K-Z Chen1, M Ye, C-B Hu, X Shen. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, The Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai 200031, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine/propofol (DP)-total i.v. anaesthesia (TIVA) vs remifentanil/propofol (RP)-TIVA, both with spontaneous breathing, during airway foreign body (FB) removal in children. METHODS:Seventy-seven children undergoingrigid bronchoscopy for FB removal were randomly allocated to receive either RP-TIVA and spontaneous ventilation (Group RP, n=38) or DP-TIVA and spontaneous ventilation (Group DP, n=39). Heart rate, arterial pressure, pulse oxygen saturation (Sp(O2)), respiratory rate, end-tidal CO2 (E'(CO2)), and induction time were recorded. Adverse events, the intervention for these events, and postoperative care duration were also assessed. RESULTS: The mean induction times were comparable between the two groups (Group RP 12.2 min vs Group DP 13.1 min, P>0.05). At the end of the procedure, the mean (E'(CO2)) was higher in Group RP (Group RP 6.8 kPa vs Group DP 5.8 kPa, P<0.001), and respiratory rate was lower in Group RP (Group RP 20.4 vs Group DP 35.8, P<0.001). Additionally, the perioperative haemodynamic profile was more stable in Group DP than that in Group RP. The incidence rate of breath-holding and intervention were comparable between the two groups. In the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU), no hypoxaemia was observed, and emergence time increased in Group DP (Group DP 65.1 min vs Group RP 23.8 min, P<0.0001). The incidence of cough in PACU was higher in Group RP (Group RP 55.3% vs Group DP 10.3%, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with RP-TIVA, DP-TIVA provided more stable respiratory and haemodynamic profiles, but required a longer recovery time. Clinical trial registration China Clinical Research Information Service, ChiCTR-TRC-13003018.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine/propofol (DP)-total i.v. anaesthesia (TIVA) vs remifentanil/propofol (RP)-TIVA, both with spontaneous breathing, during airway foreign body (FB) removal in children. METHODS: Seventy-seven children undergoing rigid bronchoscopy for FB removal were randomly allocated to receive either RP-TIVA and spontaneous ventilation (Group RP, n=38) or DP-TIVA and spontaneous ventilation (Group DP, n=39). Heart rate, arterial pressure, pulse oxygen saturation (Sp(O2)), respiratory rate, end-tidal CO2 (E'(CO2)), and induction time were recorded. Adverse events, the intervention for these events, and postoperative care duration were also assessed. RESULTS: The mean induction times were comparable between the two groups (Group RP 12.2 min vs Group DP 13.1 min, P>0.05). At the end of the procedure, the mean (E'(CO2)) was higher in Group RP (Group RP 6.8 kPa vs Group DP 5.8 kPa, P<0.001), and respiratory rate was lower in Group RP (Group RP 20.4 vs Group DP 35.8, P<0.001). Additionally, the perioperative haemodynamic profile was more stable in Group DP than that in Group RP. The incidence rate of breath-holding and intervention were comparable between the two groups. In the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU), no hypoxaemia was observed, and emergence time increased in Group DP (Group DP 65.1 min vs Group RP 23.8 min, P<0.0001). The incidence of cough in PACU was higher in Group RP (Group RP 55.3% vs Group DP 10.3%, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with RP-TIVA, DP-TIVA provided more stable respiratory and haemodynamic profiles, but required a longer recovery time. Clinical trial registration China Clinical Research Information Service, ChiCTR-TRC-13003018.