SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Bradycardia”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

The effect of dexmedetomidine in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a central sympatholytic with sedative properties widely used in critically ill patients. However, its effects in patients with sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of DEX compared to other sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from inception through May 1, 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing DEX with other sedatives or placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock. Primary outcomes included overall mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Secondary outcomes encompassed duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), length of stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 3,882 patients (1,945 in the DEX group, 1,937 in the control group) were included. DEX was demonstrated no significant differences compared to other sedatives or placebo in overall mortality (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.98, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.90 to 1.07, p = 0.71, I2 = 0%), SOFA scores (Mean Difference [MD] - 0.14, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.52, p = 0.67, I2 = 0%), length of stay in ICU (MD -0.32, 95% CI -1.69 to 1.06, p = 0.65, I2 = 77%), or incidence of hypotension (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.62, p = 0.44, I2 = 14%). However, DEX significantly reduced the duration of MV (MD -0.54, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.10, p = 0.02, I2 = 25%) but was associated with an increased incidence of bradycardia (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.28, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock, DEX shortened duration of MV but was associated increased bradycardia risk. No mortality or organ dysfunction benefits were observed. These findings suggest DEX is a reasonable therapeutic option to facilitate earlier ventilator weaning in selected patients (particularly those without shock), but careful monitoring for cardiovascular adverse effects is warranted.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of opioid-free versus opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing short-duration surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults who undergo short-duration surgery are vulnerable to opioid-related complications. It is uncertain whether an opioid-free total intravenous anaesthesia (OFA) can reduce these events. We aimed to determine whether OFA reduces the incidence of major postoperative adverse events compared with standard opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia (OBA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted in China. From May to August 2025, 400 patients aged ≥60 years undergoing elective, short-duration surgery (anticipated duration of less than 90 min) were randomized 1:1 to receive either OFA (n = 200) or OBA (n = 200). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative hypoxemia, delirium, or nausea and vomiting (PONV) within 48 h. RESULTS: A total of 400 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [7.0] years; 125 [31.3%] women). The primary composite outcome occurred in 50 patients (25.0%) in the OFA group and 87 patients (43.5%) in the OBA group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.62; p < .001). Among the OFA group had a lower incidence of hypoxemia (15.0% vs 32.0%) and PONV (8.0% vs 16.0%). Intraoperative hemodynamic stability was greater in the OFA group. However, the OFA group had a higher incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (10.0% vs 3.0%; p = .005) and longer extubation times (mean, 9.5 vs 7.2 min; p < .001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that OFA is a viable alternative to opioid-based anesthesia for improving postoperative outcomes by reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and PONV in this population, while warranting careful management of its associated side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500102550.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparing the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral spinal anesthesia has gained increasing attention in recent years. Emerging evidence suggests that it provides comparable analgesia to conventional bilateral spinal anesthesia while reducing adverse effects, and its efficacy and safety compared to bilateral spinal anesthesia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia. DESIGN: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 10, 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies were randomized controlled trials involving adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing surgery under spinal anesthesia, comparing unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia for efficacy and adverse effects. Studies that focused exclusively on either unilateral or bilateral spinal anesthesia were excluded. The comparator group used the same local anesthetic as the experimental group, with no restrictions on adjuncts (e.g. fentanyl, morphine). RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials including 1191 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, unilateral spinal anesthesia has a longer onset of sensory blockade (MD = 2.58, 95% CI: 0.93 to 4.22, p = 0.002), a shorter duration of sensory blockade (MD = -27.83, 95% CI: -39.25 to -16.42, p < 0.00001). In addition, unilateral spinal anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.52, p < 0.0001), nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.56, p = 0.002), and post-dural puncture headache (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.81, p = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in bradycardia and urinary retention. Collectively, these findings support unilateral spinal anesthesia as a strategy that may enhance perioperative safety while maintaining adequate anesthetic efficacy in appropriately selected patients. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral spinal anesthesia may offer a favorable balance between anesthetic efficacy and safety compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, although its clinical utility may depend on surgical duration and patient characteristics.

Humans↗