Dexmedetomidine-ketamine and midazolam-ketamine combinations for sedation in pediatric patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized prospective study

被引:32
|
作者
Koruk, Senem [1 ]
Mizrak, Ayse [1 ]
Gul, Rauf [1 ]
Kilic, Ertugrul [1 ]
Yendi, Fatih [1 ]
Oner, Unsal [1 ]
机构
[1] Gaziantep Univ, Sch Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, TR-27310 Sehitkamil, Gaziantep, Turkey
关键词
Dexmedetomidine; Sedation; ESWL; Pediatrics; TERM FOLLOW-UP; CARDIAC-CATHETERIZATION; CHILDREN; PROPOFOL; HUMANS; ANESTHESIA; PHARMACOKINETICS; VOLUNTEERS; ANALGESIA; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1007/s00540-010-1023-1
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) requires sedation in pediatric patients. Dexmedetomidine is a relatively new agent used for sedation. The aim of this randomized prospective study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine-ketamine and midazolam-ketamine combinations on the recovery time, hemodynamic and respiratory variables, and side effects in pediatric patients undergoing ESWL. Fifty pediatric patients aged between 2 and 15 years who were scheduled for elective ESWL were randomized into two groups. In Group D we applied dexmedetomidine at1 mu g/kg, given over 10 min, and a bolus of 1 mg/kg ketamine for sedation. In Group M we applied midazolam at a 0.05 mg/kg bolus dose 10 min before the procedure and a 1 mg/kg bolus of ketamine. We measured and monitored the hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, and recovery time, and we also monitored the side effects. Four patients in group D refused to complete the study; 21 patients in group D and 25 patients in group M completed the study. We found the recovery time [eye-opening time (9.3 +/- A 4.5 vs. 16.2 +/- A 6.5 min; p < 0.001), verbal response time (12.8 +/- A 4.9 vs. 19.2 +/- A 7.2 min; p < 0.001), and the cooperation time (17.1 +/- A 5.0 vs. 23.3 +/- A 7.7 min; p < 0.001)] to be shorter in the dexmedetomidine group. Also, the heart rate values were lower in the dexmedetomidine group at the 20th minute of the procedure (99.1 +/- A 19.0 vs. 118.7 +/- A 7.3 beats/min; p = 0.016). In this study we found the recovery time to be shorter, with hemodynamic stability, in the dexmedetomidine group, compared with the midazolam group. So we can conclude that dexmedetomidine may be a good and safe alternative agent for sedation, with a shorter recovery period than midazolam, in the pediatric population.
引用
收藏
页码:858 / 863
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Remifentanil-ketamine vs. propofol-ketamine for sedation in pediatric patients undergoing colonoscopy: A randomized clinical trial
    Karacaer, Feride
    Biricik, Ebru
    Ilginel, Murat
    Kucukbingoz, Cagatay
    Agin, Mehmet
    Tumgor, Gokhan
    Gunes, Yasemin
    Ozcengiz, Dilek
    [J]. REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA, 2018, 68 (06): : 597 - 604
  • [42] Comparison of the Effects of Midazolam-Ketamine or Midazolam-Propofol Combinations on Hemodynamic Stability, Patient Comfort, and Post-anesthesia Recovery in Children Undergoing Sedation for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Procedures
    Uludag, Oznur
    Dogukan, Mevlut
    Kaya, Recai
    Tutak, Atilla
    Dumlupinar, Ebru
    [J]. AIN SHAMS JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2020, 12 (01)
  • [43] A comparison of ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations used for sedation in the endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a prospective, single-blind, randomized study
    Dal, Tulay
    Sazak, Hilal
    Tunc, Mehtap
    Sahin, Saziye
    Yilmaz, Aydin
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2014, 6 (06) : 742 - 751
  • [44] Comparison of the Effects of Midazolam-Ketamine or Midazolam-Propofol Combinations on Hemodynamic Stability, Patient Comfort, and Post-anesthesia Recovery in Children Undergoing Sedation for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Procedures
    Öznur Uludağ
    Mevlüt Doğukan
    Recai Kaya
    Atilla Tutak
    Ebru Dumlupınar
    [J]. Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology, 12
  • [45] The comparison of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Gao, Peng-fei
    Li, Shi-yue
    Li, Yue
    Zhao, Le
    Luo, Qiang
    Ji, Yang
    [J]. HELIYON, 2022, 8 (10)
  • [46] Intranasal sedation using ketamine and midazolam for pediatric dental treatment (NASO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Heloisa Sousa Gomes
    Analya Rodrigues Miranda
    Karolline Alves Viana
    Aline Carvalho Batista
    Paulo Sucasas Costa
    Anelise Daher
    Geovanna de Castro Morais Machado
    Joji Sado-Filho
    Liliani Aires Candido Vieira
    Patrícia Corrêa-Faria
    Marie Therese Hosey
    Luciane Rezende Costa
    [J]. Trials, 18
  • [47] A comparative study between dexmedetomidine and propofol in combination with fentanyl for conscious sedation during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy
    Salem, Raafat A.
    Mohamed, Abbady A.
    Moghazy, Hazem E. L.
    Alsagheer, Gamal A.
    [J]. EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2016, 32 (01): : 1 - 6
  • [48] Intranasal sedation using ketamine and midazolam for pediatric dental treatment (NASO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Gomes, Heloisa Sousa
    Miranda, Analya Rodrigues
    Viana, Karolline Alves
    Batista, Aline Carvalho
    Costa, Paulo Sucasas
    Daher, Anelise
    Morais Machado, Geovanna de Castro
    Sado-Filho, Joji
    Candido Vieira, Liliani Aires
    Correa-Faria, Patricia
    Hosey, Marie Therese
    Costa, Luciane Rezende
    [J]. TRIALS, 2017, 18
  • [49] Dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl as adjuvant to propofol: comparative study in children undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy
    Ali, Ashgan Raouf
    El Ghoneimy, Mohamed N.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2010, 27 (12) : 1058 - 1064
  • [50] Appropriate method of administration of propofol, fentanyl, and ketamine for patient-controlled sedation and analgesia during extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy
    Tokumine J.
    Iha H.
    Okuda Y.
    Shimabukuro T.
    Snimabukuro T.
    Ishigaki K.
    Nakamura S.
    Takara I.
    [J]. Journal of Anesthesia, 2000, 14 (2) : 68 - 72