Comparing the efficacy and safety between propofol and dexmedetomidine for sedation in claustrophobic adults undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (PADAM trial)

被引:15
|
作者
Loh, Pui-San [1 ]
Ariffin, Mohd Azlan [1 ]
Rai, Vineya [1 ]
Lai, Lee-Lee [2 ]
Chan, Lucy [1 ]
Ramli, Norlisah [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Malaya, Dept Anesthesiol, Fac Med, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
[2] Univ Malaya, Dept Nursing Sci, Fac Med, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
[3] Univ Malaya, Dept Biomed Imaging, Res Imaging Ctr, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
关键词
Sedation; Claustrophobia; Propofol; Dexmedetomidine; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); ANXIETY; REDUCTION; MIDAZOLAM; CHILDREN; MRI;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.03.074
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Study Objective: To determine the efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine compared to propofol for claustrophobic adults undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in our institution. Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blinded study. Setting: University-based tertiary referral center. Patients: Thirty claustrophobic adults with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II who were planned for MRI. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to target-controlled infusion propofol or dexmedetomidine loading followed by maintenance dose for procedural sedation. Measurements and Main Results: The primary end point was adequate reduction in patient anxiety levels to allow successful completion of the MRI sequence. Both methods of sedation adequately reduced anxiety levels in visual analog scale scores and Spielberger Strait Test Anxiety Inventory (P <.001). Dexmedetomidine required a longer time to achieve anxiolysis, 7.36 minutes (SD, 2.59), and required increasing maintenance dose to induce sleep compared to 10.71 minutes (SD, 4.63) for propofol. In terms of image quality, 2 patients (16.67%) in the dexmedetomidine group were satisfactory, whereas all with propofol were graded as good to excellent. Adverse effects were seen in patients sedated with dexmedetomidine with number needed to harm 8 for hypotension and 15 for bradycardia compared to none recorded in the propofol arm. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction scores or home readiness after the MRI. Conclusions: Both dexmedetomidine and propofol can effectively reduce anxiety levels of claustrophobic adults undergoing MRI, but dexmedetomidine takes longer to achieve adequate anxiolysis and sleep and may have an effect on image quality. Hypotension and bradycardia are common adverse effects observed with dexmedetomidine. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:216 / 222
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of effects of dexmedetomidine with ketofol and ketofol alone on quality of sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A prospective randomized controlled double-blind trial
    Chakravarty, Reena
    Goyal, Neha
    Kumar, Rakesh
    Mohammed, Sadik
    Kamal, Manoj
    Chhabra, Swati
    Bhatia, Pradeep
    SAUDI JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2024, 18 (04) : 521 - 527
  • [22] Effect of esketamine vs dexmedetomidine adjunct to propofol sedation for pediatric 3Tesla magnetic resonance imaging: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial
    Xu, Shang-xian
    Shan, Xi-sheng
    Gao, Jin-meng
    Liu, Hua-xian
    Chen, Wei-rong
    Gao, Shan-shan
    Ji, Fu-hai
    Peng, Ke
    Wang, Qian
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 27 (01)
  • [23] Propofol-based sedation regimen for infants and children undergoing ambulatory magnetic resonance imaging
    Machata, A. -M.
    Willschke, H.
    Kabon, B.
    Kettner, S. C.
    Marhofer, P.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2008, 101 (02) : 239 - 243
  • [24] Efficacy and safety of rectal thiopental:: Sedation for children undergoing computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging
    Alp, H
    Güler, I
    Orbak, Z
    Karakelleoglu, C
    Tan, HS
    Eren, S
    PEDIATRICS INTERNATIONAL, 1999, 41 (05) : 538 - 541
  • [25] Combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intravenous esketamine for the sedation of pediatric patients undergoing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging
    Diao, Min
    Zhou, Jieshu
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2024, 47 (08) : 3543 - 3545
  • [26] Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis
    Liu, Weihua
    Yu, Wenli
    Yu, Hongli
    Sheng, Mingwei
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2021, 49 (07)
  • [27] A comparative study of dexmedetomidine and propofol to prevent recovery agitation in adults undergoing procedural sedation with ketamine: A randomized double-blind clinical trial
    Azizkhani, Reza
    Kouhestani, Soheila
    Heydari, Farhad
    Majidinejad, Saeed
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2021, 50 : 167 - 172
  • [28] Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols with the use of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects: a randomized clinical trial
    Chen, Xiao-Lan
    Huang, Wen-Hui
    Zheng, Yi-Han
    Zhang, Gui-Can
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY, 2022, 17 (01)
  • [29] Randomized controlled trial for intermittent versus continuous propofol sedation for pediatric brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging studies
    Hassan, Nabil E.
    Betz, Bradford W.
    Cole, Morgan R.
    Wincek, Jeni
    Reischman, Diann
    Sanfilippo, Dominic J.
    Winterhalter-Rzeszutko, Kim M.
    Kopec, John S.
    PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2011, 12 (06) : E262 - E265
  • [30] Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection
    Kim, Namo
    Yoo, Young-Chul
    Lee, Sang Kil
    Kim, Hyunzu
    Ju, Hyang Mi
    Min, Kyeong Tae
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2015, 21 (12) : 3671 - 3678