OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl for sedation in mechanically ventilated premature neonates. METHODS This was a retrospective, observational case-control study in a level III neonatal intensive care unit. Forty-eight premature neonates requiring mechanical ventilation were included. Patients received fentanyl (n=24) or dexmedetomidine (n=24) for pain or sedation. Each group also received fentanyl and lorazepam boluses as needed for agitation. The primary outcomes were efficacy and frequency of acute adverse events associated with each drug. Days on mechanical ventilation, stooling patterns, feeding tolerance, and neurologic outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS There were no significant differences in baseline demographics between the dexmedetomidine and fentanyl patients. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group required less adjunctive sedation and had more days free of additional sedation in comparison to fentanyl (54.1% vs. 16.5%, p<0.0001). There were no differences in hemodynamic parameters between the 2 groups. Duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (14.4 vs. 28.4 days, p<0.001). Meconium passage (7.5 vs. 22.4 days, p<0.0002) and time from initiation to achievement of full enteral feeds (26.8 vs. 50.8 days, p<0.0001) were shorter in the dexmedetomidine group. Incidence of culture-positive sepsis was lower in the dexmedetomidine group (48% vs. 88%). The incidence of either severe intraventricular hemorrhage or periventricular leukomalacia was not statistically significantly reduced (2% vs. 7%). CONCLUSIONS Dexmedetomidine was safe and effective for sedation in the premature neonates included in this study. Prospective randomized-controlled trials are needed before routine use of dexmedetomidine can be recommended.

Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in neonates. Therapeutic hypothermia reduces the risk of death or disability. Providing optimal sedation while neonates are undergoing therapeutic hypothermia is likely beneficial but may present therapeutic challenges. There are limited data describing the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and short-term safety of dexmedetomidine infusion for sedation in term neonates undergoing therapeutic hypothermia for HIE.

Dexmedetomidine was an effective sedative and analgesic in a 24-week gestational age neonate treated for refractory agitation while on mechanical ventilation. Based on its documented efficacy for pain and sedation and its favorable adverse effect profile, dexmedetomidine warrants further study as first-line or adjunct therapy with narcotics for sedation in ventilated newborns.

Summary What is known and objective The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) created enteral device specifications to reduce tubing misconnections. The Global Enteral Device Supplier Association (GEDSA) supports a female design: standard and low dose tip (LDT). Concerns include increased complexity of use with adapters, dosing accuracy and workflow. No peer‐reviewed studies have evaluated dosing accuracy of the complete female system with adapters. The objective of this study was to compare dosing accuracy of the female design to legacy syringes. Methods An in vitro study was conducted at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy pharmaceutics laboratory. Assessments were completed for syringe size, dispense methods and volumes, and adapters when applicable. A gravimetric scale and specific gravity were used to calculate administration volumes. The primary outcome was frequency administration volume exceeded 10% expected amount. Results and discussion A total of 576 tests were performed. The LDT resulted in significantly higher rates of unacceptable dosing variance compared to legacy (21.2% vs 7.4%, P = 0.003). Variance exceeding 10% occurred more frequently with LDT 0.5 and 1 mL syringes, medication cup dispensing (liquid or tablet) and inappropriate LDT adapter use. Unapproved adapter processes compared to FDA‐approved processes held a higher likelihood of unacceptable dosing variance (28% vs 7.4%, P < 0.001). FDA‐approved use of adapters with prefilled syringes compared to bedside administration may result in higher rates of dosing inaccuracy (18.8% vs 5.6%, P = 0.06). What is new and conclusions This study raises clinical concerns of dosing inaccuracies with the LDT syringes, particularly with 0.5 and 1 mL sizes. The use of adapters significantly increases the opportunity for inaccurate dosing.