Randomized controlled trial for intermittent versus continuous propofol sedation for pediatric brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging studies

被引:9
|
作者
Hassan, Nabil E. [1 ]
Betz, Bradford W. [1 ]
Cole, Morgan R. [1 ]
Wincek, Jeni [1 ]
Reischman, Diann [1 ]
Sanfilippo, Dominic J. [1 ]
Winterhalter-Rzeszutko, Kim M. [1 ]
Kopec, John S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Helen DeVos Childrens Hosp, Div Pediat Crit Care & Sedat Serv, Grand Rapids, MI USA
关键词
propofol; pediatric; sedation; magnetic resonance imaging; continuous propofol infusion; CHILDREN; ANESTHESIA; INFANTS;
D O I
10.1097/PCC.0b013e31820ab881
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Objectives: Intermittent bolus propofol is an effective agent for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging sedation but requires constant vigilance and dose titration. Magnetic resonance imaging-compatible infusion pumps may make it possible to continuously infuse propofol, achieving a steady level of sedation at a lower total dose. This study investigates total propofol dose, recovery time, and magnetic resonance image quality in children receiving intermittent vs. continuously infused propofol sedation in children undergoing brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging studies. Design: An open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled study. A single-blinded radiologist rated the quality of magnetic resonance images. Setting: Children's hospital pediatric radiology sedation center. Patients: One hundred seventy children age 1 month to 18 yrs undergoing deep sedation for brain, spine, or both brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging. Interventions: After informed consent, patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 (intermittent) received a propofol bolus of 2-4 mg/kg, followed by repeat boluses of 0.5-2 mg/kg/dose as needed. Group C (continuous) received a bolus of propofol 2-4 mg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of 100 mu g/kg/min with 1-mg/kg/dose boluses with drip titration to effect. Measurements and Main Results: Patient demographics, sedation risk assessment, propofol dose, sedation recovery times, incidence of complications, and quality of the magnetic resonance imaging studies were measured. A total of 170 children were enrolled in the study, with 75 in group C and 95 in group I. Both groups were similar with regard to age, weight, gender, and magnetic resonance imaging study type. Group C required a lesser dose of propofol (132 +/- 54 mu g/kg/min) compared to (162 +/- 74 mu g/kg/min) in that required in group I (p = .018). There were no differences between the two groups with regard to quality of the imaging study, recovery time, or incidence of complications. Conclusions: Compared to intermittent bolus dosing, continuous propofol infusion provides lesser dose exposure without impacting recovery time or quality of the magnetic resonance imaging study. (Pediatr Crit Care Med 2011; 12:e262-e265)
引用
收藏
页码:E262 / E265
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Intermittent Versus Continuous and Intermittent Medications for Pain and Sedation After Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery; A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Penk, Jamie S.
    Lefaiver, Cheryl A.
    Brady, Colleen M.
    Steffensen, Christine M.
    Wittmayer, Kimberly
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2018, 46 (01) : 123 - 129
  • [2] Propofol versus Fentanyl for Sedation in Pediatric Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Gunathilaka, P. K. G.
    Jat, Kana Ram
    Sankar, Jhuma
    Lodha, Rakesh
    Kabra, S. K.
    INDIAN PEDIATRICS, 2019, 56 (12) : 1011 - 1016
  • [3] Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: A prospective randomized trial
    Riphaus, Andrea
    Geist, Christoph
    Schrader, Kerstin
    Martchenko, Ksenia
    Wehrmann, Till
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2012, 47 (8-9) : 1078 - 1085
  • [4] 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)
  • [5] Comparison of airway collapsibility following single induction dose ketamine with propofol versus propofol sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A randomised controlled study
    Bhardwaj, Pooja
    Panneerselvam, Sakthirajan
    Rudingwa, Priya
    Govindaraj, Kirthiha
    Prakash, M. V. S. Satya
    Badhe, Ashok S.
    Nagarajan, Krishnan
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2024, 68 (02) : 189 - 195
  • [6] Evaluation of the Efficacy of Propofol-Magnesium Sulfate Combination for Sedation in Paediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Brain.- a Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Lomate, Prashant Atmaram
    Kumbhar, Ganesh Mallappa
    Paranjpe, Jyotsna Satish
    SRI LANKAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2022, 30 (01): : 46 - 51
  • [7] Dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the sedation of pediatric patients during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning: a meta-analysis of current studies
    Zhou, Qiang
    Shen, Lingli
    Zhang, Xinxian
    Li, Jiong
    Tang, Yong
    ONCOTARGET, 2017, 8 (60) : 102468 - 102473
  • [8] Propofol vs pentobarbital for sedation of children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: results from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium
    Mallory, Michael D.
    Baxter, Amy L.
    Kost, Susanne I.
    PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2009, 19 (06) : 601 - 611
  • [9] Thiopental versus ketofol in paediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging: A randomized trial
    Ustun, Yasemin Burcu
    Atalay, Yunus Oktay
    Koksal, Ersin
    Kaya, Cengiz
    Ozkan, Fatih
    Sener, Elif Bengi
    Polat, Ahmet Veysel
    JOURNAL OF THE PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2017, 67 (02) : 247 - 251
  • [10] A retrospective comparison of propofol to dexmedetomidine for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging sedation in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type II
    Kang, RyungA
    Shin, Young Hee
    Gil, Nam-Su
    Oh, Ye Na
    Hahm, Tae Soo
    Jeong, Ji Seon
    PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2018, 28 (12) : 1116 - 1122