Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta - Analysis

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (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)2560-2568
Number of pages9
JournalGastroenterological Endoscopy
Volume57
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - 2015

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

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

In: Gastroenterological Endoscopy, Vol. 57, No. 11, 2015, p. 2560-2568.

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: Gastroenterological Endoscopy. 2015 ; Vol. 57, No. 11. pp. 2560-2568.
@article{a418b77a6d1c43edb972eb1ab29668bb,
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.",
author = "Toshihiro Nishizawa and Hidekazu Suzuki and Seiji Sagara and Takanori Kanai and Naohisa Yahagi",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "2560--2568",
journal = "Gastroenterological Endoscopy",
issn = "0387-1207",
publisher = "Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society",
number = "11",

}

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

Y1 - 2015

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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017385875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017385875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85017385875

VL - 57

SP - 2560

EP - 2568

JO - Gastroenterological Endoscopy

JF - Gastroenterological Endoscopy

SN - 0387-1207

IS - 11

ER -