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

被引:0
|
作者
Chakravarty, Reena [1 ]
Goyal, Neha [1 ]
Kumar, Rakesh [1 ]
Mohammed, Sadik [1 ]
Kamal, Manoj [1 ]
Chhabra, Swati [1 ]
Bhatia, Pradeep [1 ]
机构
[1] All India Inst Med Sci, Dept Anaesthesiol & Crit Care, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
关键词
Conscious sedation; dexmedetomidine; ketofol; magnetic resonance imaging; sedation; PROCEDURAL SEDATION; PROPOFOL; CHILDREN; KETAMINE; COMBINATION; ANALGESIA;
D O I
10.4103/sja.sja_327_24
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background and Aim: Patient movement during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most frequent cause of artifacts and poor scan quality. Children cannot lie still. Thus, anesthesia is required to keep the child calm and immobile. This randomized double-blinded clinical trial compares the clinical effects of the addition of dexmedetomidine as premedication with ketofol on the quality of sedation. We hypothesized that the addition of dexmedetomidine would improve the quality of sedation. Methods: A total of 132 children aged 6 months to 10 years were randomized into groups DK (dexmedetomidine-ketofol) and K (ketofol). DK received an intravenous bolus of dexmedetomidine (0.5 mcg/kg) as premedication 10 minutes prior. Both the groups were induced with ketofol (0.5 mg/kg), and sedation was maintained with propfol infusion (100 mcg/kg/min). The primary objective was the quality of sedation as assessed by the University of Michigan Sedation Scale. Image quality, requirement of rescue propofol dose, recovery, and adverse events were also studied. Data are given as median [interquartile range (IQR)] or frequency. Results: All 132 children completed MRI scans. The DK group showed significantly better quality of sedation, 71% versus 47% of children, a median difference of 1 (-0.569 to -0.0969), P < .005, a better quality of scan, a reduced number of additional doses of propofol, and a decreased total dose of propofol. Hemodynamic parameters and recovery times for the two groups were similar. There were no significant side effects in both groups. Conclusion: The quality of sedation and the quality of the MRI scan are greatly improved by administering dexmedetomidine (0.5 mcg/kg) 10 minutes before to induction. Additionally, this technique decreases the need of propofol and gives better hemodynamic stability without delaying the recovery time.
引用
收藏
页码:521 / 527
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial
    Olivia Nzungu Wabelo
    Denis Schmartz
    Mario Giancursio
    Françoise De Pooter
    Giulia Caruso
    Jean-François Fils
    Philippe Van der Linden
    Trials, 24
  • [22] Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial
    Wabelo, Olivia Nzungu
    Schmartz, Denis
    Giancursio, Mario
    De Pooter, Francoise
    Caruso, Giulia
    Fils, Jean-Francois
    Van der Linden, Philippe
    TRIALS, 2023, 24 (01)
  • [23] Comparison of Intraoperative Propofol-Dexmedetomidine and Ketofol-Dexmedetomidine Infusions on Recovery from Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Thappa, Priya
    Reddy, Ashwini
    Panda, Nidhi
    Luthra, Ankur
    Chauhan, Rajeev
    Mahajan, Shalvi
    Bhagat, Hemant
    Jangra, Kiran
    Soni, Shiv Lal
    Kaloria, Narender
    Barik, Amiya Kumar
    Chhabra, Rajesh
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2025, 195
  • [24] A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Using Propofol or Dexmedetomidine for Conscious Sedation in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Sclerotherapy
    Chauhan, Rajeev
    Luthra, Ankur
    Sethi, Sameer
    Panda, Nidhi
    Meena, Shyam Charan
    Bhatia, Vikas
    Bloria, Summit D.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC NEUROSCIENCES, 2020, 15 (04) : 379 - 385
  • [25] Pediatric premedication: a double-blind randomized trial of dexmedetomidine or ketamine alone versus a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine
    Qiao, Hui
    Xie, Zhi
    Jia, Jie
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2017, 17
  • [26] Pediatric premedication: a double-blind randomized trial of dexmedetomidine or ketamine alone versus a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine
    Hui Qiao
    Zhi Xie
    Jie Jia
    BMC Anesthesiology, 17
  • [27] A double-blind randomized comparison of midazolam alone and midazolam combined with ketamine for sedation of pediatric dental patients
    Roelofse, JA
    Joubert, JJD
    Roelofse, PGR
    JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1996, 54 (07) : 838 - 844
  • [28] DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF MIDAZOLAM ALONE AND MIDAZOLAM COMBINED WITH KETAMINE FOR SEDATION OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL PATIENTS
    ROELOFSE, JA
    JOUBERT, JJD
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1995, 74 : 4 - 4
  • [29] Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine and Oral Pentobarbital Sedation for Transthoracic Echocardiography in Infants and Toddlers: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial
    Miller, Jeffrey W.
    Ding, Lili
    Gunter, Joel B.
    Lam, Jennifer E.
    Lin, Erica P.
    Paquin, Joanna R.
    Li, Bi Lian
    Spaeth, James P.
    Kreeger, Renee N.
    Divanovic, Allison
    Mahmoud, Mohamed
    Loepke, Andreas W.
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2018, 126 (06): : 2009 - 2016
  • [30] A randomized, double-blind, dose-controlled study of the use of dexmedetomidine alone for procedural sedation of children and adolescents undergoing MRI scans
    Khan, Umar
    Hammer, Gregory B.
    Duncan-Azadi, Cassandra
    Suzuki, Yasuyuki
    Chiles, Deborah
    Chime, Sunring
    Chappell, Phillip
    PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2024, 34 (05) : 405 - 414