Abstract
Background
Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) frequently requires sedation, anxiolysis and relief of discomfort without impairing ventilation and depressing cardiovascular function. The goal is to allow the patient to be responsive and co‐operative. Medications such as fentanyl, remifentanil, midazolam and propofol have been reported to assist AFOI; however,these agents are associated with cardiovascular or respiratory adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine has been proposed as an alternative to facilitate AFOI.
Objectives
The primary objective of this review is to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in the management of patients with a difficult or unstable airway undergoing awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI).
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2012, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2012) through Ovid, EMBASE (1980 to May 2012) and Web of Science (1945 to May 2012); we screened the reference lists of all eligible trials and reviews to look for further trials and contacted authors of trials to ask for additional information. We searched for ongoing trials at http://www.controlledtrials.com/ and http://clinicaltrials.gov/. We reran our search of all databases listed above on 21 November 2013.
Selection criteria
We included published and unpublished randomized controlled trials, regardless of blinding or language of publication, in participants 18 years of age or older who were scheduled for an elective AFOI because of an anticipated difficult airway. Participants received dexmedetomidine or control medications.
Data collection and analysis
Three review authors independently extracted data on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence internals (CIs) for outcomes with sufficient data; for other outcomes, we performed a qualitative analysis.
Main results
We identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which included 211 participants. The four trials compared dexmedetomidine with midazolam, fentanyl, propofol or a sodium chloride placebo, respectively. The trials showed low or unclear risk of bias primarily because information provided on allocation concealment and other potential sources of bias was inadequate. Owing to clinical heterogeneity and potential methodological heterogeneity, it was impossible to conduct a full meta‐analysis. We described findings from individual studies or presented them in tabular form. Limited evidence was available for assessment of the outcomes of interest for this review. Results of the limited included trials showed that dexmedetomidine significantly reduced participants' discomfort with no significant differences in airway obstruction, low oxygen levels or treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events noted during AFOI compared with control groups. When the search was rerun (from May 2012 to November 2013), it was noted that four studies are awaiting assessment. We will deal with these studies when we update the review.
Authors' conclusions
Small, limited trials provide weak evidence to support dexmedetomidine as an option for patients with an anticipated difficult airway who undergo AFOI. The findings of this review should be further corroborated by additional controlled investigations.
Plain language summary
Is dexmedetomidine a good option for patients undergoing awake fibreoptic intubation?
This is a review of the clinical evidence from randomized controlled trials on the effect of dexmedetomidine in the management of awake fibreoptic intubation. The review was conducted by researchers in The Cochrane Collaboration. Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) is indicated for the management of patients with a difficult or unstable (critical) airway, such as those with airway deformity or tumour, airway injury or spinal cord instability. It is necessary in such a situation to maintain patient co‐operation and reduce patient anxiety without causing severe adverse effects during the AFOI. Many agents, including fentanyl, remifentanil, midazolam and propofol, have been reported to assist with AFOI. However, these agents can cause respiratory arrest, loss of airway control or reduced cardiovascular (heart) function, especially when used in high doses, thus increasing the risk of low oxygen levels (hypoxaemia), aspiration, low blood pressure (hypotension) or slow heart rate (bradycardia).
Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha‐2‐adrenoceptor agonist that can cause sedation, anxiolysis, analgesic sparing, reduced salivary secretion and minimal respiratory depression; this might be beneficial for patients with a difficult or unstable airway undergoing AFOI.
We searched the medical literature until May 2012 and identified four randomized controlled trials involving 211 patients that were appropriate for inclusion in the review. These studies compared dexmedetomidine versus midazolam, fentanyl, propofol or a sodium chloride placebo for patients undergoing AFOI. We reran our search in November 2013, and four studies are awaiting assessment. We will deal with them when we update the review.
Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced patient discomfort during AFOI compared with control groups in two included trials. No significant differences in intubation time, airway obstruction, low oxygen levels or treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events were reported during AFOI between the dexmedetomidine group and the control group.
Dexmedetomidine did not appear to be inferior to other medications. The data from this evidence database of modest size provide limited evidence to support the use of dexmedetomidine as an alternative or primary choice for AFOI. Further research should focus on this important topic. Additional well‐designed randomized controlled trials are needed to test the exact benefits of dexmedetomidine in the management of AFOI.
Background
Description of the condition
Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) is indicated in a variety of clinical situations. An integral part of AFOI is the management of patients with a critical (difficult or unstable) airway, such as airway deformity or tumour, airway injury or spinal cord instability. An ideal situation for AFOI requires sedation, anxiolysis and relief of discomfort without impairing ventilation and depressing cardiovascular function, while allowing the patient to be responsive and co‐operative. Many medications, such as fentanyl, remifentanil, midazolam and propofol, have been reported to assist AFOI (Knolle 2003; Lallo 2009; Machata 2003; Rai 2008). However, these agents can cause respiratory arrest, loss of airway control or cardiovascular depression, especially when used at high doses (Bergese 2007; Rai 2008). This increases the risk of hypoxaemia, aspiration, hypotension or bradycardia (Bailey 1990).
Description of the intervention
Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha‐2‐adrenoceptor agonist with properties of sedation, anxiolysis, analgesic sparing and inhibition of salivary secretion (Gerlach 2007). The alpha‐2/alpha‐1‐adrenoceptor selectivity ratio is eight‐fold greater than for clonidine, the classic alpha‐2‐adrenoceptor agonist (Virtanen 1988). Dexmedetomidine has a half‐life (t1/2) of approximately two hours, a duration of action of approximately four hours and a side effect profile that is shorter in duration than that of clonidine (i.e. much shorter influence on normal physiology).
When used at higher doses, dexmedetomidine exhibits minimal respiratory depression (Ebert 2000; Venn 2000). Thus dexmedetomidine has been proposed as a promising drug to use during AFOI for managing patients with a difficult or unstable airway (Hall 2000; Kamibayashi 2000). Dexmedetomidine has been approved for use in intubated and mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), as well as in non‐intubated patients undergoing surgical or other procedures (Ebert 2000).
Although dexmedetomidine has beneficial attributes, increasing concentrations of dexmedetomidine in humans results in bradycardia and a biphasic (low, then high) dose‐response relation for mean arterial pressure, especially in patients with intrinsic or drug‐induced bradycardia, hypovolaemia, advanced heart block or severe ventricular dysfunction (Ebert 2000). It is recommended that dexmedetomidine be administered at a loading dose of 1 mcg/kg for at least 10 minutes, followed by a maintenance infusion of 0.2 to 0.5 mcg/kg/h.
How the intervention might work
Dexmedetomidine is pharmacologically unique in that the induced conscious sedation involves activation of the endogenous sleep‐promoting pathway (Coursin 2001). Dexmedetomidine could provide sedation and anxiolysis via receptors within the locus coeruleus, which is an important modulator of wakefulness. Meanwhile, dexmedetomidine could provide analgesic sparing via receptors in the spinal cord and attenuation of the stress response with no significant respiratory depression (Gerlach 2007).
As an alpha‐2‐adrenoceptor agonist, dexmedetomidine when infused may lead to short‐loop feedback inhibition of adrenaline (epinephrine) release from the adrenal gland. The clinical significance of this has yet to be determined.
Why it is important to do this review
The properties of dexmedetomidine may be beneficial for patients with a difficult or unstable airway undergoing AFOI when used as a sole infusion or as an adjuvant (Abdelmalak 2007; Maroof 2005). Case reports and studies have demonstrated the successful use of dexmedetomidine in AFOI (Bergese 2007; Grant 2004; Jooste 2005). On the other hand, dexmedetomidine has sympathetic modulating properties, which may be responsible for potential haemodynamic side effects, such as bradycardia, hypotension or conduction block, particularly in those who are hypovolaemic or bleeding or who have cardiac conduction or cardiac contractility limitations. It is important to perform a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine during AFOI and to document possible adverse effects or complications.
Objectives
The primary objective of this review is to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in the management of patients with a difficult or unstable airway undergoing awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI).
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
We included published and unpublished randomized controlled trials, regardless of blinding or language of publication.
Types of participants
We included any patient older than 18 years of age who was scheduled for an elective AFOI because of an anticipated difficult airway.
Types of interventions
Dexmedetomidine versus any other control.
Types of outcome measures
Primary outcomes
Discomfort during AFOI (heavy grimacing, verbal objection, defensive movement of head or hand or prolonged cough).
Secondary outcomes
Intubation time.
Airway obstruction (requiring neck extension or jaw retraction).
Hypoxia (saturated peripheral oxygen (SpO2) < 90%).
Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events, mainly hypotension and bradycardia.
Search methods for identification of studies
Electronic searches
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2012, issue 5) using the search terms detailed in Appendix 1 MEDLINE (1966 to May 2012) through Ovid; EMBASE (1980 to May 2012); and Web of Science (1945 to May 2012), using a similar strategy. (The search strategies will be found in Appendix 2Appendix 3 and Appendix 4.) We combined the sensitive strategies described in Section 6.4 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE and EMBASE. We used the free text and associated exploded MeSH terms in combination with the RCT sensitive search strategy detailed in Appendix 5. We incorporated any identified new terms into the search strategy. We reported the modified search strategy in full in the final review.
We reran our search of all databases described above on 21 November 2013.
We applied no language restrictions.
Searching other resources
We screened the reference lists of all eligible trials and reviews.
We contacted experts to identify unpublished research and trials still under way. We searched for ongoing trials at http://www.controlledtrials.com/ and http://clinicaltrials.gov/ .
Data collection and analysis
Selection of studies
Using results of the above searches, we screened all titles and abstracts for eligibility. Two review authors (X‐YH and J‐PC) independently performed this screening. Each review author documented the reason for exclusion of each trial. We resolved disagreements by consulting with a third review author (X‐YS), who decided on inclusion. In the case of insufficient published information available for decision making about inclusion, we contacted the first author of the relevant trial.
Data extraction and management
1. Extraction.
Two review authors (X‐YH and J‐PC) independently screened the titles and abstracts of search results for trial eligibility. We extracted and collected on a paper form the data from any trial that met our inclusion criteria. We noted the reasons for exclusions. We resolved disagreements by consulting with a third review author (X‐YS), who decided on inclusion. If further information was required from the trial authors, X‐YH would contact the first author of the relevant trial.
2. Management.
2.1 Conversion of ordinal to dichotomous outcome measures.
We converted ordinal outcome measures to dichotomous outcome measures by identifying cut‐off points on rating scales and dividing participants accordingly into 'clinically significant response' or 'no clinically significant response'. It was generally assumed that if participants displayed heavy grimacing, verbal objection, defensive movement of head or hand or prolonged cough, this could be considered as clinically significant discomfort. Similarly, if participants required neck extension or jaw retraction, this could be considered a case of clinically significant airway obstruction.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Two review authors (X‐YH and J‐PC) independently assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials. We resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author (X‐YS).
We performed the assessment as suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) and by Juni (Juni 2001).
We considered a trial as having a low risk of bias if all of the following criteria were assessed as adequate. We considered a trial as having a high risk of bias if one or more of the following criteria were not assessed as adequate.
We assessed each trial according to the following quality domains.
Random sequence generation: We considered allocation adequate if it was generated by a computer or by a random number table algorithm. We judged other processes as adequate, such as tossing of a coin, if the whole sequence was generated before the start of the trial, and if it was performed by a person not otherwise involved in participant recruitment. We considered allocation inadequate if a non‐random system such as dates, names or identification numbers was used.
Allocation concealment: We considered concealment adequate if the process used prevented participant recruiters, investigators and participants from knowing the intervention allocation of the next participant to be enrolled in the study. Acceptable systems included a central allocation system, sealed opaque envelopes and an on‐site locked computer. We considered concealment inadequate if the allocation method that was used allowed participant recruiters, investigators or participants to know the treatment allocation of the next participant to be enrolled in the study (e.g. alternate medical record numbers, reference to case record numbers or date of birth, an open allocation sequence, unsealed envelopes).
Blinding: We considered blinding adequate if participants and outcome assessors were each blinded to the intervention. We considered blinding inadequate if participants and outcome assessors were not blinded to the intervention.
Intention‐to‐treat: We considered intention‐to‐treat (ITT) adequate if all dropouts or withdrawals were accounted for. We considered ITT inadequate if the number of dropouts or withdrawals was not stated, or if the reasons for dropouts or withdrawals were not stated.
We reported the 'Risk of bias' table as part of the table Characteristics of included studies and presented 'Risk of bias summary' figures (Figure 1Figure 2, which detailed all judgements made for all studies included in the review.
1.
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2.
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Measures of treatment effect
We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios. We presented numerical comparisons as differences between means.
Unit of analysis issues
The following were addressed: studies with multiple treatment groups. We combined all relevant experimental intervention groups of the study into a single group, and we combined all relevant control intervention groups into a single control group.
Dealing with missing data
We contacted the first author of included trials to try to obtain missing data. In the case of missing data, we used best case and worst case imputation of missing data. We ignored data that were missing at random, and we dealt with missing data not at random by using imputed data or statistical models.
Assessment of heterogeneity
1. Clinical heterogeneity.
We considered all included studies before determining clinical heterogeneity. We inspected all studies for outlying clinical situations or participants. When such situations or participant groups arose, we discussed them.
2. Methodological heterogeneity.
We considered all included studies initially before determining methodological heterogeneity. We inspected all studies for outlying methods. When methodological outliers arose, we discussed them clearly.
3. Statistical heterogeneity.
We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I2 statistic, thereby estimating the percentage of total variance across studies that was due to heterogeneity rather than to chance alone (Higgins 2011). The importance of the observed value of I2 depended on:
magnitude and direction of effects; and
strength of evidence for heterogeneity (e.g. P value from the Chi2 test, or confidence interval (CI) for I2).
We considered a value of I2 greater than or equal to 50% accompanied by a statistically significant I2 statistic as evidence of substantial levels of heterogeneity, although we acknowledged that values of I2 ranging from 30% to 60% might also indicate substantial heterogeneity. When we found substantial levels of heterogeneity, we explored reasons for the heterogeneity. If strong heterogeneity was present (I2 ≥ 75%) and could not be explained by differences across trials in terms of clinical or methodological features, or by subgroup analyses, we did not combine the trials in a meta‐analysis, but we presented the results in a forest plot.
Assessment of reporting biases
If more than 10 studies were included, we planned to assess publication bias and small‐study effects in a qualitative manner, using a funnel plot. We planned to use arcsine asymmetry tests that stabilized the variance of binary outcomes (Rucker 2008).
Data synthesis
We intended to analyse data by using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.1) with a Mantel‐Haenzsel fixed‐effect model. This approach was intended to minimize the impact of small studies on the primary analysis of data, while addressing the issue of small‐study effects. However, we were unable to implement these methods, as the appropriate data were not available in the included studies.
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
We performed no subgroup analyses.
Sensitivity analysis
We performed sensitivity analyses of trials with a low risk of bias versus a high risk of bias. We compared random‐effects model and fixed‐effect model estimates for each outcome variable. We excluded and included any study that appeared to have a large effect size (often the largest or earliest study) to assess its impact on the results of the meta‐analysis. If large variations in the control group event rate were noted, we also subjected trials with different rates to sensitivity analysis.
Results
Description of studies
See Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies; and Characteristics of studies awaiting classification.
Results of the search
We identified six potentially eligible studies following screening of abstracts of potential studies. We found no ongoing trials and no trials awaiting assessment. The two review authors (X‐YH and J‐PC) completely agreed on the selection of included studies. We obtained no additional information from the primary authors. We reran our search on 21 November 2013, and four studies are awaiting assessment (Cattano 2012; Hu 2013; Li 2012; Qiu 2013). We will deal with these studies when we update the review.
Included studies
We included in this review four studies (Bergese 2010a; Bergese 2010b; Chu 2010; Tsai 2010) published between 2010 and May 2012. See Figure 3.
3.
Study flow diagram.
1. Methods.
All studies were started to be randomized and double‐blinded. For further details, please see sections below on Allocation (selection bias) and Blinding (performance bias and detection bias).
2. Design.
All studies were randomized control trials and presented a parallel longitudinal design.
Bergese 2010a This was a double‐blinded (participant and assessor), randomized comparison study. Participants were randomly assigned (by computer‐generated randomization schedule) to the midazolam (MDZ) group (n = 24) or the dexmedetomidine‐midazolam (DEX‐MDZ) group (n = 31) 15 minutes before fibreoptic intubation. MDZ participants received IV midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with additional doses at 0.05 mg/kg until their Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) was ≥ 2. DEX‐MDZ participants received midazolam 0.02 mg/kg followed by dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg bolus infusion over 15 minutes. DEX‐MDZ participants then received dexmedetomidine 0.1 to 0.7 μg/kg/h infusion until their RSS was ≥ 2. Topical local anaesthesia was performed with 2% lidocaine solution followed by a 4‐mL injection of lidocaine 4% transtracheally. One of two trained, independent, study‐blinded observers assessed participant reaction to the fibreoptic intubation on a scale of one to five (one = no reaction; two = slight grimacing; three = severe grimacing; four = verbal objection; and five = defensive movement of head, hands or feet).
Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS: one to six): one: Participant is anxious and agitated or restless, or both; two: Participant is co‐operative, oriented and tranquil; three: Participant responds to command only; four: Participant exhibits brisk response to light glabellar (between the eyebrows) tap or loud auditory stimulus; five: Participant exhibits a sluggish response to light glabellar tap or loud auditory stimulus; six: Participant exhibits no response to stimulus.
Bergese 2010b This was a prospective, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. The study drug was started 15 minutes before airway topicalization for AFOI and was continued through intubation. Dexmedetomidine participants (n = 47) received a loading dose of 1.0 mcg/kg over 10 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 0.7 mcg/kg‐1/h‐1. Placebo participants (n = 39) received a loading dose and a maintenance infusion of 0.9% sodium chloride for injection at a volume and rate equal to that of dexmedetomidine. Fifteen minutes after the start of the study drug infusion and before airway topicalization, the participant's level of sedation was assessed using the RSS. Any participant rated as < two on this scale was given rescue midazolam in 0.5‐mg bolus doses until RSS ≥ two was attained. Airway anaesthesia was achieved using lidocaine via aerosol, spray, topical jelly, gargle and/or nerve blocks. Study drug infusion was stopped upon completion of the AFOI. All adverse effects and concomitant medications were recorded.
Chu 2010: This was a randomized controlled study. Participants in the Dex group (n = 16) received dexmedetomidine infusion, while the control group (n = 14) received fentanyl infusion. Each participant was given a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg‐1) or fentanyl (1.0 μg/kg‐1) for 10 minutes. After the middle of infusion, topical anaesthesia was performed: Bilateral inferior nasal canals were packed with 6% cocaine (60 mg), and the tongue and the hypopharynx were then sprayed with 10% lidocaine (60 mg). Two experienced consultant anaesthetists performed airway management. While one consultant performed AFOI, another consultant controlled the drug infusion and recorded anaesthetic data. Immediately at the end of study drug infusion, the consultant started to perform fibreoptic scope. The consultant who performed AFOI, the participants and the postoperative recorder were blinded to each participant's group. Main outcomes measures were nasal intubation score (one: no movement; two: grimacing; three: mild cough; four: major limb movement; five: prolonged cough). Secondary outcomes included consumption time from insertion of fibreoptic scope to confirmation of nasal tracheal intubation, hypoxic episode (SpO2 < 95%) and the use of atropine or ephedrine for haemodynamic support.
Tsai 2010: This was a randomized controlled study. Participants in the Dex group (n = 20) received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg‐1) infused over 10 minutes. Participants in the propofol group (n = 20) received propofol administered by a Primea TCI pump (Fresenius Kabi, Brezins, France). The initial target effect site concentration (Ce) was set at 3 μg/mL‐1 and was adjusted by 1.0 μg/mL‐1 according to participant comfort during the procedure. While waiting for the desired level of sedation to be achieved, topical anaesthesia was applied to the airway. Cocaine 6% (60 mg) packs were applied bilaterally to the inferior nasal canals; then, the tongue and the hypopharynx were sprayed with lidocaine 10% (60 mg). Fibreoptic intubation was performed once the dexmedetomidine infusion had ended, or when the propofol infusion target concentration at the effect site (Ce) had equilibrated with the plasma concentration (Cp). Two experienced consultant anaesthetists performed airway management. While one anaesthetist performed fibreoptic intubation, the other anaesthetist controlled the drug infusion. Anaesthetic data and postoperative visits were documented by a study nurse. The intubating anaesthetist, participants and the study nurse who recorded details of the procedures were all blinded to the study. The primary outcome measurements were participant tolerance, as assessed by a five‐point fibreoptic intubation comfort score (one: no reaction; two: slight grimacing; three: heavy grimacing; four: verbal objection; five: defensive movement of head or hands). Other parameters assessed in relation to awake fibreoptic intubation included an airway obstruction score (one: patent airway; two: airway obstruction relieved by neck extension; three: airway obstruction requiring jaw retraction); intubation time (time from insertion of the fibreoptic scope to confirmation of nasotracheal intubation); any hypoxic episode (SpO2 < 90%); and the need for atropine or adrenaline administration.
3. Duration.
Three studies (Bergese 2010a; Chu 2010; Tsai 2010) were of short duration (less than two days), but one (Bergese 2010b) had a follow‐up period of 30 days.
4. Participants.
The total number of included participants was 211. All participants were 18 years of age and older and were scheduled for an elective AFOI because of an anticipated difficult airway.
5. Setting.
All studies were conducted in a hospital setting. Two studies (Bergese 2010a; Bergese 2010b) were conducted in the USA, and the remaining two studies (Chu 2010; Tsai 2010) were conducted in Taiwan.
6. Interventions.
Dexmedetomidine was compared with no treatment in one study (Bergese 2010b), with propofol in one study (Tsai 2010) and with fentanyl in one study (Chu 2010). In addition, dexmedetomidine with midazolam was compared with midazolam only in one study (Bergese 2010a).
7.Outcomes.
The primary outcome "Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation" was not presented in raw data in two studies (Chu 2010; Tsai 2010); this made it impossible to extract data for synthesis, so we contacted the first author of the relevant study and obtained details of the raw data (Table 1; Table 2). Other outcomes were expressed by numerical data or ordinal data.
1. Raw data for Chu 2010.
| FOI comfort (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | Dexmedetomidine | Fentanyl |
| 1 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 5 | 2 |
| 3 | 5 | 7 |
| 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 5 | 0 | 1 |
2. Raw data for Tsai 2010.
| FOI comfort (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | Dexmedetomidine | Propofol |
| 1 | 7 | 0 |
| 2 | 9 | 9 |
| 3 | 3 | 6 |
| 4 | 1 | 3 |
| 5 | 0 | 2 |
Excluded studies
The review excluded two studies published between 2010 and 2012 (Boyd 2011; Swaniker 2011).
Risk of bias in included studies
We used The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tables to assess the validity and quality of the included trials. The trials showed low or unclear risk of bias primarily because of inadequate information on allocation concealment and other potential sources of bias. For a more detailed description of individual trial qualities, see the table Characteristics of included studies. The various bias domains are presented in the 'Risk of bias graph' and in a 'Risk of bias summary' (Figure 1; Figure 2).
Allocation
All studies were unclear about allocation concealment. One study (Tsai 2010) was not explicit about how allocation was achieved other than using the phrase "randomly allocated".
Blinding
All studies were conducted on a double‐blind basis. One study (Bergese 2010b) did not explicitly describe how this was undertaken. We have, however, rated the other three studies as being of higher quality because they stated that the studies were double‐blinded and specifically that either the raters or the participants were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data
In all studies, every person who completed the trial was analysed.
Selective reporting
The data in this review originated from published papers. We did not have an opportunity to compare outcomes described in the protocol and those reported in the full publications. So we considered selective reporting possible. One study (Bergese 2010a) did not provide data on our secondary outcome "Intubation time", and another study (Bergese 2010b) did not provide data on our primary outcome "Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation" and the secondary outcome "Intubation time".
Other potential sources of bias
All studies had small or very small sample sizes. Two studies (Bergese 2010a; Bergese 2010b) were funded by Hospira, the maker of dexmedetomidine.
Effects of interventions
Owing to clinical heterogeneity and potential methodological heterogeneity, it was impossible to conduct a full meta‐analysis. We described findings from individual studies or presented them in tabular form.
Primary outcomes
1, Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (heavy grimacing, verbal objection, defensive movement of head or hand or prolonged cough).
This outcome was reported in three studies involving 125 participants (Bergese 2010aChu 2010Tsai 2010; Table 3). In two studies, participants experienced less discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation in the dexmedetomidine group than in the control group (Bergese 2010a; Tsai 2010). However, in Chu 2010, no significant difference was reported between the dexmedetomidine group and the control group. This outcome was not reported in Bergese 2010b.
3. Table 1.
| Primary outcome | Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation |
| Bergese 2010a | Dexmedetomidine group reacted less (P < 0.001) |
| Bergese 2010b | Not reported |
| Chu 2010 | No significant difference between groups |
| Tsai 2010 | Dexmedetomidine group reacted less (P < 0.05) |
Secondary outcomes
1. Intubation time.
Only two studies (Chu 2010; Tsai 2010; Table 4) involving 70 participants reported on this outcome, both showing no significant difference between the dexmedetomidine group and the control group.
4. Table 2.
| Secondary outcome | Intubation time | Airway obstruction | Hypoxia | Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events |
| Bergese 2010a | Not reported | Not clearly reported | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups |
| Bergese 2010b | Not reported | Not clearly reported | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups |
| Chu 2010 | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups |
| Tsai 2010 | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups | No significant difference between groups |
2. Airway obstruction (requiring neck extension or jaw retraction).
This outcome was reported clearly in two studies involving 70 participants (Chu 2010; Tsai 2010; Table 4). Tsai 2010 showed that dexmedetomidine alleviated airway obstruction significantly (P value 0.007), and Chu 2010 showed no significant difference between the dexmedetomidine group and the control group.
3. Hypoxia (saturated peripheral oxygen (SpO2) < 90%).
This outcome was reported in four studies involving 211 participants (Bergese 2010a; Bergese 2010b; Chu 2010; Tsai 2010; Table 4). Bergese 2010a reported no complications in either group, and none of the DEX‐MDZ participants experienced respiratory depression. Bergese 2010b showed that dexmedetomidine had no significant effect on respiratory function and gas exchange at the doses used in this trial. Tsai 2010 showed no significant difference between the dexmedetomidine group and the control group. Chu 2010 reported no episode of apnoea or decreased oxygen saturation less than 95% in both groups.
4. Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events, mainly hypotension and bradycardia.
This outcome was reported in four studies involving 211 participants (Bergese 2010a; Bergese 2010b; Chu 2010; Tsai 2010; Table 4). Bergese 2010a showed no significant haemodynamic difference between the two subject groups. Bergese 2010b reported that seven dexmedetomidine‐treated participants and four placebo‐treated participants received an intravenous fluid bolus or medication to treat blood pressure or heart rate (HR) during study drug infusion. The difference was insignificant. Both Tsai 2010 and Chu 2010 showed that haemodynamic support did not differ significantly between the dexmedetomidine group and the control group.
Discussion
Summary of main results
The research on dexmedetomidine for the management of awake fibreoptic intubation has started only within the past few years, so in this review, only four studies involving 211 participants were included (Bergese 2010a; Bergese 2010b; Chu 2010; Tsai 2010). It is true that some outcomes of interest for this review were not reported in these studies. The analytic results were derived from sparse data.
Dexmedetomidine‐treated participants reacted less than control‐treated participants to awake fibreoptic intubation in two trials (Bergese 2010a; Tsai 2010). The decreased discomfort achieved with dexmedetomidine favours maintaining patient co‐operation and reducing anxiety during AFOI and could play an important role in securing the airway of patients with an unstable cervical spine or a compromised spinal cord.
No suggestion indicates that dexmedetomidine had a greater effect on intubation time than was seen with the control. Dexmedetomidine does not predispose to airway obstruction and respiratory depression. Airway obstruction occurred more frequently in the propofol group than in the dexmedetomidine group. The incidence of hypoxia was similar between the dexmedetomidine group and the control group and was clinically insignificant. Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events, mainly hypotension and bradycardia, were reported in some studies for the dexmedetomidine group and for the control group as well. Most adverse effects were mild or moderate in severity and could be easily managed with atropine, ephedrine and intravenous fluid administration. The results of this review do not suggest that dexmedetomidine causes significantly more cardiovascular adverse events.
Overall completeness and applicability of evidence
No outcomes in this review involved large numbers of participants. The primary outcome "Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation" was not reported in one study (Bergese 2010b). All studies were performed in hospital settings, and all included participants were anticipated to have a difficult or unstable airway. The intervention dexmedetomidine is readily accessible, and the outcomes are objective in terms of clinical practice. Dexmedetomidine had important effects, so the findings might well be applicable.
Quality of the evidence
The largest study in this area (Bergese 2010b) was a multicentre (17 medical centres) study that included 86 participants between August 7, 2006, and January 26, 2007. It is impossible to detect subtle yet important differences due to dexmedetomidine with any confidence. Although the four studies are all RCTs without high risk of bias, the overall quality of reporting of these studies was very low because allocation concealment was not described and other bias could not be excluded. In addition, the small study size and the poor reporting of studies would be associated with an exaggeration of effect of the experimental treatment if an effect had been detected (Juni 2001). Comparisons were performed between dexmedetomidine and any control (including sodium chloride, fentanyl, midazolam and propofol) in the four different studies included in this review. In consideration of the clinical heterogeneity and the likely methodological heterogeneity (measurement of outcomes) that might cause a negative influence in the quality of evidence, we did not perform a full meta‐analysis instead of a narrative analysis (Table 5).
5. Results of included studies.
| Study | Interventions | Outcomes | Main results |
| Bergese 2010a | MDZ group (n = 24): Participants received IV midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with additional doses to achieve a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score ≥ two DEX‐MDZ group (n = 31): Participants received midazolam 0.02 mg/kg followed by dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg, then an infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.1 μg/kg/h and titrated to 0.7 μg/kg/h to achieve RSS ≥ two Topical local anaesthetics were given |
Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: no reaction; two: slight grimacing; three: severe grimacing; four: verbal objection; five: defensive movement of head, hands or feet) Airway obstruction (no details) Hypoxia (no details) Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events (no details) |
DEX‐MDZ participants reacted less to AFOI than did MDZ participants (P < 0.01) No complications were reported in either participant group, and none of the 31 DEX‐MDZ participants experienced respiratory depression |
| Bergese 2010b | Dexmedetomidine (n = 47): Participants received a loading dose of 1.0 mcg/kg over 10 minutes, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.7 mcg/kg‐1/h‐1. The study drug was started 15 minutes before airway topicalization for AFOI Placebo group (n = 39): Participants received a loading dose and a maintenance infusion of 0.9% sodium chloride for injection at a volume and rate equal to that of dexmedetomidine. Fifteen minutes after the start of the study drug infusion and before airway topicalization, any participant with Ramsay Sedation Scale < two received rescue midazolam to achieve targeted sedation (RSS >= two) before topicalization and throughout AFOI |
Airway obstruction Hypoxia (no details) Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events (no details) |
Dexmedetomidine has no significant effect on respiratory function and gas exchange at the doses used in this trial. Dexmedetomidine is well tolerated and does not compromise the airway Seven dexmedetomidine‐treated participants (12.7%) and four placebo‐treated participants (8.0%) received intravenous fluid bolus or medication to treat blood pressure or HR during study drug infusion |
| Chu 2010 | Dex group (n = 16): Participants received dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg‐1) infusion Control group (n = 14): Participants received fentanyl (1.0 μg/kg‐1) infusion Topical anaesthesia was performed after the middle of infusion |
Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: no movement; two: grimacing; three: mild cough; four: major limb movement; five: prolonged cough) Intubation time (from insertion of fibreoptic scope to confirmation of nasal tracheal intubation) Airway obstruction (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to three: one: patent airway; two: airway obstruction relieved by neck extension; three: airway obstruction requiring jaw retraction) Hypoxia (SpO2 < 94%) Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events |
No differences between the two groups were noted for discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation, intubation time, airway obstruction, hypoxia or treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events |
| Tsai 2010 | Dexmedetomidine group (n = 20): Participants received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg‐1) infused over 10 minutes Propofol group (n = 20): Participants received propofol. The initial target effect site concentration (Ce) was set at 3 μg/mL‐1. This was adjusted by 1.0 μg/mL‐1 according to participant comfort during the procedure. If a comfort score exceeded three or a persistent cough occurred during the procedure, the TCI was titrated upwards, after which the intubating anaesthetist waited for 60 seconds before proceeding. While waiting for the desired level of sedation to be achieved, topical anaesthesia was applied to the airway |
Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: no reaction; two: slight grimacing; three: heavy grimacing; four: verbal objection; five: defensive movement of head or hands) Intubation time (time taken from insertion of the fibreoptic scope to confirmation of nasotracheal intubation) Airway obstruction (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to three: one: patent airway; two: airway obstruction relieved by neck extension; three: airway obstruction requiring jaw retraction) Hypoxia (no details) Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events (no details) |
DEX participants reacted less to AFOI than did the propofol participants (P < 0.01) No differences between the two groups were noted for intubation time or hypoxia The dexmedetomidine group experienced fewer airway events and less heart rate response than did the propofol group (P < 0.003 and P value 0.007,respectively) |
Potential biases in the review process
1. Missing studies.
Although we have tried our best to identify all relevant studies, it is possible that some small studies are missing from this review. However, because of the comprehensive searching strategy provided by Karen Hovhannisyan (Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group Trials Search Co‐ordinator), we are confident that we have not failed to identify large relevant studies.
Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews
No previous Cochrane review or relevant systemic review was performed.
Authors' conclusions
Implications for practice.
1. For patients.
In the patient with an at‐risk cervical spine or a difficult airway, it is frequently necessary to maintain patient co‐operation and to reduce anxiety without causing severe adverse effects during AFOI. The pharmacological properties of dexmedetomidine perhaps make it a promising drug in securing the airway and providing better tolerance for patients during AFOI.
2. For clinicians.
When performing AFOI, anaesthesiologists may find it difficult to provide enough sedation for patients to be comfortable and co‐operative, while at the same time avoiding airway compromise from excessive sedation. Current clinical data show that dexmedetomidine is an effective alternative for patients with high‐risk airways undergoing AFOI and may provide more comfort and less airway obstruction. Comparable temporary haemodynamic adverse effects were noted in the dexmedetomidine‐treated group when compared with controls (Bergese 2010b; Chu 2010; Tsai 2010).
3. For policy makers or managers.
Dexmedetomidine might be considered as another option for patients with an anticipated difficult airway undergoing AFOI.
Implications for research.
All four included studies mentioned how investigators calculated the sample size. However, studies involving a larger sample size would provide more precise estimates of effects. In addition, the power of this review would have been enhanced by better reporting of data. For example, all included studies did not explicitly state information about "allocation concealment". Overall, the included studies were limited, and additional well‐designed randomized controlled trials are needed to test the exact effects of dexmedetomidine in the management of patients who require awake fibreoptic intubation.
What's new
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 November 2020 | Amended | Published note added. Review will no longer be updated by Cochrane Anaesthesia. |
History
Protocol first published: Issue 4, 2012 Review first published: Issue 1, 2014
Notes
This review will no longer be updated by Cochrane Anaesthesia as it was not selected as a priority title during the 2019‐2020 priority‐setting exercise conducted by the Review Group.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jane Cracknell (Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group (CARG) Managing Editor), Karen Hovhannisyan (CARG Trials Search Co‐ordinator), Mark Neuman (content editor), Basem Abdelmalak (peer reviewer), Douglas Coursin (peer reviewer), Janet Wale (consumer editor) and Nathan Pace (statistical editor) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of this systematic review.
Appendices
Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy
#1 Mesh descriptor Dexmedetomidine explore all trees
#2 Mesh descriptor Optical fibers explore all trees
#3 (fibre or fiber) near optic
#4 #2 or #3
#5 #1 and #4
Appendix 2. Ovid MEDLINE search strategy
#1 exp Dexmedetomidine/ or dexmedetomidine.af.
#2 ((randomised controlled trial or controlled clinical trial).pt. or randomized.ab. or placebo.ab. or drug therapy.fs. or randomly.ab. or trial.ab. or groups.ab.) not (animals not (humans and animals)).sh.
#3 1 and 2
Appendix 3. Ovid EMBASE search strategy
#1 exp dexmedetomidine/ OR dexmedetomidine.ti,ab.
#2 (placebo.sh. or controlled study.ab. or random*.ti,ab. or trial*.ti,ab. or ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) adj3 (blind* or mask*)).ti,ab) not (animals.sh not (humans.sh and animals.sh))
#3 #1 and #2
Appendix 4. Web of Science search
#1.TS=dexmetetomidine
#2. TS=fibreoptic or fibreoptic
#3. #1 and #2
Appendix 5. Free text terms and associated explored MeSH terms
#1 Research design
#2 Randomization
#3 Random Allocation
#4 Clinical Trials, Randomized
#5 Controlled Clinical Trials, Randomized
#6 Trials, Randomized Clinical
#7 Randomized Controlled Trial
#8 Double‐Blind Method
#9 Double‐Blind Study
#10 Single‐Blind Method
#11 Single‐Blind Study
Characteristics of studies
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Bergese 2010a.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Design: randomized, double‐blinded study Setting: academic medical centre |
|
| Participants | 55 ASA physical status I, II, III and IV patients, aged 18 to 85 years, scheduled for non‐emergency surgery with AFOI | |
| Interventions | MDZ group (n = 24): Participants received IV midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with additional doses to achieve a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of ≥ two DEX‐MDZ group (n = 31): Participants received midazolam 0.02 mg/kg followed by dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg, then an infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.1 μg/kg/h and titrated to 0.7 μg/kg/h to achieve RSS ≥ two Topical local anaesthetics were given |
|
| Outcomes | Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: no reaction; two: slight grimacing; three: severe grimacing; four: verbal objection; five: defensive movement of head, hands or feet) Airway obstruction (no details) Hypoxia (no details) Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events (no details) |
|
| Notes | We converted ordinal outcome measures to dichotomous outcome measures by identifying cut‐off points on rating scales and dividing participants accordingly into 'clinical significant response' or 'no clinical significant response'. It was generally assumed that if participants displayed heavy grimacing, verbal objection, defensive movement of head, hands or feet or prolonged cough, this could be considered as clinically significant discomfort One of two trained, independent, study‐blinded observers assessed participant discomfort during placement of the fibreoptic scope No definition was provided for "airway obstruction", "hypoxia" or "treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events", but the study author mentioned in the Discussion section, "There were no complications reported in either patient group, and none of the 31 DEX‐MDZ patients experienced any respiratory depression" |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer‐generated randomization schedule |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No dropouts |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Not all expected outcomes reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Small sample size |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Double‐blinded (participant and assessor) |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Double‐blinded (participant and assessor) |
Bergese 2010b.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Design: randomized, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled study Setting: 17 medical centres in the United States |
|
| Participants | All adult patients undergoing AFOI for non‐emergency surgery were potential candidates for this study. Patients were excluded from this study if they were:
|
|
| Interventions | Dexmedetomidine group (n = 47): Participants received a loading dose of 1.0 mcg/kg over 10 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 0.7 mcg/kg‐1/h‐1.The study drug was started 15 minutes before airway topicalization for AFOI Placebo group (n = 39): Participants received a loading dose and a maintenance infusion of 0.9% sodium chloride for injection at a volume and rate equal to those of dexmedetomidine. Fifteen minutes after the start of study drug infusion and before airway topicalization, any participant with Ramsay Sedation Scale < two received rescue midazolam to achieve targeted sedation (RSS ≥ two) before topicalization and throughout AFOI |
|
| Outcomes | Airway obstruction Hypoxia (no details) Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events (no details) |
|
| Notes | RSS (Ramsay Sedation Scale: one to six): 1: Participant is anxious and agitated or restless, or both; 2: Participant is cooperative, oriented and tranquil; three: Participant responds to command only; four: Participant exhibits brisk response to light glabellar (between the eyebrows) tap or loud auditory stimulus; five: Participant exhibits a sluggish response to light glabellar tap or loud auditory stimulus; six: Participant exhibits no response to stimulus No definition was provided for "airway obstruction" or "hypoxia", but the study author mentioned in the Discussion that "Dexmedetomidine has no significant effect on respiratory function and gas exchange at the doses used in this trial" |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive dexmedetomidine or placebo. No further details |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No dropouts |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Not all expected outcomes reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Small sample size |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Double‐blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Double‐blinded |
Chu 2010.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Design: randomized study. The intubating anaesthetist, participants and recorders were all blinded to each participant's group Setting: academic medical centre |
|
| Participants | We enrolled 30 oral cancer patients with limited mouth opening who were undergoing AFOI for elective surgery | |
| Interventions | Dex group (n = 16): Participants received dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg‐1) infusion Control group (n = 14): Participants received fentanyl (1.0 μg/kg‐1) infusion Topical anaesthesia was performed after the middle of infusion |
|
| Outcomes | Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: no movement; two: grimacing; three: mild cough; four: major limb movement; five: prolonged cough) Intubation time (from insertion of fibreoptic scope to confirmation of nasal tracheal intubation) Airway obstruction (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to three: one: patent airway; two: airway obstruction relieved by neck extension; three: airway obstruction requiring jaw retraction) Hypoxia (SpO2 < 94%) Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events |
|
| Notes | We converted ordinal outcome measures to dichotomous outcome measures by identifying cut‐off points on rating scales and dividing participants accordingly into 'clinical significant response' or 'no clinical significant response' It was generally assumed that if participants displayed heavy grimacing, verbal objection, defensive movement of head, hands or feet or prolonged cough, this could be considered as clinically significant discomfort. If participants required neck extension or jaw retraction, it could be considered as clinical significant airway obstruction Two participants developed bradycardia (lowest heart rates were 48 and 45 beat/min), and one developed hypotension (78/46 mmHg) in the Dex group. No profound bradycardia (heart rate <40 beats/min) occurred in each group Two experienced consultant anaesthetists certified in advanced airway life support performed airway management for all study participants |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Participants were allocated randomly to one of two groups via a computer‐generated random number table |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No dropouts |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All expected outcomes reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Small sample size |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | The consultant who performed AFOI, the participants and the postoperative recorder were all blinded to each participant's group |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | The consultant who performed AFOI, the participants and the postoperative recorder were all blinded to each participant's group |
Tsai 2010.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Design: randomized study. The intubating anaesthetist, participants and the study nurse who recorded details of the procedures were all blinded to the study Setting: academic medical centre |
|
| Participants | Forty participants with anticipated difficult airways and due to undergo tracheal intubation for elective surgery were enrolled | |
| Interventions | Dexmedetomidine group (n = 20): Participants received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg‐1) infused over 10 minutes Propofol group (n = 20): Participants received propofol. The initial target effect site concentration (Ce) was set at 3 μg/mL‐1. This was adjusted by 1.0 μg/mL‐1 according to participant comfort during the procedure. If a comfort score exceeded three or a persistent cough occurred during the procedure, the TCI was titrated upwards, after which the intubating anaesthetist waited for 60 s before proceeding. While waiting for the desired level of sedation to be achieved, topical anaesthesia was applied to the airway |
|
| Outcomes | Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: no reaction; two: slight grimacing; three: heavy grimacing; four: verbal objection; five: defensive movement of head or hands) Intubation time (time taken from insertion of the fibreoptic scope to confirmation of nasotracheal intubation) Airway obstruction (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to three: one: patent airway; two: airway obstruction relieved by neck extension; three: airway obstruction requiring jaw retraction) Hypoxia (no details) Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events (no details) |
|
| Notes | We converted ordinal outcome measures to dichotomous outcome measures by identifying cut‐off points on rating scales and dividing participants accordingly into 'clinical significant response' or 'no clinical significant response' It was generally assumed that if participants displayed heavy grimacing, verbal objection, defensive movement of head, hands or feet or prolonged cough, this could be considered as clinically significant discomfort. If participants required neck extension or jaw retraction, this could be considered as clinically significant airway obstruction No obvious definition was provided for "airway obstruction" or "hypoxia" Two experienced consultant anaesthetists certified in advanced airway life support performed airway management for all study participants |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Participants were randomly allocated. No further details |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No dropouts |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All expected outcomes reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Small sample size |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Double‐blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Double‐blinded |
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|
| Boyd 2011 | Three case reports |
| Swaniker 2011 | None of the outcomes were reported |
Characteristics of studies awaiting classification [ordered by study ID]
Cattano 2012.
| Methods | Design: randomized, double‐blinded study Setting: a hospital affiliated with the Universtiy medical school |
| Participants | 34 adult ASA I to III participants who required AFOI. Because of case cancellations or delays, only 30 participants were included |
| Interventions | Participants were randomly assigned by the pharmacy to one of two groups: group REM (remifentanil) and group DEX (dexmedetomidine). All participants received a loading dose at a rate of 0.1 mL/kg over 10 minutes and a continuous infusion at a rate of 0.1 mL/kg/h of their respective drug. Participants in group REM received a remifentanil loading dose of 0.75 mcg/kg, and participants in group DEX received a dexmedetomidine loading dose of 0.4 mcg/kg over 10 minutes. The continuous infusion was begun with participants in group REM receiving remifentanil at 0.075 mcg/kg/min and those in group DEX receiving dexmedetomidine at 0.7 mcg/kg/h |
| Outcomes | Airway obstruction (no details) Hypoxia Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events |
| Notes | No definition was provided for "airway obstruction", "hypoxia" or "treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events", but the study author provided the details in "Results‐‐‐Table 4" |
Hu 2013.
| Methods | Design: randomized, double‐blinded study Setting: a hospital affiliated with the Universtiy medical school |
| Participants | Forty‐two adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classifications of I to III were recruited for elective awake fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation following diagnosis of maxillofacial cancer or fracture with limited mouth opening. One patient declined consent, and one operation was cancelled |
| Interventions | Forty participants undergoing elective awake fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation were allocated randomly to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 20) or remifentanil (n = 20). Participants in the dexmedetomidine group received a loading dose (1.5 μg/kg) infused over 10 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 0.7 μg/kg/h. Participants in the remifentanil group received remifentanil via an Orchestra Base Primea (Fresenius Vial) infusion system using a Minto pharmacokinetic model. The initial target was 3.0 ng/mL, and the TCI was adjusted by 0.5 ng/mL after the target concentration at the effect site had equilibrated with the plasma concentration until the desired level of sedation was achieved |
| Outcomes | Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: grimacing; two: localizing; three: coughing on lidocaine via scope; four: coughing on entering infraglottic space; five: prolonged coughing) Intubation time (from insertion of fibreoptic scope to confirmation of nasal tracheal intubation) Airway obstruction (no details) Hypoxia Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events |
| Notes | We converted ordinal outcome measures to dichotomous outcome measures by identifying cut‐off points on rating scales and dividing participants accordingly into 'clinical significant response' or 'no clinical significant response' It was generally assumed that if participants displayed coughing on lidocaine via scope or on entering infraglottic space or prolonged cough, this could be considered as clinically significant discomfort No definition was provided for "airway obstruction" or "hypoxia" Two consultant anaesthetists were present during all procedures. One was responsible for performing the awake nasal fibreoptic intubation and scoring sedation, endoscopy, intubation and postintubation conditions; the other administered the study drugs. An anaesthetist nurse collected anaesthetic data and postoperative records. The intubating anaesthetist, the participants and the nurse anaesthetist were all blinded to the study drugs used |
Li 2012.
| Methods | Design: randomized, double‐blinded study Setting: a hospital affiliated with the Universtiy medical school |
| Participants | Thirty participants with an anticipated difficult airway caused by huge goitre were enrolled and randomly divided into dexmedetomidine group (n = 15) and propofol group (n = 15) |
| Interventions | Participants in the dexmedetomidine group received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg‐1), infused over 10 minutes, then pumped at a continuous rate of 0.4 μg/kg ‐1/h‐1. Participants in the propofol group received a loading dose of 2.0 mg/kg‐1 pumped at a continuous rate of 5 to 8 mg/kg‐1/h‐1 |
| Outcomes | Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: no reaction; two: slight grimacing; three: severe grimacing; four: verbal objection; five: defensive movement of head, hands or feet) Airway obstruction Hypoxia Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events |
| Notes | We converted ordinal outcome measures to dichotomous outcome measures by identifying cut‐off points on rating scales and dividing participants accordingly into 'clinical significant response' or 'no clinical significant response'. It was generally assumed that if participants displayed heavy grimacing, verbal objection, defensive movement of head, hand or feet or prolonged cough, this could be considered as clinically significant discomfort No definition was provided for "airway obstruction", "hypoxia" or "treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events", but the study author provided the details in the Results Two consultant anaesthetists: One was responsible for performing the awake nasal fibreoptic intubation and scoring sedation, endoscopy, intubation and postintubation conditions, and the other administered the study drugs. A resident anaesthetist collected anaesthetic data and postoperative records. The intubating anaesthetist and the resident anaesthetist were all blinded to the study drugs used |
Qiu 2013.
| Methods | Design: randomized, double‐blinded study Setting: a hospital affiliated with the Universtiy medical school |
| Participants | Sixty participants with difficult airway and Mallampati score >= III were selected and randomly divided into four groups (D1, D2, D3 and MF, n = 15) by simple random method Nasal intubation with fibreoptic bronchoscopy was performed in all participants |
| Interventions | Participants in groups D1, D2 and D3 intravenously received 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine 15 minutes before intubation, respectively. Participants in group MF were intravenously treated with 0.02 mg/kg midazolam and 2.0 μg/kg fentanyl five minutes before intubation |
| Outcomes | Discomfort during awake fibreoptic intubation (Participants were assessed on a scale of one to five: one: no movement; two: grimacing; three: mild cough; four: major limb movement; five: prolonged cough) Intubation time (from insertion of fibreoptic scope to confirmation of nasal tracheal intubation) Airway obstruction Hypoxia Treatment‐emergent cardiovascular adverse events |
| Notes | We converted ordinal outcome measures to dichotomous outcome measures by identifying cut‐off points on rating scales and dividing participants accordingly into 'clinical significant response' or 'no clinical significant response'. It was generally assumed that if participants displayed major limb movement or prolonged cough, this could be considered as clinically significant discomfort One researcher was responsible for performing the awake nasal fibreoptic intubation and for scoring sedation, endoscopy, intubation and postintubation conditions, another administered the study drugs and the third collected anaesthetic data and postoperative records. All were blinded to the study drugs used |
Differences between protocol and review
We have changed the title of the published protocol (He 2012) from "Dexmedetomidine for the management of fibreoptic intubation" to "Dexmedetomidine for the management of awake fibreoptic intubation". A new author, J‐P Cao, is involved in writing the review. In addition, we included only four eligible RCTs for this review, so we referred to dexmedetomidine versus any control instead of the "types of interventions" mentioned in our protocol.
Contributions of authors
Conceiving of the review: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Co‐ordinating the review:
Undertaking manual searches: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Screening search results: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Organizing retrieval of papers: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Appraising quality of papers: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Abstracting data from papers: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: X‐YH
Providing additional data about papers: X‐YH
Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Providing data management for the review: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Performing other statistical analysis not using RevMan: QH
Interpreting data: QH
Making statistical inferences: QH
Writing the review: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS
Securing funding for the review: X‐YH
Performing previous work that was the foundation of the present study: none
Serving as guarantor for the review (one author): X‐YS
Taking responsibility for reading and checking the review before submission: X‐YH, J‐PC, X‐YS, QH
Sources of support
Internal sources
No sources of support supplied
External sources
Natural Scientific Foundation of China (81100049), China
Declarations of interest
None known.
Edited (no change to conclusions)
References
References to studies included in this review
Bergese 2010a {published data only}
- Bergese SD, Patrick Bender S, McSweeney TD, Fernandez S, Dzwonczyk R, Sage K. A comparative study of dexmedetomidine with midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation during elective awake fiberoptic intubation. Journal of Clinical Anesthsia 2010;22(1):35-40. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bergese 2010b {published data only}
- Bergese SD, Candiotti KA, Bokesch PM, Zura A, Wisemandle W, Bekker AY. A Phase IIIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine for sedation during awake fiberoptic intubation. American Journal of Therapeutics 2010;17(6):586-95. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chu 2010 {published data only}
- Chu KS, Wang FY, Hsu HT, Lu IC, Wang HM, Tsai CJ. The effectiveness of dexmedetomidine infusion for sedating oral cancer patients undergoing awake fibreoptic nasal intubation. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2010;27(1):36-40. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tsai 2010 {published data only}
- Tsai CJ, Chu KS, Chen TI, Lu DV, Wang HM, Lu IC. A comparison of the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine versus propofol target-controlled infusion for sedation during fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 2010;65(3):254-9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
References to studies excluded from this review
Boyd 2011 {published data only}
- Boyd BC, Sutter SJ. Dexmedetomidine sedation for awake fiberoptic intubation of patients with difficult airways due to severe odontogenic cervicofacial infections. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2011;69:1608-12. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Swaniker 2011 {published data only}
- Swaniker J, Glick D. The impact of adjunct dexmedetomidine use on opioid requirements and hemodynamic stability during awake fiberoptic intubation. 2011 Annual Meeting of the International Anesthesia Research Society, IARS 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. [conference proceedings]
References to studies awaiting assessment
Cattano 2012 {published data only}
- Cattano D, Lam NC, Ferrario L, Seitan C, Vahdat K, Wilcox DW, et al. Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation during awake fiberoptic intubation. Anesthesiology Research and Practice [electronic resource] 2012;Epub Jul 16. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hu 2013 {published data only}
- Hu R, Liu JX, Jiang H. Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil sedation during awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation:a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Journal of Anesthesia 2013;27:211-7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Li 2012 {published data only}
- Li XB, Liu HQ, Meng XY, Yuan T, Han W, Tong T, et al. Application of dexmedetomidine combined with fibreoptic bronchoscope for tracheal intubation in difficult airways caused by huge goiter. Journal of Jilin Universtiy (Medical Edition) 2012;38:328-32. [Google Scholar]
Qiu 2013 {published data only}
- Qiu L, Zhang L, Ji J. Sedation effect of dexmedetomidine on awake intubation in patients with difficult airway. Pharmaceutical Care and Research 2013;13:208-12. [Google Scholar]
Additional references
Abdelmalak 2007
- Abdelmalak B, Makary L, Hoban J, Doyle DJ. Dexmedetomidine as sole sedative for awake intubation in management of the critical airway. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2007;19:370-3. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bailey 1990
- Bailey PL, Pace NL, Ashburn MA, Moll JW, East KA, Stanley TH. Frequent hypoxemia and apnea after sedation with midazolam and fentanyl. Anesthesiology 1990;73:826-30. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bergese 2007
- Bergese SD, Khabiri B, Roberts WD, Howie MB, McSweeney TD, Gerhardt MA. Dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation in difficult awake fiberoptic intubation cases. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2007;19:141-4. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Coursin 2001
- Coursin DB, Coursin DB, Maccioli GA. Dexmedetomidine. Current Opinion in Critical Care 2001;7:221-6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ebert 2000
- Ebert TJ, Hall JE, Barney JA, Uhrich TD, Colinco MD. The effects of increasing plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine in humans. Anesthesiology 2000;93:382-94. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gerlach 2007
- Gerlach AT, Dasta JF. Dexmedetomidine:an updated review. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2007;41:245-54. [MEDLINE: 17299013 ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Grant 2004
- Grant SA, Breslin DS, MacLeod DB, Gleason D, Martin G. Dexmedetomidine infusion for sedation during fiberoptic intubation:a report of three cases. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2004;16:124-6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hall 2000
- Hall JE, Uhrich TD, Barney JA, Arain SR, Ebert TJ. Sedative, amnestic, and analgesic properties of small-dose dexmedetomidine infusions. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2000;90:699-705. [MEDLINE: 10702460 ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Higgins 2011
- Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Jooste 2005
- Jooste EH, Ohkawa S, Sun LS. Fiberoptic intubation with dexmedetomidine in two children with spinal cord impingements. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2005;101:1248. [MEDLINE: 16192567 ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Juni 2001
- Juni P, Altman D, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care:assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323(7303):42-6. [MEDLINE: 11440947 ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kamibayashi 2000
- Kamibayashi T, Maze M. Clinical uses of alpha2-adrenergic agonists. Anesthesiology 2000;93:1345-9. [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Knolle 2003
- Knolle E, Oehmke MJ, Gustorff B, Hellwagner K, Kress HG. Target-controlled infusion of propofol for fibreoptic intubation. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2003;20:565–9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lallo 2009
- Lallo A, Billard V, Bourgain JL. A comparison of propofol and remifentanil target-controlled infusions to facilitate fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2009;108:852-7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Machata 2003
- Machata AM, Gonano C, Holzer A, Andel D, Spiss CK, Zimpfer M, et al. Awake nasotracheal fiberoptic intubation: patient comfort, intubating conditions, and haemodynamic stability during conscious sedation with remifentanil. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2003;97:904–8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Maroof 2005
- Maroof M, Khan RM, Jain D, Ashraf M. Dexmedetomidine is a useful adjunct for awake intubation. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2005;52:776–7. [MEDLINE: 16103401 ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rai 2008
- Rai MR, Parry TM, Dombrovskis A, Warner OJ. Remifentanil target-controlled infusion vs propofol target-controlled infusion for conscious sedation for awake fibreoptic intubation: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008;100:125–30. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
RevMan 5.1 [Computer program]
- The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Rucker 2008
- Rucher G, Schwarzer G, Garpenter J. Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2008;27(5):746-63. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Venn 2000
- Venn RM, Hell J, Grounds RM. Respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine in the surgical patient requiring intensive care. Criticical Care 2000;4:302-8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Virtanen 1988
- Virtanen R, Savola JM, Saano V, Nyman L. Characterization of the selectivity, specificity and potency of medetomidine as an alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonist. European Journal of Pharmacology 1988;150:9-14. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
References to other published versions of this review
He 2012
- He X, Shi X, He Q. Dexmedetomidine for the management of fibreoptic intubation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4. Art. No: CD009798. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009798] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]