ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation in mechanically ventilated pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimsThe benefits of Dexmedetomidne in sedation of mechanically ventilated pediatric patients are still challenging. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam for achieving deep sedation in pediatric patients receiving mechanical ventilation.
methodsA randomized clinical trial was conducted across three affiliated hospitals during February 2023 until February 2024. Eligible mechanically ventilated children aged 1 month to 18 years were randomized 1:1 to receive either Dexmedetomidine (0.25-1 mcg/kg/h) or midazolam (1-4 mcg/kg/min) for sedation, alongside fentanyl analgesia. Sedation was assessed using the Ramsey Sedation Scale and target scores set on 5-6. Primary outcomes included success rates in achieving target sedation at the beginning of mechanical ventilation; secondary outcomes encompassed hemodynamic adverse effects (hypotension, bradycardia), follow-up assessment of sedation level of successful patients over the next 6 h, mortality rate, mean arterial blood pressures and heart rates (HR) changes, mechanical ventilation and PICU stay duration. MAIN
resultsAmong 130 eligible patients, 120 were analyzed after exclusions (60 per group). Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. The primary outcome revealed that Dexmedetomidine was less effective than Midazolam in achieving target sedation levels across all ages (p < 0.001). In infants under one year, there was no significant difference in sedation effectiveness between the two medications (P = 0.157). Notably, Dexmedetomidine patients required higher drug doses to maintain sedation over 6 h, while Midazolam patients experienced fewer adjustments (p < 0.001). Hemodynamic complications were significantly less frequent in the Dexmedetomidine group (3.3% vs. 23.3% for hypotension; p < 0.01). However, the two groups did not differ in terms of MAP and HR changes (P = 0.255; P = 0.063). Mortality, mechanical ventilation duration and length of PICU stay were not different between two groups (P = 0.853; P = 0.076; P = 0.082).
conclusionDexmedetomidine is inferior to Midazolam for deep sedation during mechanical ventilation in children aged 1 month to 18 years. However, it can be effective in infants under one year of age. Dexmedetomidine presents a lower risk of hemodynamic side effects compared to Midazolam.
trial registrationIRCT20190522043672N3 on February 16, 2023.
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.