4.4 Review

Effect of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine During General Anesthesia on Acute Postoperative Pain in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
Volume 34, Issue 12, Pages 1180-1191

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000630

Keywords

intravenous dexmedetomidine; general anesthesia; acute postoperative pain; adults

Funding

  1. Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences Foundation of China, Shandong, China [2015-37]
  2. Shandong Medicine and Health Science Technology Development Foundation of China, Shandong, China [2015WS0153]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background:Dexmedetomidine has been shown to have an analgesic effect. However, no consensus was reached in previous studies.Methods:Electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. The relative risk and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used to analyze the outcomes. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.Results:Compared with the normal saline group, patients using DEX showed a significantly decreased pain intensity within 6 hours [WMD=-0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.34 to -0.53) and at 24 hours after surgery (WMD=-0.47; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.11). DEX usage significantly reduced the cumulative opioids consumption at 24 hours after surgery (WMD=-6.76; 95% CI, -10.16 to -3.35), decreased the rescue opioids consumption in postanesthesia care unit (WMD=-3.11; 95% CI, -5.20 to -1.03), reduced the risk of rescue analgesics (relative risk=0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71), and the interval to first rescue analgesia was prolonged (WMD=34.93; 95% CI, 20.27-49.59).Conclusions:Intravenous DEX effectively relieved the pain intensity, extended the pain-free period, and decreased the consumption of opioids during postoperative recovery of adults in general anesthesia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available