ArticleCureus2025
Analysis of the Impact of Dexmedetomidine Use in Very Preterm Infants on Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analgesia and sedation trends in a level IV NICU, 2014-2024: Opioid and dexmedetomidine use.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProlonged sedation in premature infants often involves opioids and benzodiazepines, which can cause adverse effects and worse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Dexmedetomidine has emerged as a safer alternative with fewer side effects, but its long-term neurodevelopmental impact on very preterm infants remains unclear. Further research is needed to understand its effects on this vulnerable population.
objectivesThe primary objective is to compare the neurodevelopmental outcomes of premature infants who received and did not receive dexmedetomidine infusions while intubated. The secondary objective is to compare the rate of unplanned extubations in these groups.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study deemed Institutional Review Board (IRB)-exempted by the New York University (NYU) IRB. The study population (n = 15) with a matched control cohort (n = 15) includes infants born under 32 weeks gestation or weighing less than 1,500 g who were intubated during their hospitalization and followed up at our high-risk follow-up program. Patients excluded from the study include those who did not survive to discharge, those lost to follow-up, or those with major congenital anomalies. The patient chart was reviewed for data on maternal characteristics and details from the infant's neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Data from follow-up visits at six months to two years of life included the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Fourth Edition (BSID-IV) scores. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U testing and Fisher's exact testing.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.373) in BSID-IV scores between the two groups. The overall number of unplanned extubations was not different between the two groups. When assessing unplanned extubations per intubation day, there was a trend toward fewer unplanned extubations in the dexmedetomidine group.
conclusionsThis study suggests that dexmedetomidine may be a safe and effective alternative to traditional sedatives for extremely premature infants, with no observed adverse effects on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes and potential benefits in reducing extubation-related complications. However, larger, multi-center prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and inform clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.