Dex: Transforming Pediatric Tonsillectomy Outcomes
The administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced perioperative requirements for opioids in pediatric tonsillectomy, along with lower likelihoods of emergence delirium and postoperative nausea and vomiting.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials involving 1634 pediatric patients (mean age range, 4-8.5 years) undergoing tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy under general anesthesia.
Dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously during the procedure at doses ranging from 0.1 to 4.0 μg/kg alongside opioids compared with opioids alone.
The primary outcome was perioperative requirements for opioids, measured in oral morphine equivalents.
Secondary outcomes included incidences of perioperative respiratory adverse events (including severe or sustained cough), emergence delirium (determined using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium Scale), and postoperative nausea and vomiting.
TAKEAWAY:
The administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced perioperative requirements for opioids (mean difference, -0.25 mg/kg; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.13), as analyzed from seven studies.
The likelihood of emergence delirium was lower with the use of dexmedetomidine (risk ratio [RR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.71), as analyzed from three trials.
For every 0.5 μg/kg increase in the dose of dexmedetomidine, the RR for emergence delirium decreased by approximately 87%.
The administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower likelihood of postoperative nausea and vomiting or postoperative vomiting (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35-0.66; 12 trials).
IN PRACTICE:
'Dexmedetomidine may improve the perioperative course of children undergoing tonsillectomy, as moderate certainty evidence indicates that it decreases perioperative opioid requirements, and moderate certainty evidence suggests it reduces the rate of emergence delirium, with dose-dependent effects, when compared with control,' the researchers of the study reported.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Julia M. Olsen, MD, of the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It was published online on July 11, 2025, in the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.
LIMITATIONS:
The publication bias could not be assessed due to a limited number of trials. The certainty of evidence was affected by significant heterogeneity in the primary outcome. Subgroup analysis could not be performed due to lack of data, and the small sample size and zero event rates for some outcomes in many trials hindered mediation analyses.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not receive any specific funding. No conflicts of interest were declared.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
3 minutes ago
- Medscape
Even Low Lead Exposure Can Impair Academic Outcomes in Kids
TOPLINE: Every 1-unit increase in blood lead levels in early childhood — even when below the 'safe' threshold of 3.5 µg/dL — was associated with declines in math and reading scores from grades 2 through 11, similar to those seen at higher lead levels. METHODOLOGY: Researchers used the 2021 US CDC's revision of the blood lead reference value to ≥ 3.5 μg/dL. They analyzed data from birth certificates of children born in Iowa from 1989 to 2010, academic test scores from grades 2 through 11, and blood lead testing data from 1990 to 2017. The analysis included 305,256 children (mean age at lead testing, 1.9 years; 49% girls) and nearly 1.8 million math and reading scores to calculate the national percentile rank (NPR). Primary outcomes included NPR scores across grades 2 through 11, comparing children with blood lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL with those at or above this threshold. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 37.7% of children had lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL. Among children with blood lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL, a 1-unit increase was associated with lower NPR scores in math (-0.47; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.30) and in reading (-0.38; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.20). Similarly, for lead levels at ≥ 3.5 μg/dL, every 1-unit increase was linked to a significant decline in NPR scores for math and reading. The trend of declining scores with increasing lead levels was persistent across grades 2 through 11; only the declines in reading scores for grades 10 and 11 were not statistically significant. IN PRACTICE: 'The present work provides further evidence to support that there are no safe levels of lead and that there is a need to continue to reduce or eliminate lead exposure,' the authors of the study wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by George L. Wehby, MPH, PhD, of the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa. It was published online on May 28, 2025, in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: Several laboratories used the old 5 μg/dL cutoff to quantify high lead levels. Researchers lacked data on any lead-related interventions the children may have received. DISCLOSURES: Wehby reported receiving grants from the Gates Foundation during the conduct of this study. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
3 minutes ago
- Medscape
Health Issues More Likely in Rural vs Urban Caregivers
TOPLINE: Caregivers living in rural areas reported poorer general and physical health and were more likely to smoke and have obesity than caregivers in urban areas, according to a recent analysis. METHODOLOGY: Researchers analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey to study the differences in sociodemographic characteristics, experiences, and health of caregivers in rural and urban settings. Participants were identified as unpaid caregivers if they provided regular care to a friend or family member with a health problem or disability in the past 30 days. Rurality was defined using a 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme, and participants were classified as living in rural counties if they resided in micropolitan or noncore counties and living in urban counties if they resided in metro counties. A total of 44,274 unpaid caregivers (60% women) from 47 US states participated, of whom one quarter lived in rural counties. Caregiving attributes, including relationship to the care recipient, duration of caregiving, and assistance with activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, were analyzed. The well-being of caregivers was assessed through their health, health behaviors, and health-related quality of life. TAKEAWAY: Rural caregivers were more likely to have obesity (42.9% vs 37.5%; P < .0001). Rural caregivers were more likely to be current smokers (24.2% vs 15.5%; P < .0001) but less likely to be binge drinkers (12.7% vs 15.3%; P = .003) than urban caregivers. Rural caregivers were more likely than urban caregivers to report fair or poor general health (20.3% vs 17.0%; P = .0003). No significant differences were found in mental health or limited activity in the past month between rural and urban caregivers. IN PRACTICE: 'This study is extremely valuable for members of rural communities as it allows policy makers to better understand the landscape of caregiving amongst minoritized rural residents and help program developers design and implement initiatives for rural caregivers,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Emma Kathryn Boswell, MPH, of the University of South Carolina Rural Health Research Center at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. It was published online on June 13, 2025, in The Journal of Rural Health. LIMITATIONS: The reliance on self-reported data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System may have introduced recall and social desirability bias. The cross-sectional design limited the ability to determine cause-and-effect relationships between caregiving and health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
