Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Dexmedetomidine attenuates nociceptive responses compared with propofol during intravenous sedation for dental surgery: a prospective observational study

  • Saori Tada (Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Graduate School of Dental Medicine, Hokkaido University) ;
  • Yukie Nitta (Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Graduate School of Dental Medicine, Hokkaido University) ;
  • Yoko Kudo (Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Graduate School of Dental Medicine, Hokkaido University) ;
  • Makiko Shibuya (Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Graduate School of Dental Medicine, Hokkaido University) ;
  • Shigeru Takuma (Department of Dental Anesthesiology and Perioperative Management, Hinode Makomanai Dental Hospital) ;
  • Kanta Kido (Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Graduate School of Dental Medicine, Hokkaido University)
  • Received : 2025.11.22
  • Accepted : 2026.02.01
  • Published : 2026.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic agonist widely used for intravenous sedation. Its pharmacological properties suggest autonomic modulatory effects; however, these remain insufficiently characterized during operative procedures. This pilot study compared autonomic responses to surgical stress of DEX and propofol (PPF) during third molar extraction using the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI), a heart rate variability-derived marker of autonomic balance. Methods: Adults aged ≥18 years undergoing extraction of mandibular third molars under intravenous sedation were prospectively enrolled. Sedation was maintained with either DEX or PPF infusion following a small pre-induction dose of midazolam. ANI was continuously recorded using a High-Frequency Variability Index module, with a 240-s moving average considered equivalent to ANI. The primary outcome was the minimum ANI value within each predefined 5-min intraoperative interval; percent change from baseline (%Δx) was also calculated to account for interindividual variability. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Protocol deviations or incomplete ANI data prompted exclusion. Between-group comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and p-values were interpreted descriptively given the exploratory study design. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled, 24 (n = 12 per group) of whom were included in the final analysis. The baseline demographics, sedation depth (Ramsay Sedation Scale 3-4), and procedural characteristics were comparable. The minimum intraoperative ANI values were consistently higher with DEX; between-group differences were observed at 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, and 25-30 min after surgery onset (all unadjusted P < 0.05). The %Δx values were positive or near zero with DEX, whereas PPF showed progressively negative values with wider dispersion; ANI values intermittently fell below 50 only in the PPF group. Blood pressure was lower with DEX, whereas cardiorespiratory parameters remained similar. Patient State Index (PSI) during sedation was higher with DEX, but intraoperative PSI values were comparable. Conclusion: DEX was associated with greater intraoperative autonomic stability than PPF during intravenous sedation despite similar clinical sedation depths. These findings reflect the distinct pharmacological profiles of both agents. ANI monitoring provides objective insights into autonomic modulatory responses during sedation. Larger randomized trials are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank ThinkSCIENCE Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) for English language editing.

References

  1. Funai Y, Pickering AE, Uta D, Nishikawa K, Mori T, Asada A, et al. Systemic dexmedetomidine augments inhibitory synaptic transmission in the superficial dorsal horn through activation of descending noradrenergic control: an in vivo patch-clamp analysis of analgesic mechanisms. Pain 2014; 155: 617-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.12.018
  2. Weerink MA, Struys M, Hannivoort LN, Barends CRM, Absalom AR, Colin P. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of dexmedetomidine. Clin Pharmacokinet 2017; 56: 893-913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-017-0507-7
  3. Oshima H, Nakamura M, Watanabe O, Yamamura T, Funasaka K, Ohno E, et al. Dexmedetomidine provides less body motion and respiratory depression during sedation in double-balloon enteroscopy than midazolam. SAGE Open Med 2017; 5: 2050312117729920. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312117729920
  4. Kang R, Choi JW, Sung KS, Wi W, Hahm TS, Cho HS, et al. Effect of intraoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol on acute postoperative pain following major foot surgery under popliteal sciatic nerve block: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030654
  5. Chen M, Li X, Mu G. Myocardial protective and anti-inflammatory effects of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anesth 2022; 36: 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-021-02982-0
  6. Gerlach AT, Murphy CV, Dasta JF. An updated focused review of dexmedetomidine in adults. Ann Pharmacother 2009; 43: 2064-74. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1M310
  7. Sabu N, Meshram S, Chavan G. Low-dose epidural dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine versus conventional bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia: a randomized controlled trial. Cureus 2025; 17: e92018. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.92018
  8. Donatiello V, Alfieri A, Napolitano A, Maffei V, Coppolino F, Pota V, et al. Opioid sparing effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine in orthopaedic surgery: a retrospective analysis. J Anesth Analg Crit Care 2022; 2: 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-022-00076-1
  9. Kim M, Huh J, Choi H, Hwang W. Impact of dexmedetomidine-based opioid-sparing anesthesia on opioid use after minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med 2024; 13: 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13237264
  10. Martinez-Vazquez P, Jensen EW. Different perspectives for monitoring nociception during general anesthesia. Korean J Anesthesiol 2022; 75: 112-23. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.22002
  11. Yoshida K, Obara S, Inoue S. Analgesia nociception index and high frequency variability index: promising indicators of relative parasympathetic tone. J Anesth 2023; 37: 130-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-022-03126-8
  12. Hirose M, Okutani H, Hashimoto K, Ueki R, Shimode N, Kariya N, et al. Intraoperative assessment of surgical stress response using nociception monitor under general anesthesia and postoperative complications: a narrative review. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 3450. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11206080
  13. Kim MK, Choi GJ, Oh KS, Lee SP, Kang H. Pain assessment using the analgesia nociception index (ANI) in patients undergoing general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Med 2023; 13: 1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13101461
  14. Hum B, Christophides A, Jin Z, Elias M, Taneja K, Bergese SD. The validity and applications of the analgesia nociception index: a narrative review. Front Surg 2023; 10: 1234246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1234246
  15. Kumagai M, Wakimoto M, Ogawa S, Watanabe S, Suzuki KS. Response to comments on "Effect of postoperative peripheral nerve blocks on the analgesia nociception index under propofol anesthesia: an observational study.". J Clin Monit Comput 2025; 39: 653-4.
  16. Avez-Couturier J, De Jonckheere J, Jeanne M, Vallée L, Cuisset JM, Logier R. Assessment of procedural pain in children using analgesia nociception index: a pilot study. Clin J Pain 2016; 32: 1100-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000360
  17. Soral M, Altun GT, Dinçer P, Arslantaş MK, Aykaç Z. Effectiveness of the analgesia nociception index monitoring in patients who undergo colonoscopy with sedo-analgesia. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2020; 48: 50-7. https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.
  18. Kondo H, Hyuga S, Shishii M, Fujita T, Okutomi T. Relationship between local anesthetic infiltration pain before spinal anesthesia and the analgesia nociception index for women undergoing elective cesarean delivery: a prospective observational study. Cureus 2025; 17: e88671. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.88671
  19. Kuroki M, Onodera Y, Okada M, Nakane M. Effects of ephedrine on the nociception level and analgesia nociception index: a prospective observational study. Indian J Anaesth 2025; 69: 739-41. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_322_25
  20. Kim SH, Chang CH, Lee JR, Seo SK, Kwon YI, Lee JH. Effect of analgesia nociception index monitor-based nociception control on perioperative stress responses during laparoscopic surgery in trendelenburg position: a randomized controlled trial. Front Med (Lausanne) 2023; 10: 1196153.
  21. Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat 2005; 4: 287-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.v4:4
  22. Leon AC, Davis LL, Kraemer HC. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J Psychiatr Res 2011; 45: 626-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.10.008
  23. Ying X, Ehrhardt S. Pilot trial characteristics, postpilot design modifications, and feasibility of full-scale trials. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6: e2333642. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.33642
  24. Wang X, Zhang S, Wang C, Huang Y, Wu H, Zhao G, et al. Real-time evaluation of the independent analgesic efficacy of dexmedetomidine. BMC Anesthesiol 2023; 23: 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02022-2
  25. Zhang X, Zhao W, Sun C, Huang Z, Zhan L, Xiao C, et al. Effect of dexmedetomidine administration on analgesic, respiration and inflammatory responses in patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a prospective observational study. BMC Anesthesiol 2022; 22: 152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01691-9
  26. Zhao E, Zhou K, Liu Z, Ding Z, Lu H, Chen J, et al. Dexmedetomidine prolongs the analgesic effects of periarticular infiltration analgesia following total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38: 1273-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.029
  27. Liu X, Li Y, Kang L, Wang Q. Recent advances in the clinical value and potential of dexmedetomidine. J Inflamm Res 2021; 14: 7507-27. https://doi.org/10.2147/JIR.S346089
  28. Kanaya N, Hirata N, Kurosawa S, Nakayama M, Namiki A. Differential effects of propofol and sevoflurane on heart rate variability. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200301000-00009
  29. Kawasaki T, Hirata N. Interference with high-frequency variability index. J Anesth 2024; 38: 563-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-023-03241-0
  30. Kawamoto M, Shimokawa A, Takasaki M. Effects of midazolam on heart rate variability during surgery under spinal anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care 1995; 23: 464-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X9502300409