INTRODUCTION: In pediatric patients, flexible bronchoscopy requires deep sedation. Different sedation regimes are common, but only some of them include opioids. Due to their antitussive effect, the use of short-acting opioids may be beneficial for this particular indication, but additional respiratory depression may lead to an increase in adverse events. Here, we systematically compared sedation regimes in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with eitherpropofol alone, or a combination of propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome parameter was the frequency of coughing episodes during the intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were frequency and types of complications, patient satisfaction, examiner satisfaction, and recovery time after finishing the sedation. METHODS:Fifty children aged 1-17 years undergoing flexible bronchoscopy under deep sedation withpropofol were randomly assigned to two groups: PR receiving propofol and remifentanil and PP receiving propofol only. Sedation depth was predefined as Comfort Score 10-13. RESULTS: We found significantly less coughing episodes ([med (IQR)] PR: 0.73 (0.28-2.45)/min; PP: 1.98 (1.26-3.12)/min; p = .010) and shorter recovery time in Group PR (PR: 13.5 (8-17.5) min; PP: 21.0 (14-27) min; p = .011). Examiner's satisfaction was higher in Group PR (PR: 10 (8-10); PP: 9 (7-9); p = .012). The number of adverse events, patient satisfaction, and required propofol dose during the intervention did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: We suggest the combination of propofol with remifentanil instead of using propofol alone in pediatric procedural sedation for flexible bronchoscopy.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: In pediatric patients, flexible bronchoscopy requires deep sedation. Different sedation regimes are common, but only some of them include opioids. Due to their antitussive effect, the use of short-acting opioids may be beneficial for this particular indication, but additional respiratory depression may lead to an increase in adverse events. Here, we systematically compared sedation regimes in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with either propofol alone, or a combination of propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome parameter was the frequency of coughing episodes during the intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were frequency and types of complications, patient satisfaction, examiner satisfaction, and recovery time after finishing the sedation. METHODS: Fifty children aged 1-17 years undergoing flexible bronchoscopy under deep sedation with propofol were randomly assigned to two groups: PR receiving propofol and remifentanil and PP receiving propofol only. Sedation depth was predefined as Comfort Score 10-13. RESULTS: We found significantly less coughing episodes ([med (IQR)] PR: 0.73 (0.28-2.45)/min; PP: 1.98 (1.26-3.12)/min; p = .010) and shorter recovery time in Group PR (PR: 13.5 (8-17.5) min; PP: 21.0 (14-27) min; p = .011). Examiner's satisfaction was higher in Group PR (PR: 10 (8-10); PP: 9 (7-9); p = .012). The number of adverse events, patient satisfaction, and required propofol dose during the intervention did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: We suggest the combination of propofol with remifentanil instead of using propofol alone in pediatric procedural sedation for flexible bronchoscopy.