2025/09/14 by Po‐Ni Hsiao, Hsing‐Hao Huang, Ming‐Hui Hung · 1 voice · 1 citation
Medicine · Neuroscience · #Anesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research #Anesthesia and Sedative Agents #Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/anae.16784
openalex publication_date 2025/09/14 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/15
We commend Wang et al. for their trial which found a near 50% reduction in postoperative emergence agitation with dexmedetomidine nasal spray [1]. However, we contend that the ‘one-size-fits-all’ design of the study, which homogenises both the anaesthetic and surgical context, limits the clinical applicability of its findings significantly and likely overestimates the true effect size of the intervention in contemporary practice. The study used a sevoflurane-based anaesthetic, which is known to have a higher baseline incidence of emergence agitation and likely inflates the reported absolute risk reduction. Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is often used for high-risk cases precisely because it mitigates this risk [2]. The crucial question of the additional benefit of dexmedetomidine on top of a TIVA regimen, where the baseline emergence agitation risk is already low, remains unanswered. Consequently, the reported number needed to treat of 4.6 may be a significant overestimation of ‘real-world’ utility. In addition, statistical significance should be interpreted with care; a fragility index of 5, as described by Walsh et al. [3], indicates that the result could change based on the outcomes of only a few patients, which suggests the importance of validating these findings in trials with broader context. Grouping heterogeneous ear, nose and throat surgeries hides the key, procedure-specific advantages of the drug beyond anaesthetic selection. The main benefit of intranasal dexmedetomidine may lie in improving the surgical field through local vasoconstriction, rather than preventing emergence agitation [4]. Tonsillectomy aims not just to ensure patient comfort but also to prevent serious postoperative bleeding caused by haemodynamic stress during agitated emergence. This study, however, was underpowered to assess this critical safety endpoint. In summary, the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine varies depending on the anaesthetic used and the specific surgical procedure. Future research must, therefore, shift from a universal question of ‘does it work?’ to more precise, context-specific inquiries. Rather than focusing on transient emergence agitation in a relatively low-risk population, the field should prioritise investigating the potential of dexmedetomidine in preventing more pernicious outcomes like postoperative delirium in older patients, an area where it has already shown significant promise [5]. While Wang et al. have investigated a non-parenteral delivery method admirably, the crucial work of defining its precise role within modern, context-aware anaesthesia has only just begun.