Previous article Table of Contents  Next article

LETTERS TO EDITOR
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 261-262

Reflections on: “Is intranasal dexmedetomidine superior to oral chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in children: A systematic review”


Department of Anesthesiology, Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, BIHER, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Raghuraman M Sethuraman
Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, BIHER, #7, Works Road, New Colony, Chromepet, Chennai - 600 044, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_13_22

Rights and Permissions
Date of Submission05-Jan-2022
Date of Acceptance06-Jan-2022
Date of Web Publication17-Mar-2022
 


How to cite this article:
Sethuraman RM. Reflections on: “Is intranasal dexmedetomidine superior to oral chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in children: A systematic review”. Saudi J Anaesth 2022;16:261-2

How to cite this URL:
Sethuraman RM. Reflections on: “Is intranasal dexmedetomidine superior to oral chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in children: A systematic review”. Saudi J Anaesth [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 17];16:261-2. Available from: https://www.saudija.org/text.asp?2022/16/2/261/339832



Dear Editor,

I read the recently published systematic review article on the comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine (IND) and oral chloral hydrate (OCH) with intense interest.[1] I greatly appreciate Delvi MB for comparing these two methods of providing sedation for procedures in pediatric patients.[1] I wish to present my reflections on that article[1] and believe that it would provide a few more valuable points to the readers.

The author has analyzed a total of ten Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) published on this topic under two different headings: 1. OCH and other sedatives 2. Direct comparison of OCH and IND. Although it is mentioned that a total of six RCTs were included for the direct comparison of OCH and IND, only four were included in Table 2 of that review article.[1] Upon careful analysis of the references cited, the author has included a total of five references (References # 7–9,11,14 of the review article published[1]) specific to this direct comparison. However, the study by Gan et al.[2] (Reference # 9 of the review article[1]) cannot be considered for the direct comparison between IND and OCH, because they have compared only two different doses of IND (1 vs 2 μg·kg−1) as rescue sedation following the failure of the initial OCH administration. Besides, a few RCTs were omitted, which I would like to mention here. For instance, Cao et al.[3] have included 141 children aged between 6 and 36 months undergoing scheduled ophthalmic examination in their RCT and observed that IND (2 μg·kg-1) provided more successful sedation and better quality of ophthalmic examination when compared to OCH (80 mg·kg-1). Another study has compared the second dose of 25 mg·kg−1 of OCH with 1 and 2 mcg·kg−1 of IND as rescue sedation in 150 infants undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after the initial administration of 50 mg.kg-1 of OCH resulting in “inadequate sedation.”[4] Zhang et al.[4] observed that IND produced better rescue sedation than OCH. I'm not sure whether any more RCTs are available on this comparison apart from these articles.

The major concern with the current systematic review article is the failure to do the “Quantitative analysis” using appropriate statistical methods of all the published RCTs on this comparison, which is considered as “gold standard” as per the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) reporting system unlike in another recently published meta-analysis on this same topic.[5] Hence, it is difficult for us to arrive at any conclusion based on this review article as few “eligible RCTs” having hundreds of subjects were not included and quantitative analysis was not performed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Delvi MB. Is intranasal dexmedetomidine superior to oral chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in children: A systematic review. Saudi J Anaesth 2022;16:82-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Gan X, Lin H, Chen J, Lin Z, Lin Y, Chen W. Rescue Sedation With Intranasal Dexmedetomidine for Pediatric Ophthalmic Examination After Chloral Hydrate Failure: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Clin Ther 2016;38:1522-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Cao Q, Lin Y, Xie Z, Shen W, Chen Y, Gan X, et al. Comparison of sedation by intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral chloral hydrate for pediatric ophthalmic examination. Paediatr Anaesth 2017;27:629-36.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zhang W, Wang Z, Song X, Fan Y, Tian H, Li B. Comparison of rescue techniques for failed chloral hydrate sedation for magnetic resonance imaging scans—additional chloral hydrate vs intranasal dexmedetomidine. Paediatr Anaesth 2016;26:273-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Li L, Zhou J, Yu D, Hao X, Xie Y, Zhu T. Intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate for diagnostic procedures sedation in infants and toddlers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e19001. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019001.  Back to cited text no. 5
    




 

Top
 
Previous article    Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  IN THIS Article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed146    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded30    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal