Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine Compared to Other Needle-Free Pharmacological Sedation Methods in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Imaging Procedures

Background Pediatric patients often require sedation during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) to ensure stillness and minimize stress. This meta-analysis compared the effectiveness and safety of 3 sedative agents—dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and chloral hydrate—for pediatric MRI/CT sedation. Methods Six studies with a total of 633 patients were included in the analysis. Quality assessment revealed varying levels of bias risk. Dexmedetomidine exhibited a significantly higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (risk ratio [RR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.29–0.64]), but no statistically significant difference compared to chloral hydrate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.60–1.45]). Chloral hydrate also showed a higher successful sedation rate compared to midazolam (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.25–0.83]). The onset of sedation time did not significantly differ between the 3 agents. Results The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly higher incidence of bradycardia compared to the chloral hydrate group (RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.05–0.59]), but no significant difference compared to the midazolam group (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.06–1.26]). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of nausea and vomiting between the 3 groups. Conclusions Dexmedetomidine demonstrates effectiveness in pediatric MRI/CT sedation, offering advantages over midazolam and similar efficacy to chloral hydrate. Careful cardiovascular monitoring is essential during administration, particularly in patients with congenital heart disease. Sublingual and intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine is a viable option with high bioavailability. This meta-analysis contributes valuable insights into refining sedation protocols for pediatric imaging procedures, emphasizing efficacy and safety considerations.