Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan 20;12(1):e0169525.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169525. eCollection 2017.

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

Clemens R M Barends  1 , Anthony Absalom  1 , Baucke van Minnen  2 , Arjan Vissink  2 , Anita Visser  2
Affiliations

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

Clemens R M Barends et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation.

Materials and methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (≥18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for conscious sedation and at least one group receiving dexmedetomidine and one group receiving midazolam. Exclusion criteria: patients in intensive care, pediatric subjects and per protocol use of additional sedative medication other than rescue medication. Outcome measures for efficacy comparison were patient and clinician satisfaction scores and pain scores; outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications.

Results: We identified 89 papers, of which 12 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 883 patients were included in these studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher patient and operator satisfaction than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced less pain and had lower analgesic requirements. Respiratory and hemodynamic safety were similar.

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine is a promising alternative to midazolam for use in procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine provides more comfort during the procedure for the patient and clinician. If carefully titrated, the safety profiles are similar.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA Diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Miller RD. Miller's Anesthesia. Philadelphia, Pa.; Edinburgh: Elsevier Saunders; 2009.
    1. Lodenius A, Ebberyd A, Hardemark Cedborg A, Hagel E, Mkrtchian S, Christensson E, et al. Sedation with Dexmedetomidine or Propofol Impairs Hypoxic Control of Breathing in Healthy Male Volunteers: A Nonblinded, Randomized Crossover Study. Anesthesiology. 2016;125: 700–715. 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001236 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17: 1–12. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6: e1000097 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Frolich MA, Arabshahi A, Katholi C, Prasain J, Barnes S. Hemodynamic characteristics of midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine in healthy volunteers. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23: 218–223. 10.1016/j.jclinane.2010.09.006 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources