Cargando…

Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the sedative efficacy and safety of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with oral chloral hydrate for Computed tomography (CT) or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examination in Children. METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lyu, Xiaoqian, Tao, Yujuan, Dang, Xiujing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9008694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35433538
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.872900
_version_ 1784687110510346240
author Lyu, Xiaoqian
Tao, Yujuan
Dang, Xiujing
author_facet Lyu, Xiaoqian
Tao, Yujuan
Dang, Xiujing
author_sort Lyu, Xiaoqian
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the sedative efficacy and safety of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with oral chloral hydrate for Computed tomography (CT) or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examination in Children. METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China WanFang Databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating intranasal DEX (test group) vs. oral chloral hydrate (control group) in pediatric CT/MRI examinations up to December 30, 2021. The data were analyzed using Stata 15.0 software. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 1,846 children were identified. The meta-analysis results showed that the success rate of sedation (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.03–1.26, P = 0.011), sedation onset time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = –0.87, 95% CI: –1.42 to –0.31, P = 0.002], sedation duration (WMD = –9.05, 95% CI:-14.69 to –3.42, P = 0.002), time to awakening (WMD = –9.75, 95% CI:-17.57 to –1.94, P = 0.014), and incidence of nausea and vomiting [relative risk (RR) = 0.09, 95% CI:0.04–0.23, P < 0.001) of the test group were significantly better than those of the control group. However, no significant differences were identified in incidence of hypotension (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.51–2.74) and bradycardia (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.13–22.11) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Intranasal administration of DEX is superior to oral chloral hydrate for sedation during pediatric CT/MRI examinations and has a better safety profile.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9008694
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90086942022-04-15 Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis Lyu, Xiaoqian Tao, Yujuan Dang, Xiujing Front Pediatr Pediatrics OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the sedative efficacy and safety of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with oral chloral hydrate for Computed tomography (CT) or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examination in Children. METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China WanFang Databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating intranasal DEX (test group) vs. oral chloral hydrate (control group) in pediatric CT/MRI examinations up to December 30, 2021. The data were analyzed using Stata 15.0 software. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 1,846 children were identified. The meta-analysis results showed that the success rate of sedation (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.03–1.26, P = 0.011), sedation onset time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = –0.87, 95% CI: –1.42 to –0.31, P = 0.002], sedation duration (WMD = –9.05, 95% CI:-14.69 to –3.42, P = 0.002), time to awakening (WMD = –9.75, 95% CI:-17.57 to –1.94, P = 0.014), and incidence of nausea and vomiting [relative risk (RR) = 0.09, 95% CI:0.04–0.23, P < 0.001) of the test group were significantly better than those of the control group. However, no significant differences were identified in incidence of hypotension (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.51–2.74) and bradycardia (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.13–22.11) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Intranasal administration of DEX is superior to oral chloral hydrate for sedation during pediatric CT/MRI examinations and has a better safety profile. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9008694/ /pubmed/35433538 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.872900 Text en Copyright © 2022 Lyu, Tao and Dang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pediatrics
Lyu, Xiaoqian
Tao, Yujuan
Dang, Xiujing
Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis
title Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis
title_full Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis
title_short Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Children Undergoing Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-Analysis
title_sort efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine vs. oral chloral hydrate for sedation in children undergoing computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis
topic Pediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9008694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35433538
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.872900
work_keys_str_mv AT lyuxiaoqian efficacyandsafetyofintranasaldexmedetomidinevsoralchloralhydrateforsedationinchildrenundergoingcomputedtomographymagneticresonanceimagingametaanalysis
AT taoyujuan efficacyandsafetyofintranasaldexmedetomidinevsoralchloralhydrateforsedationinchildrenundergoingcomputedtomographymagneticresonanceimagingametaanalysis
AT dangxiujing efficacyandsafetyofintranasaldexmedetomidinevsoralchloralhydrateforsedationinchildrenundergoingcomputedtomographymagneticresonanceimagingametaanalysis