4.1 Article

Comparison of buccal and nasal dexmedetomidine premedication for pediatric patients

Journal

PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 134-138

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/pan.12025

Keywords

Premedication; children; dexmedetomidine; route; buccal; nasal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists are used to premedicate pediatric patients to reduce separation anxiety and achieve calm induction. The clinical effects of clonidine are similar whether via the oral or nasal route. However, oral dexmedetomidine is not preferred because of its poor bioavailability. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of nasal versus buccal dexmedetomidine used for premedication in children. Methods Sixty-two patients, aged 26 years, undergoing minor elective surgery were randomly assigned to two groups to receive dexmedetomidine, either 1 mu g.kg-1 buccally (group B) or 1 mu g.kg-1 intranasally (group N) for premedication 45 min before the induction of anesthesia. Heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were measured before and every 10 min after administering dexmedetomidine in all children. Level of sedation was assessed every 10 min until transport to operating room. Drug acceptance, parental separation, and face mask acceptance scores were recorded. Results There was no significant difference between the two groups in patient characteristics, nor was there any significant difference between the two groups in heart rate, respiratory rate, or SpO2 values at all times after premedication. Levels of sedation, parental separation, and mask acceptance scores were significantly higher in group N than in group B at the various times. Conclusions These results suggest that intranasal administration of 1 mu g.kg-1 dexmedetomidine is more effective than buccal administration of 1 mu g.kg-1 dexmedetomidine for premedication in children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available