ArticleCureus2026
A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Intravenous and Nebulised Dexmedetomidine for Awake Fibreoptic Nasotracheal Intubation.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundAwake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) is the gold standard for anticipated difficult airways but is limited by patient discomfort and hemodynamic stress. Dexmedetomidine may improve tolerance while preserving spontaneous ventilation. We compared intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine for AFOI.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, 46 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II adults undergoing elective surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation were assigned to two groups. Patients in the nebulization group (Group N) received dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg, combined with 4 mL of 4% lignocaine, via nebulization for four minutes, along with 20 mL of intravenous normal saline infused over 10 minutes. Patients in the intravenous group (Group I) were administered dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg diluted in 20 mL normal saline intravenously over 10 minutes, along with 4 mL of 4% lignocaine via nebulization for four minutes. Sedation (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (OAA/S)), intubation conditions (cough severity, facial grimace), intubation time, hemodynamics, adjunct requirements (propofol dose; spray-as-you-go (SAYGO) lignocaine boluses), discomfort, recall, complications, and willingness to repeat anesthesia were assessed. P <0.05 was considered significant.
resultsBaseline demographics were comparable. Adequate sedation (OAA/S ≤ 3) without propofol occurred in 100% with IV vs 0% with nebulization. Propofol requirement was lower in the intravenous group (0.74 ± 1.14 vs 4.22 ± 1.31 mg/kg; p<0.001). Intubation was faster in the intravenous group (5.22 ± 2.26 vs 8.00 ± 2.02 min; p=0.007). Cough was reduced in the intravenous group (no cough 69.6% vs 0%; severe cough >5 in sequence 0% vs 21.7%). Fewer SAYGO boluses were needed with intravenous (4.00 ± 1.51 vs 5.09 ± 1.88; p=0.04). Hemodynamics were stable and similar overall; one hypotension event occurred in the nebulization group. Postoperative complications were negligible. Discomfort was lower, and willingness to undergo the same technique again was higher with IV dexmedetomidine.
conclusionWhen combined with standardized nebulized lignocaine airway topicalization, intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg provided superior sedation quality, better intubating conditions, reduced adjunct use, and shorter intubation time compared with nebulized dexmedetomidine, with comparable safety. Intravenous administration may therefore be preferred for sedation during AFOI.
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.