Achim Schmitz1,2, Markus Weiss1,2, Christian Kellenberger2,3, Ruth O'Gorman Tuura2,4, Richard Klaghofer5, Ianina Scheer2,3, Malek Makki2,4,6, Carola Sabandal1,2, Philipp Karl Buehler1,2,7. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, University Children's Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Children's Research Center, University Children's Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, University Children's Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. MRI Research Center, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. BioFlow Image, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France. 7. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Deep sedation using propofol has become a standard technique in children. This double-blinded randomized clinical trial aims to compare the clinical effects of propofol-mono-sedation vs a combination of propofol and ketamine at induction and a reduced propofol infusion rate for maintenance in children undergoing diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS:Children aged from 3 months to 10 years scheduled as outpatients for elective magnetic resonance imaging with deep sedation were included. They were randomized into 2 groups, receiving either 1 mg/kg ketamine at induction, then a propofol infusion rate of 5 mg/kg/h or a propofol infusion rate of 10 mg/kg/h without prior ketamine. Time to full recovery (modified Aldrete score = 10) was the primary outcome. Further outcomes were quality of induction, immobilization during image acquisition, recovery, postoperative nausea and vomiting, emergence delirium using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium scale, vital signs and adverse cardiorespiratory events. All patients and parents as well as anesthetists, imaging technicians, and postsedation personnel were blinded. Data are given as median (range). RESULTS: In total, 347 children aged 4.0 (0.25-10.9) years, weighing 15.6 (5.3-54) kg, ASA classification I, II, or III (141/188/18) were included. The ketamine-propofol group showed significantly shorter recovery times (38 (22-65) vs 54 (37-77) minutes; median difference 14 (95% CI: 8, 20) minutes; P < .001), better quality of induction, and higher blood pressure, but higher incidence of movement requiring additional sedative drugs. There were no significant differences in respiratory side effects, cardiovascular compromise, emergence delirium, or postoperative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Both sedation concepts proved to be reliable with a low incidence of side effects. Ketamine at induction with a reduced propofol infusion rate leads to faster postanesthetic recovery.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Deep sedation using propofol has become a standard technique in children. This double-blinded randomized clinical trial aims to compare the clinical effects of propofol-mono-sedation vs a combination of propofol and ketamine at induction and a reduced propofol infusion rate for maintenance in children undergoing diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS:Children aged from 3 months to 10 years scheduled as outpatients for elective magnetic resonance imaging with deep sedation were included. They were randomized into 2 groups, receiving either 1 mg/kg ketamine at induction, then a propofol infusion rate of 5 mg/kg/h or a propofol infusion rate of 10 mg/kg/h without prior ketamine. Time to full recovery (modified Aldrete score = 10) was the primary outcome. Further outcomes were quality of induction, immobilization during image acquisition, recovery, postoperative nausea and vomiting, emergence delirium using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium scale, vital signs and adverse cardiorespiratory events. All patients and parents as well as anesthetists, imaging technicians, and postsedation personnel were blinded. Data are given as median (range). RESULTS: In total, 347 children aged 4.0 (0.25-10.9) years, weighing 15.6 (5.3-54) kg, ASA classification I, II, or III (141/188/18) were included. The ketamine-propofol group showed significantly shorter recovery times (38 (22-65) vs 54 (37-77) minutes; median difference 14 (95% CI: 8, 20) minutes; P < .001), better quality of induction, and higher blood pressure, but higher incidence of movement requiring additional sedative drugs. There were no significant differences in respiratory side effects, cardiovascular compromise, emergence delirium, or postoperative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Both sedation concepts proved to be reliable with a low incidence of side effects. Ketamine at induction with a reduced propofol infusion rate leads to faster postanesthetic recovery.
Authors: Sung Min Yang; Dae Yong Yi; Geun Joo Choi; In Seok Lim; Soo Ahn Chae; Sin Weon Yun; Na Mi Lee; Su Yeong Kim; Eung Sang Choi Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Bo Li; Ruidong Zhang; Yue Huang; Kan Zhang; Chun Yin Wat; Jie Bai; Mazhong Zhang; Jijian Zheng Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Tze Yong Foo; Norhayati Mohd Noor; Mohd Boniami Yazid; Mohd Hashairi Fauzi; Shaik Farid Abdull Wahab; Mohammad Zikri Ahmad Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2020-10-08
Authors: Hacı Semih Gürcan; Ayşe Ülgey; Özlem Öz Gergin; Sibel Seçkin Pehlivan; Karamehmet Yıldız Journal: Turk J Med Sci Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 0.973