Antianxiety effects of dexmedetomidine: systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 40372453
- DOI: 10.1007/s00406-025-02017-9
Antianxiety effects of dexmedetomidine: systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Despite numerous studies of the anxiolytic effects of dexmedetomidine compared with those of other drugs or saline, the results have been inconsistent. Here we report a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the evidence of the anxiolytic effects of dexmedetomidine.
Methods: This research has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov database were searched for clinical trials that compared the anxiolytic effects of dexmedetomidine with those of a control group with valid anxiety scores from inception to December 29, 2024.
Results: Overall, this systematic review and meta-analysis included 25 clinical studies with 2159 participants who underwent surgery. The primary outcome revealed that patients who were treated with dexmedetomidine had significantly lower anxiety scores than others did overall (MD = - 1.73, 95% CI = [ - 2.33, - 1.13], p < 0.00001, I2 = 86.5%). Dexmedetomidine was found to be more effective than benzodiazepines in relieving anxiety (MD = - 1.34, 95% CI = [ - 2.08, - 0.60], p = 0.0004, I2 = 83.3%). The secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences in satisfaction, pain level, sedation scores or the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting between patients who were treated with dexmedetomidine and controls. However, the occurrence of bradycardia was more common in the dexmedetomidine groups.
Conclusions: Overall, this meta-analysis provided evidence of the potential of dexmedetomidine for relieving anxiety among patients who undergo surgery, with superior antianxiety effects compared with those of benzodiazepines.
Keywords: Anxiety; Benzodiazepines; Dexmedetomidine; Meta-analysis.
© 2025. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: All the authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable.
References
-
- Penninx BW, Pine DS, Holmes EA et al (2021) Anxiety disorders. Lancet 397(10277):914–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00359-7 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators (2020) Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 396(10258):1204–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9 - DOI
-
- COVID-19 Mental Disorders Collaborators (2021) Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 398(10312):1700–1712. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02143-7 - DOI
-
- Lamers F, van Oppen P, Comijs HC et al (2011) Comorbidity patterns of anxiety and depressive disorders in a large cohort study: the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). J Clin Psychiatry 72(3):341–348. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.10m06176blu - DOI - PubMed
-
- Alonso J, Liu Z, Evans-Lacko S et al (2018) Treatment gap for anxiety disorders is global: results of the World Mental Health Surveys in 21 countries. Depress Anxiety 35(3):195–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22711 - DOI - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
