The Facilitatory Effects of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine on the Duration of Spinal Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Central mechanisms have been proposed to explain the prolongation of effect reported with the off-label use of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant in local anesthetic admixtures. We evaluated whether IV dexmedetomidine can prolong the duration of sensory block associated with spinal anesthesia. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomized controlled trials investigating the facilitatory effects of IV administration of dexmedetomidine (dexmedetomidine group) compared with placebo (control group) on single-injection local anesthetic-based spinal anesthesia. Durations of sensory and motor block, sensory and motor block onset times, postoperative pain scores, time to first analgesic request, analgesic consumption, and dexmedetomidine-related side effects were evaluated. Results were combined using random effects modeling when appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 364 patients were analyzed from 7 intermediate to high-quality randomized controlled trials. When IV dexmedetomidine accompanied spinal anesthesia, sensory block duration was prolonged by at least 34% (point estimate: 38%), P < 0.00001, motor block duration was prolonged by at least 17% (point estimate: 21%), P < 0.00001, and time to first analgesic request was increased by at least 53% (point estimate: 60%), P < 0.00001. The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with a 3.7-fold increase (95% confidence interval, 1.53-8.82, P = 0.004) in transient reversible bradycardia. There was no difference in the incidence of hypotension or postoperative sedation, and none of the patients experienced respiratory depression. CONCLUSION: IV dexmedetomidine can prolong the duration of sensory block, motor block, and time to first analgesic request associated with spinal anesthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".