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
  • [31] Dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation with colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study
    Kinugasa, Hideaki
    Higashi, Reiji
    Miyahara, Koji
    Moritou, Yuki
    Hirao, Ken
    Ogawa, Tsuneyoshi
    Kunihiro, Masaki
    Nakagawa, Masahiro
    CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 9
  • [32] Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine as premedication for procedural sedation in children undergoing MRI: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
    Prakhar Gyanesh
    Rudrashish Haldar
    Divya Srivastava
    Prashant Mohan Agrawal
    Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari
    P. K. Singh
    Journal of Anesthesia, 2014, 28 : 12 - 18
  • [33] Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine as premedication for procedural sedation in children undergoing MRI: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
    Gyanesh, Prakhar
    Haldar, Rudrashish
    Srivastava, Divya
    Agrawal, Prashant Mohan
    Tiwari, Akhilesh Kumar
    Singh, P. K.
    JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA, 2014, 28 (01) : 12 - 18
  • [34] Comparison of the haemodynamic changes and adverse effects of two different concentrations of ketofol in paediatric oncology patients undergoing procedural sedation: A randomized study
    Ohagwu, Ijeoma
    Adesida, Adeniyi
    Asiyanbi, Gabriel
    Olatosi, John
    Adekola, Oyebola
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 20 (04) : 111 - 117
  • [36] 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
  • [37] Comparison of bupivacaine plus intrathecal fentanyl and bupivacaine alone for spinal anesthesia with intravenous dexmedetomidine sedation: a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial
    Park, Sun-Kyung
    Lee, Joon Hee
    Yoo, Seokha
    Kim, Won Ho
    Lim, Young-Jin
    Bahk, Jae-Hyon
    Kim, Jin-Tae
    REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2019, 44 (04) : 459 - 465
  • [38] Assessment of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Double-Blinded Comparison of Propofol and Ketofol Anesthesia
    Demir, M.
    Balkiz Soyal, O.
    Aytac, B. G.
    NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2024, 27 (01) : 22 - 28
  • [39] Effects of etomidate combined with dexmedetomidine on adrenocortical function in elderly patients: a double-blind randomized controlled trial
    Fangjun Wang
    Zheng Yang
    Sisi Zeng
    Luyue Gao
    Jiabei Li
    Na Wang
    Scientific Reports, 12
  • [40] Comparison of oral midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication for children undergoing CT imaging: a randomized, double-blind, and controlled study
    Ghai, Babita
    Jain, Kajal
    Saxena, Akshay Kumar
    Bhatia, Nidhi
    Sodhi, Kushaljit Singh
    PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2017, 27 (01) : 37 - 44