Literature DB >> 21257862

Pediatric CT sedation: comparison of dexmedetomidine and pentobarbital.

Keira P Mason1, Randy Prescilla, Paulette J Fontaine, David Zurakowski.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our institution replaced pentobarbital with dexmedetomidine for pediatric CT sedation. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, incidence of adverse events, and cardiovascular and respiratory profiles of these two sedatives.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quality assurance data were accessed for a review of demographics, outcome parameters, and adverse events among all children who received either pentobarbital or dexmedetomidine.
RESULTS: From January 2004 through June 2009 there were 388 pentobarbital sedations and 1,274 dexmedetomidine sedations. Age, sex, weight, and duration of imaging study were similar in the two groups. Average time to achieve sedation was 12 ± 4 minutes with dexmedetomidine and 6 ± 3 minutes with pentobarbital (p < 0.001). Recovery time was 32 ± 18 minutes with dexmedetomidine and 95 ± 28 minutes with pentobarbital (p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups in incidence of oxygen desaturation and need for brief positive pressure ventilation. The odds of needing additional sedative agents to complete the study were significantly higher with pentobarbital than with dexmedetomidine (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.0-8.4; p < 0.001). There was a significantly lower incidence of agitation and rage with dexmedetomidine (p < 0.01) but higher risk of hypotension (p < 0.01). There was one failed sedation in each group (p = 0.99).
CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective alternative to pentobarbital for pediatric CT, being associated with a much shorter recovery time and less need for adjuvant sedatives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21257862     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  8 in total

Review 1.  Options and Considerations for Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Imaging.

Authors:  John W Berkenbosch
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.022

2.  Feasibility of measuring memory response to increasing dexmedetomidine sedation in children.

Authors:  K P Mason; E R Kelhoffer; R Prescilla; M Mehta; J C Root; V J Young; F Robinson; R A Veselis
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 3.  Sedation/anaesthesia in paediatric radiology.

Authors:  Y Arlachov; R H Ganatra
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: classification, evaluation, and management of childhood interstitial lung disease in infancy.

Authors:  Geoffrey Kurland; Robin R Deterding; James S Hagood; Lisa R Young; Alan S Brody; Robert G Castile; Sharon Dell; Leland L Fan; Aaron Hamvas; Bettina C Hilman; Claire Langston; Lawrence M Nogee; Gregory J Redding
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 21.405

5.  Paediatric sedation for imaging is safe and effective in a district general hospital.

Authors:  Mark A Bailey; Arun Saraswatula; Gemma Dale; Laura Softley
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  Non-Parenteral Medications for Procedural Sedation in Children- A Narrative: Review Article.

Authors:  Razieh Fallah; Farzad Ferdosian; Ahmad Shajari
Journal:  Iran J Child Neurol       Date:  2015

7.  Efficacy of chloral hydrate-hydroxyzine and chloral hydrate-midazolam in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging sedation.

Authors:  Razieh Fallah; Nafiseh Fadavi; Shekofah Behdad; Mahmoud Fallah Tafti
Journal:  Iran J Child Neurol       Date:  2014

8.  Dexmedetomidine compared with propofol for pediatric sedation during cerebral angiography.

Authors:  Ke Peng; Jian Li; Fu-Hai Ji; Zhi Li
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.852

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.