Comparative safety and sedation effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for preoperative anxiety reduction in pediatric surgical patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Relieving pre-operative anxiety in children is a major concern for anesthesiologists. Midazolam has been the most commonly used sedative agent due to its long history of efficacy. However, it has been associated with complications, such as agitation, cognitive impairment, amnesia, and respiratory depression. For these reasons, other drugs, such as dexmedetomidine, have been explored as safe and effective alternatives in children undergoing surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine as compared to intranasal or oral midazolam in reducing preoperative anxiety in pediatric surgical patients. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant articles published from inception to January 2026. The search was limited to articles written in English and involved keywords and MeSH terms related to midazolam, dexmedetomidine, surgery, and children. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials with 1475 pediatric surgical patients were included. The pooled analysis revealed that intranasal dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly lower anxiety scores at or before induction (SMD: -1.10; 95% CI: -1.68 to -0.53; p = 0.0002), parental separation anxiety (SMD: -0.56; 95% CI: -0.99 to -0.12; p = 0.01), and mean heart rate (HR) (MD: -6.60 beats/min; 95% CI: -10.56 to -2.64; p = 0.001) compared to intranasal midazolam. However, intranasal dexmedetomidine was comparable to oral midazolam in terms of anxiety at or before induction (MD: -7.70; 95% CI: -18.89 to 3.59; p = 0.18), parental separation anxiety (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.44 to 2.88; p = 0.80), and postoperative emergence agitation (RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.02 to 2.94; p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Intranasal dexmedetomidine is more effective than intranasal midazolam in reducing preoperative anxiety in children. No statistically significant difference was detected between intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam, but studies may have been underpowered to detect clinically important differences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD420251234972.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Anesthesiology
Published
2026-05-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-026-03845-5
Primary Topic
Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative safety and sedation effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for preoperative anxiety reduction in pediatric surgical patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Mohamed Gafar Abdelrahim, Eman Shaban, Ali Elkandow, Ahmed Shaban et al.
BMC Anesthesiology
Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
article

Comparative safety and sedation effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for preoperative anxiety reduction in pediatric surgical patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Mohamed Gafar Abdelrahim, Eman Shaban, Ali Elkandow, Ahmed Shaban, Amira Shaban, Mohamed F. Abosamak, Hussam Elmelliti, Mohamed Ezzat Jawad, Hany A. Zaki
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Relieving pre-operative anxiety in children is a major concern for anesthesiologists. Midazolam has been the most commonly used sedative agent due to its long history of efficacy. However, it has been associated with complications, such as agitation, cognitive impairment, amnesia, and respiratory depression. For these reasons, other drugs, such as dexmedetomidine, have been explored as safe and effective alternatives in children undergoing surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine as compared to intranasal or oral midazolam in reducing preoperative anxiety in pediatric surgical patients. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant articles published from inception to January 2026. The search was limited to articles written in English and involved keywords and MeSH terms related to midazolam, dexmedetomidine, surgery, and children. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials with 1475 pediatric surgical patients were included. The pooled analysis revealed that intranasal dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly lower anxiety scores at or before induction (SMD: -1.10; 95% CI: -1.68 to -0.53; p = 0.0002), parental separation anxiety (SMD: -0.56; 95% CI: -0.99 to -0.12; p = 0.01), and mean heart rate (HR) (MD: -6.60 beats/min; 95% CI: -10.56 to -2.64; p = 0.001) compared to intranasal midazolam. However, intranasal dexmedetomidine was comparable to oral midazolam in terms of anxiety at or before induction (MD: -7.70; 95% CI: -18.89 to 3.59; p = 0.18), parental separation anxiety (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.44 to 2.88; p = 0.80), and postoperative emergence agitation (RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.02 to 2.94; p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Intranasal dexmedetomidine is more effective than intranasal midazolam in reducing preoperative anxiety in children. No statistically significant difference was detected between intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam, but studies may have been underpowered to detect clinically important differences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD420251234972.

BMC Anesthesiology
Tanta University (EG), Mansoura University Hospital (EG), National Center for Cancer Care and Research (QA), Hamad Medical Corporation (QA), Qatar University (QA)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.