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
  • [11] INTRAVENOUS SEDATION FOR MR IMAGING OF THE BRAIN AND SPINE IN CHILDREN - PENTOBARBITAL VERSUS PROPOFOL
    BLOOMFIELD, EL
    MASARYK, TJ
    CAPLIN, A
    OBUCHOWSKI, NA
    SCHUBERT, A
    HAYDEN, J
    EBRAHIM, ZY
    RUGGIERI, PM
    GOSKE, MJ
    ROSS, JS
    RADIOLOGY, 1993, 186 (01) : 93 - 97
  • [12] A randomized trial evaluating low doses of propofol infusion after intravenous ketamine for ambulatory pediatric magnetic resonance imaging
    Sethi, Divya
    Gupta, Madhu
    Subramanian, Shalini
    SAUDI JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2014, 8 (04) : 510 - 516
  • [13] Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
    Pertzov, Barak
    Krasulya, Boris
    Azem, Karam
    Shostak, Yael
    Izhakian, Shimon
    Rosengarten, Dror
    Kharchenko, Svetlana
    Kramer, Mordechai R.
    BMC PULMONARY MEDICINE, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [14] A comparison of the use of propofol alone and propofol with midazolam for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging sedation - a retrospective cohort study
    Kang, RyungA
    Shin, Young Hee
    Gil, Nam-Su
    Kim, Ki Yoon
    Yeo, Hyean
    Jeong, Ji Seon
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2017, 17
  • [15] Deep sedation with midazolam and propofol in children undergoing ambulatory magnetic resonance imaging of the brain
    Jevdjic, Jasna
    Surbatovic, Maja
    Drakulic-Miletic, Svetlana
    Zunic, Filip
    VOJNOSANITETSKI PREGLED, 2011, 68 (10) : 842 - 845
  • [16] A Randomized Controlled Trial of Ketamine/Propofol Versus Propofol Alone for Emergency Department Procedural Sedation
    David, Henry
    Shipp, Joseph
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2011, 57 (05) : 435 - 441
  • [17] 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
  • [18] Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
    Barak Pertzov
    Boris Krasulya
    Karam Azem
    Yael Shostak
    Shimon Izhakian
    Dror Rosengarten
    Svetlana kharchenko
    Mordechai R. Kramer
    BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 22
  • [19] Comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol as sedatives for pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis
    Tang, Yong
    Meng, Juan
    Zhang, Xinxian
    Li, Jiong
    Zhou, Qiang
    EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE, 2019, 18 (03) : 1775 - 1785
  • [20] Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
    Cuiabano, Igor Seror
    Garbin, Priscila de Miranda
    Modolo, Norma Sueli Pinheiro
    do Nascimento Junior, Paulo
    BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2023, 73 (06): : 751 - 757