Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40740101›Full record

Observational studyActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025

Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for Propofol Sparing in Procedural Sedation of Children With Leukemia: A Consecutive Case Series.

Domenica Squillaci, Karen Console, Lara Colussi, Valentina Kiren, Marco Rabusin, Gabriele Stocco, Antonella Longo, Paolo Dalena, Egidio Barbi

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Domenica SquillaciUniversity of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Karen ConsoleUniversity of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.ORCID 0009-0000-4340-6391
Lara ColussiUniversity of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Valentina KirenInstitute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Trieste, Italy.
Marco RabusinInstitute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Trieste, Italy.
Gabriele StoccoUniversity of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Antonella LongoInstitute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Trieste, Italy.
Paolo DalenaUniversity of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2920-9572
Egidio BarbiUniversity of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6343-846X

Funding

Italian Ministry of Health, through the contribution given to the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste - Italy RC 34/18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPropofol is commonly used in procedural sedation in oncology due to its rapid sedative effect and favorable recovery profile. However, several preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated a dose-dependent neurotoxic effect of this drug. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are potential adjuvants that, if used as premedication, could reduce the required dose of propofol. This study compares the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in terms of propofol dose reduction during procedural sedation in oncology patients.

methodsThis one-year retrospective study compared the outcomes of procedural sedation, in terms of propofol-sparing, in 24 pediatric oncology patients who received midazolam (MP group, 52 procedures) or dexmedetomidine (DP group, 51 procedures) as premedication combined with propofol during bone marrow aspiration and/or lumbar puncture procedures. Data on propofol dosage, awakening time, vital parameters, and adverse events were examined.

resultsPremedication with dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower dose of propofol than midazolam (2.51 vs. 4.00 mg/kg, p < 0.001). Wake-up times were longer in the DP group (92 vs. 65 min; p = 0.045). Adverse events were very rare in both groups.

conclusionsDexmedetomidine demonstrates superior propofol-sparing effects compared to midazolam, although it requires longer recovery times. These results support dexmedetomidine as a promising alternative in sedation protocols in pediatric oncology. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This retrospectively analysis of a single center series compared procedural sedation strategies for children involving propofol after standardized intravenous premedication with dexmedetomidine or midazolam. The findings demonstrated that dexmedetomidine in those doses and in combination with propofol confirmed sedative potency and duration more than that of the chosen midazolam premedication dosing.

Indexed as

DexmedetomidineLeukemiaMidazolamPremedicationProcedural PainProcedural SedationPropofolAdjuvants, AnesthesiaBiopsy, NeedleBone MarrowChildDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansHypnotics and SedativesInfusions, IntravenousRetrospective StudiesAdjuvants, AnesthesiaDexmedetomidineHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamPropofolchildrendexmedetomidineoncologysedation

Identifiers

PMID40740101
PMCPMC12311750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.