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
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 May;38(3):156-164.
doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2021.20076.

The Role of Dexmedetomidine as an Additive to Intravenous Regional Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The Role of Dexmedetomidine as an Additive to Intravenous Regional Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Iosifina Karmaniolou et al. Balkan Med J. 2021 May.

Abstract

Background: Intravenous Regional Anesthesia (IVRA) is a reliable and cost-effective anesthetic method for minor surgical procedures to the extremities. Limitations of this block include tourniquet discomfort, short duration of anesthesia, and absence of postoperative analgesia. Dexmedetomidine has been used as an adjuvant to minimize these negative characteristics with inconclusive results.

Aim: To perform a systematic review of the existing evidence on the role of dexmedetomidine as an additive to intravenous regional anesthesia in upper limb surgery.

Study design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Methods: The databases searched were MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, and clinicaltrials. gov (1990-2019). Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. We analyzed the duration of analgesia, onset time of sensory and motor block, intraoperative tourniquet pain scores, the incidence of tourniquet pain, need for rescue analgesia, intraoperative rescue analgesia consumption, sedation scores, postoperative pain scores, and anesthesia quality.

Results: Intraoperative analgesia duration (MD 11.08 min; 95% CI 5.42, 16.75; P < .0001) was longer and sensory block onset time (MD -2.10 min; 95% CI -3.345, -0.86; P = .00009) was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group. Anesthesia quality scores (MD 0.58; 95% CI 0.47, 0.70; P < .00001) and postoperative sedation scores (MD 1.03; 95% CI 0.88, 1.24; P < .00001) were significantly higher. There was a significant reduction in intraoperative rescue analgesia consumption (MD -19.70 mg; 95% CI -24.15, -15.26; P < .00001) in the dexmedetomidine group. The risk of tourniquet pain as well as postoperative pain scores were lower in favor of dexmedetomidine. The addition of dexmedetomidine to IVRA slightly increased the risk of sedation. A limitation of our study is that some of the interesting outcomes derive from a small number of RCTs.

Conclusion: The addition of dexmedetomidine to IVRA ameliorates the block's characteristics and carries a low risk of potential side effects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
Consort diagram—study selection process.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
Risk of bias summary.
FIG. 3. A-C.
FIG. 3. A-C.
Forest plots of comparison—duration of analgesia (min). (A) Forest plot of comparison: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine.(B) Subgroup analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine). (C) Subgroup analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine and 0.5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine).
FIG. 4. A-C.
FIG. 4. A-C.
Forest plots of comparison - onset time of sensory block (minutes). (A) Forest plot of comparison: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine. (B) Subgroup Analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine and 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine). (C) Subgroup Analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine and 0.5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine).
FIG. 5. A-C.
FIG. 5. A-C.
Forest plots of comparison - onset time of motor block (minutes). (A) Forest plot of comparison: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine. (B) Subgroup Analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine and 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine). (C) Subgroup Analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine and 0.5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine).
FIG. 6. A-C.
FIG. 6. A-C.
Forest plots of comparison - Intraoperative rescue analgesia consumptionmeasured as the amount (mcg) of fentanyl administered intraoperatively. (A) Forest plot of comparison: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine. (B) Subgroup Analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine). (C) Subgroup Analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine and 0.5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine).
FIG. 7. A-B.
FIG. 7. A-B.
Forest plots of comparison—anesthesia quality. (A) Forest plot of comparison: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine. (B) Subgroup Analysis: dexmedetomidine vs no dexmedetomidine (including studies using lidocaine).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brown EM, McGriff JT, Malinowski RW. Intravenous regional anaesthesia (Bier block): review of 20 years’ experience. Can J Anaesth. 1989;36(3 Pt 1):307–310.. 10.1007/BF03010770) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Flamer D, Peng PW. Intravenous regional anesthesia: a review of common local anesthetic options and the use of opioids and muscle relaxants as adjuncts. Local Reg Anesth. 2011;4:57–76.. 10.2147/LRA.S16683) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choyce A, Peng P. A systematic review of adjuncts for intravenous regional anesthesia for surgical procedures. Can J Anaesth. 2002;49(1):32–45.. 10.1007/BF03020416) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ramadhyani U, Park JL, Carollo DS, Waterman RS, Nossaman BD. Dexmedetomidine: clinical application as an adjunct for intravenous regional anesthesia. Anesthesiol Clin. 2010;28(4):709–722.. 10.1016/j.anclin.2010.08.008) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marhofer P, Brummett CM. Safety and efficiency of dexmedetomidine as adjuvant to local anesthetics . Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016;29(5):632–637.. 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000364) - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources