives such as midazolam and the more recently developed alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine. To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with midazolam. Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD). Results We identified nine randomized trials from the database search. Compared to that of midazolam, the pooled OR for restlessness of dexmedetomidine was 0.078 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.013-0.453, P < 0.0001), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. Dexmedetomidine significantly increased Ramsay sedation score compared with midazolam (WMD: 0.401, 95% CI: 0.110-0.692, P = 0.0069), without significant heterogeneity. Compared with midazolam, the pooled OR for hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were 0.454 (95% CI: 0.098-2.11), 1.370 (95% CI: 0.516-3.637), and 2.575 (95% CI: 0.978-6.785), respectively, with no significant differences detected between the groups. Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic submucosal dissection.

AB - Background and Aim Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require sedatives such as midazolam and the more recently developed alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine. To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with midazolam. Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD). Results We identified nine randomized trials from the database search. Compared to that of midazolam, the pooled OR for restlessness of dexmedetomidine was 0.078 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.013-0.453, P < 0.0001), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. Dexmedetomidine significantly increased Ramsay sedation score compared with midazolam (WMD: 0.401, 95% CI: 0.110-0.692, P = 0.0069), without significant heterogeneity. Compared with midazolam, the pooled OR for hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were 0.454 (95% CI: 0.098-2.11), 1.370 (95% CI: 0.516-3.637), and 2.575 (95% CI: 0.978-6.785), respectively, with no significant differences detected between the groups. Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic submucosal dissection.

KW - dexmedetomidine

KW - endoscopy

KW - meta-analysis

KW - midazolam

KW - sedative agent

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922709567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922709567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/den.12399

DO - 10.1111/den.12399

M3 - Article

C2 - 25369736

AN - SCOPUS:84922709567

VL - 27

SP - 8

EP - 15

JO - Digestive Endoscopy

JF - Digestive Endoscopy

SN - 0915-5635

IS - 1

ER -