A randomized trial demonstrates improved sedation and satisfaction in adults undergoing port implantation with dexmedetomidine nasal spray, suggesting it as a viable noninvasive option.
Background: Noninvasive sedative approaches are increasingly valued in ambulatory anesthesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the novel standardized dexmedetomidine nasal spray for procedural sedation in adult patients undergoing port implantation under local anesthesia. Methods: Eighty-two patients undergoing port implantation under local anesthesia were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly allocated to receive nasal spray with 100μg dexmedetomidine or placebo with saline, 30 min prior to the procedure. The primary outcome was the postoperative anesthesia satisfaction assessed using Iowa Satisfaction with Anesthesia Scale (ISAS; 11-item mean score, − 3 to +3). The secondary outcomes included the Ramsay sedation scale (RSS), visual analog scale (VAS), postoperative sleep quality, hemodynamic changes, and the incidence of adverse events. Results: Compared with placebo, dexmedetomidine significantly improved satisfaction with procedure (ISAS median [IQR] was 2.7 [2.5– 2.8] vs 2.1 [1.8– 2.4]; P< 0.001), indicating a clinically relevant improvement in patient experience during outpatient port implantation under local anesthesia, and postoperative sleep quality (4.4± 0.8 vs 3.1± 0.8, P< 0.001) during the first postoperative night. The incidence of adverse events and other secondary outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: A standardized dexmedetomidine nasal spray provided reliable, well-tolerated sedation, enhanced postoperative comfort, and improved postoperative sleep quality in adults undergoing minor procedures under local anesthesia. These findings support its feasibility as a noninvasive option for outpatient procedural sedation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: