SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “dexmedetomidine”

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

Effects of erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction for breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy causes acute pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a single-shot T5 erector spinae plane block (ESPB) reduces postoperative pain. DESIGN: Single-center, RCT with allocation concealment; blinded assessors and statisticians. SETTING: Tertiary cancer center in China. PATIENTS: 100 adults scheduled for radical mastectomy with implant reconstruction were randomized (1:1); follow-up complete. INTERVENTION: Before induction, ESPB was given under ultrasound guidance at T5 with 30 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg; controls received no block. Standardized general anesthesia and postoperative PCA for both groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resting NRS at 6 h (MCID=1). Secondary outcomes were opioid consumption, quality of recovery, and PONV. RESULTS: ESPB did not significantly reduce resting pain at 6 h at the median (τ =0.50; adjusted difference -0.9; p = 0.08). At the upper tail, pain intensity was lower (τ = 0.75; -1.8; p <0.01). Repeated measures provided additional time-point information, improving estimation precision and test sensitivity. ESPB get lower pain scores at 6, 12, and 24 hours (all p <0.01). But, the 95% CI includes the MCID, the clinical benefit remains uncertain. Opioid use decreased at 24 h (-13.5 mg; p <0.01) and 48 h (-6.6 mg; p <0.01). Quality of recovery improved at 24 h (difference 5 points; p <0.01), but not later. No differences were observed in intraoperative hemodynamics or PONV. CONCLUSIONS: Single-shot T5 ESPB with perineural dexmedetomidine may reduce postoperative pain and opioid requirements and improve early recovery. Further large trials are warranted. Clinical relevance remains to be confirmed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06143020.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Evaluation of intravenous sedation in dental implant surgeries: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of intravenous sedation on patient-centered outcomes during implant and bone augmentation surgeries. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study included 40 patients undergoing placement of ≥3 implants, with or without bone augmentation. Patients underwent surgery under either intravenous sedation (n = 20) or local anesthesia alone (n = 20), according to routine clinical decision-making and patient preference. The sedation group received intravenous sedation with a multimodal regimen comprising remimazolam, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil, and low-dose esketamine, whereas the control group received local anesthesia only. Patient-reported outcome measures, hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, HR, SpO2), postoperative pain (0-10 scale), and OHRQoL (OHIP-14) were recorded from baseline through 7 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Intravenous sedation was associated with significantly lower intraoperative pain (0.5 [IQR: 0∼2.75] vs. 3.25 ± 2.40, p = 0.003), anxiety (1 [IQR: 0∼2.75] vs. 4 [IQR: 3∼6], p = 0.001), and experienced discomfort (2 [IQR: 1∼3.75] vs. 4.15 ± 2.16, p = 0.016), and shortened perceived treatment duration (2.90 ± 2.34 vs. 5 [IQR: 4∼5], p = 0.020). Early postoperative pain was lower in the sedation group from Days 1-4 (p = 0.003-0.010). Hemodynamic parameters were more stable under sedation, with lower SBP (116.42 ± 13.32 vs. 144.11 ± 17.42 mmHg, p < 0.001), DBP (73.21 ± 10.28 vs. 82.37 ± 11.03 mmHg, p = 0.012), and HR (71.00 [IQR: 62.50∼79.25] vs. 85.00 ± 10.72 bpm, p = 0.021). OHRQoL scores favored the sedation group in swallowing, diet, malaise, and daily activities, particularly during the first three postoperative days (p=0.006-0.040). CONCLUSION: Intravenous sedation may enhance the patient experience during implant and/or bone augmentation procedures by reducing intraoperative pain and anxiety, improving hemodynamic stability, and promoting better early-postoperative recovery and OHRQoL. These findings suggest that intravenous sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for implant dentistry surgery, particularly for anxious or pain-sensitive individuals.

Humans↗