Literature DB >> 24814202

Comparison of propofol and dexmedetomedine techniques in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging.

Junzheng Wu1, Mohamed Mahmoud, Megan Schmitt, Md Hossain, Dean Kurth.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Propofol (PRO) and dexmedetomidine (DEX) are commonly used to produce anesthesia and sedation for routine MRI procedures. Children with complex conditions often require much lengthy MRI for multi-body-part scans with frequent scanner coil changes and patient body reposition. This study compared PRO and DEX techniques on outcomes for the particular MRI setting with longer than 1 h duration.
METHODS: 95 children, aged from 1 to 7 years, scheduled for MRI >75 min were randomly assigned to PRO or DEX group. After induced with sevoflurane, a loading dose of PRO (2 mg·kg(-1)) was administrated and followed by continuous infusion (200 μg·kg(-1) ·min(-1)); a loading dose of DEX (2 μg·kg(-1)) was administrated and followed by continuous infusion (2 μg·kg(-1) ·h(-1)). Patients received O(2) by nasal cannula. The observed outcomes were times for induction, MRI, emergence, and recovery, and total time (induction to discharge); MRI pauses from patient movement; incidence of technique failure and critical events; emergence and behavior in postanesthesia care unit (PACU); parental satisfaction; and arterial pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) during anesthesia.
RESULTS: PRO compared with DEX showed significantly less time for anesthesia induction (16.3 versus 24.2 min), emergence (21.2 versus 39.9 min), PACU (35.7 versus 62.5 min), and total time (135 versus 173 min) (all P < 0.001). There were significantly fewer pauses during MRI and lower failure rate to complete MRI in PRO versus DEX (0.22 versus 0.81, P = 0.01 and 1 versus 15, P < 0.001), less behavioral disturbances in PACU, and higher parental satisfaction in PRO versus DEX (P < 0.01). There were no critical events in either group: In PRO, mean BP during MRI (from 52 ± 8 to 58 ± mmHg) was significantly less than before anesthesia (80 ± 12 mmHg), while HR remained relatively constant (range of 97-103) at its baseline of 108 ± 21, but in DEX, mean BP remained unchanged (from 76 ± 12 to 78 ± 15) during anesthesia compared with before anesthesia (79 ± 14 mmHg), while HR decreased (74 ± 16 to 78 ± 15) during anesthesia from its baseline (102 ± 17).
CONCLUSION: For children undergoing lengthy multicomponent MRI, the propofol technique yielded overall better outcomes than the dexmedetomedine technique in terms of timeliness, PACU emergence characteristics, and parental satisfaction.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dexmedetomidine; magnetic resonance imaging; pediatric; propofol

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24814202     DOI: 10.1111/pan.12408

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth        ISSN: 1155-5645            Impact factor:   2.556


  16 in total

1.  Sedation With a Combination of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Pediatric Dental Surgery.

Authors:  Teppei Sago; Shunji Shiiba; Eika Ando; Kiriko Kondo; Misato Tsunakake; Sayaka Akitomi; Aya Ono; Yukari Kato; Yuki Chogyoji; Seiji Watanabe
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  2018

Review 2.  Propofol: a review of its role in pediatric anesthesia and sedation.

Authors:  Vidya Chidambaran; Andrew Costandi; Ajay D'Mello
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.749

3.  Anesthesia Practice in Pediatric Radiation Oncology: Mayo Clinic Arizona's Experience 2014-2016.

Authors:  Narjeet Khurmi; Perene Patel; Sarang Koushik; Thomas Daniels; Molly Kraus
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.022

4.  Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol: Is One Better Than the Other for MRI Sedation in Children?

Authors:  Sheikh S Ahmed; Tamara L Unland; James E Slaven; Mara E Nitu
Journal:  J Pediatr Intensive Care       Date:  2016-06-24

Review 5.  Summary of the Update Session on Clinical Neurotoxicity Studies.

Authors:  Teeda Pinyavat; David O Warner; Randall P Flick; Mary Ellen McCann; Dean B Andropoulos; Danquig Hu; Jeffrey W Sall; Marisa N Spann; Caleb Ing
Journal:  J Neurosurg Anesthesiol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.956

6.  Median effective concentration of remifentanil for the inhibition of laryngoscope-induced cardiovascular responses.

Authors:  Zhenhai Liu; Fei Wang; Weizhi Wang; Yanhua Luo
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 2.447

7.  Propofol sedation in children: sleep trumps amnesia.

Authors:  Robert Veselis; Eric Kelhoffer; Meghana Mehta; James C Root; Fay Robinson; Keira P Mason
Journal:  Sleep Med       Date:  2016-10-22       Impact factor: 3.492

Review 8.  Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hongwei Fang; Liu Yang; Xiangrui Wang; Hao Zhu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

9.  Airway Dimensions in Children with Neurological Disabilities During Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Sedation for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.

Authors:  Kamath Sriganesh; Jitender Saini; Kaushik Theerth; Sudhir Venkataramaiah
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2017-11-27

10.  Propofol versus dexmedetomidine during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Erin M Kirkham; Karen Hoi; Jonathan B Melendez; Lauren M Henderson; Aleda M Leis; Michael P Puglia; Ronald D Chervin
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 2.816

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.