Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

This current meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate effects of dexmedetomidine on neonatal maternal factors.

Methods

The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. The primary outcomes were neonatal parameters, including umbilical blood gases and Apgar scores. The secondary outcomes were maternal parameters.

Results

We identified six randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No differences in neonatal umbilical blood gases, and Apgar scores at 1 min (WMD: −0.09; 95% CI: −0.21 to 0.04; I²= 0%) and 5 min (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.03; 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.11; I²= 37%) were observed with dexmedetomidine. For maternal parameters, characteristics of motor and sensory block and postoperative analgesia (standard mean difference (SMD): 3.99; 95% CI: 2.85 to 5.12; I²= 78%) were significantly improved after dexmedetomidine treatment. Adverse events, including nausea/vomiting and shivering (risk ratio (RR): 0.26; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.60; I²= 0%), were lower after dexmedetomidine treatment.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis shows that dexmedetomidine is safe for neonates who are delivered by caesarean section. Moreover, dexmedetomidine used in neuraxial anaesthesia can improve the characteristics of motor and sensory block and prolong the maternal pain-free period. Dexmedetomidine can also reduce the maternal incidence of postoperative adverse effects.

Keywords

Foetal responses dexmedetomidine meta-analysis

Introduction

Anaesthesia in caesarean section is a challenge for anaesthesiologists. In this situation, the anaesthesiologist needs to take into account the safety of two lives. The rate of caesarean sections is increasing yearly.^1,2 Therefore, effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia are important for ensuring success of the operation.³ Neuraxial anaesthesia and general anaesthesia can be performed in caesarean section.^4,5 However, in clinical practice, some anaesthetics (e.g., opioids) have a potential for respiratory depression of neonates,⁶ which leads to a decrease in Apgar scores and pH values. If the neonatal Apgar score is < 7 at 5 min or pH is < 7.20, newborns are admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. In this situation, assisted ventilation is required,⁷ and morbidity and mortality⁸ are increased.

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α₂-adrenoceptor agonist that binds to transmembrane G protein-binding receptor. Dexmedetomidine induces sedation, analgesia, amnesia, and perioperative sympatholytic, anaesthetic-sparing, and hemodynamic-stabilizing properties without depressing respiratory function.^9–14 Dexmedetomidine can also act by different administration routes. Intravenous and intrathecal dexmedetomidine can improve characteristics of block in spinal anaesthesia, including prolonging the duration of sensory block and motor block.¹⁵ Additionally, the placental transfer rate of dexmedetomidine is much lower than that of clonidine and that of remifentanil.¹⁶ Clinical researchers have already studied administration of dexmedetomidine in parturients undergoing caesarean section, but the clinical safety and effects of dexmedetomidine on the foetus are still controversial. However, quantitative analysis of these data has not been performed. Therefore, we conducted the present meta-analysis to assess foetal responses to dexmedetomidine in parturients undergoing caesarean section.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) with the unique identification number CRD42016040045. Our analysis included randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the neonatal efficacy of dexmedetomidine with placebo in parturients undergoing caesarean section. We reported the study in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.^17,18

Systematic search and strategy

The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to June 2016, without language limitations. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and grey literature using the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) database to identify potential RCTs. The final update of this literature search was performed on the 14 December 2016.

The search strategy consisted of a combination of free text words and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms as follows: “dexmedetomidine”, “drug therapy”, “caesarean section”, “abdominal delivery”, “C-Section”, “randomized controlled trial”, “controlled clinical trial”, “randomized”, “randomly”, and “trial”. Details of our search strategy are provided in the Appendix.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included in the systematic review if they satisfied all of the following pre-established criteria: (1) RCT; (2) participants were adults (18 years or older) with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status (classified by conditions of patients and risks of surgery) I–II and term or near-term singleton pregnancies, scheduled for caesarean delivery; (3) perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine compared with placebo; (4) dexmedetomidine administrated by intravenous, intrathecal, or epidural injection before delivery, regardless of the type of anaesthesia; and (5) outcomes included umbilical blood gas parameters and Apgar scores.

We excluded studies if they were duplicate publications, reviews, abstracts from conferences, letters to the editor, animal studies, and labour analgesic trials. We also excluded patients with ASA III–IV, prematurity, multiple gestations, preeclampsia, a history of allergy to dexmedetomidine, alcohol or drug abuse, foetal distress, and known foetal abnormalities. We did not include studies that did not report the specific results of neonatal parameters.

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Two reviewers (J.Z. and H.B.Z.) independently worked and assessed the studies for compliance with the eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies were resolved by consultation with a third reviewer (A.S.W.). The PRISMA flow diagram was used to summarize the processes of study selection.

Extracted data included the following: name of the first author; publication year; age of participants and their ASA physical status; gestational age; interventions; patients; type of anaesthesia; length of operation; and dose and timing of target drug administration. All graphical data were converted into numerical data. Extraction of all of the data mentioned above was performed by two reviewers (J.Z. and H.B.Z.) and another reviewer (K.H.S.) checked the extracted data.

Two authors (J.Z. and T.T.) evaluated the overall risk of bias in individual studies. This was performed according to the guideline recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, with regard to the adequacy of randomization, concealment of allocation, blinding (of patients, healthcare providers, and outcome assessors), incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias. Each parameter was classified as low, high, or unclear.

Statistical analysis

For binary variables, the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. Continuous data were assessed by the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) or pooled standard mean difference (SMD). The overall effect was assessed by the Z test and statistical significance was determined when the 95% CIs did not include the value of 1.0 for the RR or 0 for the WMD or SMD. Methods as the measure of treatment effect were reported by an accompanying range in some studies. To calculate variables, the standard deviation (SD) was estimated from the range and the mean from the median as follows: SD = range/4 and mean = median.^19,20 The I² test was used to measure heterogeneity. An I² score of ≥40% indicated more than moderate heterogeneity when a random effects model was used, otherwise a fixed effects model was used.

Sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the effects model of the statistical method (fixed effect vs. random effect model). Potential publication bias was evaluated by Egger’s regression test with Stata (Version 13.0.; Stata Corp., TX, USA). Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager (Version 5.3.; The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

Results

Study selection

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, SIGLE, and reference lists generated 58 articles. Of these, 27 duplicated records that were identified by the title, authors, journal citation, and date published were removed. After retrieval and review of the articles’ abstracts, 19 studies were excluded depending on the title and abstract because of reviews (n = 12), an abstract from a conference (n = 1), case reports (n = 5), and labour analgesic trials (n = 1). The remaining 12 studies were examined in detail. A further six studies were then excluded because of a lack of intended intervention and outcomes of interest. Finally, six studies^21–26 including 458 parturients with singleton pregnancies fulfilled the criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The study selection processes are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Search flow diagram for studies that were included in the meta-analysis.

Study characteristics

All of the included studies^21–26 investigated the efficacy of dexmedetomidine on neonates compared with placebo. Neuraxial anaesthesia was performed in four studies^22–25 and general anaesthesia was used in the other two trials.^21,26 Dexmedetomidine was administered during induction of anaesthesia in all of the studies.^21–26 Four studies^22–25 showed characteristics of block in neuraxial anaesthesia, including onset of sensory block,^22,24 onset of motor block,^23–25 duration of sensory block,^22–25 duration of motor block,^23–25 and the time for the first postoperative analgesic.^23–25 Five studies^21–25 reported adverse events, including nausea/vomiting,^21–25 shivering,^22,24,25 pruritus,^23–25 hypotension,^21,23–25 and bradycardia.^21,23–25 Table 1 shows the characteristics of all included studies.

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors	Year	Patients	ASA	Type of anaesthesia	Trail	Dosage regimen	Comparisons	Total	Gestational age (mean ± SD, wk)
EI-Tahan²²	2012	Singleton pregnancy of at least 36 weeks term, elective caesarean section	I–II	GA	I	C	Dexmedetomidine IV 0.2 µg/kg/h	17	37.1 ± 1.1
							Dexmedetomidine IV 0.4 µg/kg/h	17	37.5 ± 1.0
							Dexmedetomidine IV 0.6 µg/kg/h	17	36.8 ± 0.8
							Placebo IV	17	37.0 ± 0.9
Han²⁶	2014	Singleton term pregnancy, elective caesarean section	I–II	EA	I	S	Dexmedetomidine EA 1 µg/kg	20	38.4 ± 1.5
							Fentanyl EA 1 µg/kg	20	39.2 ± 0.9
							Placebo EA	20	38.6 ± 1.1
Li²¹	2015	Singleton pregnancy of 36–40 weeks term, elective caesarean section	I–II	SA	I	S	Dexmedetomidine SA 10 µg	21	38.27 ± 0.61
							Fentanyl SA 15 µg	21	38.38 ± 0.59
							Clonidine SA 75 µg	21	38.41 ± 0.58
							Placebo SA	21	38.55 ± 0.77
Qi²⁴	2016	Singleton full-term pregnancy, elective caesarean section	I–II	SA	I	S	Dexmedetomidine SA 5 µg	39	38.98 ± 0.86
							Morphine SA 100 µg	40	39.06 ± 0.90
							Placebo SA	39	38.88 ± 0.84
Sun²⁵	2014	Singleton pregnancy of 36–40 weeks term, elective caesarean section	I–II	SA	I	S	Dexmedetomidine SA 10 µg	30	38.27 ± 0.61
							Fentanyl SA 25 µg	30	38.38 ± 0.59
							Placebo SA	30	38.55 ± 0.77
Yu²³	2015	Singleton term pregnancy, elective caesarean section	I–II	GA	I	L	Dexmedetomidine 0.6	19	38.9 ± 1.5
							µg/kg, followed by 0.4 µg/kg/h IV
							Placebo IV	19	39.2 ± 0.9

GA: general anaesthesia, SA: spinal anaesthesia, EA: epidural anaesthesia, IV: intravenous, I: induction of anaesthesia, S: single dose, L: loading dose followed by continuous infusion, C: continuous infusion.

Risk of bias within studies

The overall risk of bias within studies was low in four studies,^21,24–26 while one study²³ did not describe detailed information on random sequence generation. One trial²² did not describe the methods of allocation concealment (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments regarding each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Meta-analyses of primary results

Neonatal outcomes

No differences in umbilical blood gas parameters were observed between the two groups, including arterial partial pressure of oxygen (WMD: −0.93 mmHg; 95% CI: −1.97 to 0.11; I²= 0%), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (WMD: −1.11 mmHg; 95% CI: −2.26 to 0.04; I²= 33%), pH values (WMD: −0.01; 95% CI: −0.03 to 0.01; I²= 22%), and base excess data (WMD: −0.14 mmol/l; 95% CI: −0.38 to 0.11; I²= 0%). Apgar scores at 1 (WMD: −0.09; 95% CI: −0.21 to 0.04; I²= 0%) and 5 min (WMD: 0.03; 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.11; I²= 37%) were also not different between the groups. Neonatal outcomes were shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Neonatal outcomes (a) Data of partial pressure of oxygen. (b) Data of partial pressure of carbon dioxide. (c) Data of pH. (d) Data of base excess. (e) Apgar values at 1 min. (f) Apgar values at 5 min. WMD, weighted mean difference; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance.

Meta-analyses of secondary results

Maternal outcomes

When dexmedetomidine was administrated by intravertebral injection in neuraxial anaesthesia, the time of onset to motor block (WMD: −0.79 min; 95% CI: −1.34 to −0.23; I²= 0%) was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group. The duration of sensory block (WMD: 74.75 min; 95% CI: 52.65 to 96.85; I²= 70%) and the first postoperative analgesic (SMD: 3.99; 95% CI: 2.85 to 5.12; I²= 78%) were significantly longer in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group.

Adverse events, including nausea/vomiting (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.18; I²= 1%) and shivering (RR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.60; I²= 0%), were lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the placebo group, but this was not quite significant for nausea/vomiting. Meta-analysis showed no differences in the rates of common adverse effects, such as pruritus, hypotension, and bradycardia, between the dexmedetomidine and placebo groups. Maternal outcomes were shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Maternal outcomes (a) Time of onset to motor block. (b) Duration of sensory block. (c) First postoperative analgesic. (d) Nausea/vomiting. (e) Shivering. WMD, weighted mean difference; SMD, standard mean difference; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance.

Publication bias and sensitivity analysis

None of the primary and secondary results of the Egger regression asymmetry tests achieved statistical significance (primary results: P = 0.106, P = 0.458, P = 0.369, P = 0.473, P = 0.982, P = 0.247; secondary results: P = 0.717, P = 0.848, P = 0.376, P = 0.261, P = 0.235).

Sensitivity analysis by changing the effects model of the statistical method did not alter the primary and secondary results.

Discussion

The present meta-analysis of six RCTs evaluated the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine for foetal and maternal responses in parturients undergoing caesarean section. We found that dexmedetomidine was safe for neonates, with no significant differences in Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min, and umbilical blood gas parameters compared with the placebo group. Dexmedetomidine used in neuraxial anaesthesia could improve characteristics of block by shortening the onset time of motor block, prolonging the duration of sensory block, and allowing a pain-free period. The incidence of adverse effects, including nausea/vomiting and shivering, was lower with dexmedetomidine than with placebo.

The mechanism of action for the sedative and analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine can be explained by its highly selective α₂ adrenoceptor (ɑ₂-AR) agonist.²⁷ The ɑ₂-ARs are widely expressed in the brain and spinal cord²⁸ and dexmedetomidine can pass the blood−brain barrier rapidly because of its high lipophilicity.²⁹ Therefore, dexmedetomidine may act via different administration routes, including intravenous injection and intravertebral injection. This beneficial, safe effect for the neonate can also be explained by conscious sedation properties related to its highly selective ɑ₂-AR agonist. By reducing release of norepinephrine and excitability of the postsynaptic membrane, dexmedetomidine inhibits the cortical arousal response, which is controlled by dorsal norepinephrine fibres from the nucleus coeruleus. However, function of the wake-up system still exists and sedative–hypnotic effects can be stopped by language stimulation.^30,31 Therefore, a physiological stimulus could cause the neonate to cry naturally after delivery. Additionally, because dexmedetomidine has a high placental retention for its fat-soluble characteristic,^16,32 a decrease in the placental transfer rate could explain the safe effect of dexmedetomidine, as indicated by previous reports.^33,34 As a result, dexmedetomidine has the potential for conscious sedation properties without neonatal respiratory depression. This can decrease the need for assisted ventilation, and subsequently reduce the incidence of neonatal morbidity and mortality.

Postoperative adverse effects are undesired outcomes after sedation or anaesthesia, and can result in unplanned admission or a delay in discharge from hospital. Dexmedetomidine may also have other advantages for postoperative adverse effects.³⁵ Numerous studies^36,37 have shown that infusion of dexmedetomidine commonly prevents postoperative shivering. The anti-shivering mechanism of dexmedetomidine is related to decreasing vasoconstriction, thresholds of shivering, or inhibiting central thermoregulation.³⁸ A previous meta-analysis by Wu et al.³⁹ reported that dexmedetomidine used in neuraxial anaesthesia could improve the characteristics of block and prolong postoperative analgesia, which is consistent with our findings. The mechanisms of this improvement are related to hyperpolarization of post-synaptic dorsal horn neurons,⁴⁰ α₂-AR agonists to motor neurons in the dorsal horn,⁴¹ and upregulation of adrenergic receptor subtypes on the dorsal horn and the lumbar dorsal root ganglia.⁴²

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the safety of dexmedetomidine in caesarean section in neonates by using a meta-analysis of RCTs. The included studies were well designed and assessed as low risk or unclear. Sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the effects model of the statistical method. Therefore, these processes improved the accuracy of outcomes.

Our study has several limitations. The number of RCTs included in our meta-analysis and the sample size were small. Therefore, our conclusions are still based on a relatively small amount of studies. Furthermore, elective caesarean delivery was performed in parturients with normal pregnancy who underwent different types anaesthesia, and patients with pregnancy-induced complications were excluded. Finally, the different methods that were used for reporting outcomes in the six included studies may be considered as a source of heterogeneity. Therefore, further well-designed trials with a larger number of parturients are warranted to clarify the safety of dexmedetomidine before it can be recommended for routine clinical use.

In conclusion, the current meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is safe and effective for neonates who are delivered by caesarean section. Additionally, administration of dexmedetomidine via intravertebral injection could improve the characteristics of motor and sensory block and prolong the pain-free period. Dexmedetomidine can also reduce the incidence of postoperative adverse effects, such as nausea/vomiting and shivering. Our study suggests extension of the clinical value of dexmedetomidine.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Zhang is supported by the Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Hassani

Aghamolaei

Ghanbarnejad

et al.

The effect of an instructional program based on health belief model in decreasing cesarean rate among primiparous pregnant mothers. J Educ Health Promot 2016; 5: 1–1.

Kozhimannil

Law

Virnig

. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health aff (Project Hope) 2013; 32: 527–535.

Anusorntanawat

Uerpairojkit

Thongthaweeporn

et al.

Safety of Phenylephrine in Antihypotensive Treatment during Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section. J Med Assoc Thai 2016; 99: 188–196.

Maes

Laubach

Poelaert

. Randomised controlled trial of spinal anaesthesia with bupivacaine or 2-chloroprocaine during caesarean section. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2016; 60: 642–649.

Kashif

Hamid

. Efficacy of intravenous paracetamol on pressor response in patients undergoing cesarean section under general anesthesia. J Anaesthesiol, Clin Pharmacol 2016; 32: 210–213.

Maghsoudloo

Eftekhar

Ashraf

et al.

Does intravenous fentanyl affect Apgar scores and umbilical vessel blood gas parameters in cesarean section under general anesthesia?

Acta Med Iran 2011; 49: 517–522.

Victory

Penava

Da Silva

et al.

Umbilical cord pH and base excess values in relation to adverse outcome events for infants delivering at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 2021–2028.

Malin

Morris

Khan

. Strength of association between umbilical cord pH and perinatal and long term outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2010; 340: c1471–c1471.

Kamibayashi

Maze

. Clinical uses of α2-adrenergic agonists. JASA 2000; 93: 1345–1349.

10.

Hall

Uhrich

Barney

et al.

Sedative, amnestic, and analgesic properties of small-dose dexmedetomidine infusions. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 699–705.

11.

Shukry

Miller

. Update on dexmedetomidine: use in nonintubated patients requiring sedation for surgical procedures. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2010; 6: 111–111.

12.

Wagner

Brummett

. Dexmedetomidine: as safe as safe can be. Seminars in Anesthesia, Perioperative Medicine and Pain. Elsevier 2006, pp. 77–83.

13.

Mantz

Josserand

Hamada

. Dexmedetomidine: new insights. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 3–6.

14.

Hoy

Keating

. Dexmedetomidine: a review of its use for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care setting and for procedural sedation. Drugs 2011; 71: 1481–1501.

15.

Niu

Ding

Guo

et al.

Effects of intravenous and intrathecal dexmedetomidine in spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis. CNS Neurosci Ther 2013; 19: 897–904.

16.

Kan

Hughes

Rosen

et al.

Intravenous remifentanil placental transfer, maternal and neonatal effects. JASA 1998; 88: 1467–1474.

17.

Liberati

Altman

Tetzlaff

et al.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: W–65–W-94.

18.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

et al.

Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther 2009; 89: 873–880.

19.

Fraser

Devlin

Worby

et al.

Benzodiazepine versus nonbenzodiazepine-based sedation for mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care Med 2013; 41: S30–S38.

20.

Hozo

Djulbegovic

Hozo

. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5: 1–1.

21.

El-Tahan

Mowafi

Al Sheikh

et al.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine in suppressing cardiovascular and hormonal responses to general anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a dose-response study. Int J Obstet Anesth 2012; 21: 222–229.

22.

Han

Jiang

et al.

[Application of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine in the cesarean section under epidural anesthesia]. Zhonghua yi xue za zhi 2014; 94: 3501–3505. [in Chinese, English Abstract].

23.

Tian

Zhang

et al.

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of intrathecal bupivacaine combined with different adjuvants (fentanyl, clonidine and dexmedetomidine) in caesarean section. Drug Res (Stuttg) 2015; 65: 581–586.

24.

Chen

et al.

Comparison of intrathecal dexmedetomidine with morphine as adjuvants in cesarean sections. Biol Pharm Bull 2016; 39: 1455–1460.

25.

Sun

Wang

. Comparative evaluation of intrathecal bupivacaine alone, bupivacaine-fentanyl, and bupivacaine-dexmedetomidine in caesarean section. Drug Res (Stuttg) 2015; 65: 468–472.

26.

Han

Jiang

et al.

Effect and placental transfer of dexmedetomidine during caesarean section under general anaesthesia. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2015; 117: 204–208.

27.

Mantz

Josserand

Hamada

. Dexmedetomidine: new insights. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 3–6.

28.

Usta

Gozdemir

Demircioglu

et al.

Dexmedetomidine for the prevention of shivering during spinal anesthesia. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2011; 66: 1187–1191.

29.

Virtanen

Savola

Saano

et al.

Characterization of the selectivity, specificity and potency of medetomidine as an alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonist. Eur J Pharmacol 1988; 150: 9–14.

30.

Han

Jiang

et al.

Effect and placental transfer of dexmedetomidine during caesarean section under general anaesthesia. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2015; 117: 204–208.

31.

Bilotta

Rosa

. ‘Anesthesia’ for awake neurosurgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2009; 22: 560–565.

32.

Ala-Kokko

Pienimäki

Lampela

et al.

Transfer of clonidine and dexmedetomidine across the isolated perfused human placenta. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997; 41: 313–319.

33.

Neumann

Davio

Macknet

et al.

Dexmedetomidine for awake fiberoptic intubation in a parturient with spinal muscular atrophy type III for cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009; 18: 403–407.

34.

Palanisamy

Klickovich

Ramsay

et al.

Intravenous dexmedetomidine as an adjunct for labor analgesia and cesarean delivery anesthesia in a parturient with a tethered spinal cord. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009; 18: 258–261.

35.

Zhong

Zhu

et al.

Dexmedetomidine for antiemesis in gynecologic surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015; 8: 14566–14576.

36.

Lewis

Nicholson

Smith

et al.

Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for the prevention of shivering following general anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015. CD011107.

37.

Liu

Liang

et al.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on postoperative shivering: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Can J Anaesth 2015; 62: 816–829.

38.

Talke

Tayefeh

Sessler

et al.

Dexmedetomidine does not alter the sweating threshold, but comparably and linearly decreases the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. JASA 1997; 87: 835–841.

39.

Kanazi

Aouad

Jabbour-Khoury

et al.

Effect of low-dose dexmedetomidine or clonidine on the characteristics of bupivacaine spinal block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50: 222–227.

40.

Schulz

Altman

Moher

. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg (London, England) 2011; 9: 672–677.

41.

Harada

Nishioka

Kitahata

et al.

Visceral antinociceptive effects of spinal clonidine combined with morphine, [D-Pen2, D-Pen5] enkephalin, or U50,488H. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: 344–352.

42.

Tamagaki

Suzuki

Hagihira

et al.

Systemic daily morphine enhances the analgesic effect of intrathecal dexmedetomidine via up-regulation of alpha 2 adrenergic receptor subtypes A, B and C in dorsal root ganglion and dorsal horn. J Pharm Pharmacol 2010; 62: 1760–1767.

Foetal responses to dexmedetomidine in parturients undergoing caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Systematic search and strategy

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Statistical analysis

Results

Study selection

Study characteristics

Risk of bias within studies

Meta-analyses of primary results

Neonatal outcomes

Meta-analyses of secondary results

Maternal outcomes

Publication bias and sensitivity analysis

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

References