Prospective, randomised comparison of two intravenous sedation methods for magnetic resonance imaging in children.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesiology intensive therapy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5114/ait.2023.128715
Viktor Mark Brzózka, Andrzej Jerzy Piotrowski
{"title":"Prospective, randomised comparison of two intravenous sedation methods for magnetic resonance imaging in children.","authors":"Viktor Mark Brzózka,&nbsp;Andrzej Jerzy Piotrowski","doi":"10.5114/ait.2023.128715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Children usually need sedation or even anaesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. As there is no universally accepted method for this purpose we undertook a prospective, randomised comparison of propofol and dexmedetomidine in children aged 1 to 10 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After Institutional Board approval and parents' informed consent 64 ASA status I or II children scheduled for MRI scan were enrolled. Patients were premedicated with intravenous (IV) midazolam (0.1 mg kg -1 ) and ketamine (1 mg kg -1 ) and randomised to propofol (P) or dexmedetomidine (D) group. A propofol bolus of 1 mg kg -1 followed by infusion of 4 mg kg -1 h -1 , or dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg -1 followed by 2 µg kg -1 h-1 infusion were used. Heart rate, SpO 2 and non-invasive blood pressure were monitored and recorded at 5 min intervals. Results were compared by means of standard statistical methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both dexmedetomidine and propofol after premedication with ketamine and midazolam are suitable for MRI sedation, although propofol use results in shorter recovery time. Less interventions are needed when dexmedetomidine is used.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"55 2","pages":"81-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/96/99/AIT-55-50864.PMC10415600.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2023.128715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Children usually need sedation or even anaesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. As there is no universally accepted method for this purpose we undertook a prospective, randomised comparison of propofol and dexmedetomidine in children aged 1 to 10 years.

Methods: After Institutional Board approval and parents' informed consent 64 ASA status I or II children scheduled for MRI scan were enrolled. Patients were premedicated with intravenous (IV) midazolam (0.1 mg kg -1 ) and ketamine (1 mg kg -1 ) and randomised to propofol (P) or dexmedetomidine (D) group. A propofol bolus of 1 mg kg -1 followed by infusion of 4 mg kg -1 h -1 , or dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg -1 followed by 2 µg kg -1 h-1 infusion were used. Heart rate, SpO 2 and non-invasive blood pressure were monitored and recorded at 5 min intervals. Results were compared by means of standard statistical methods.

Results: Both dexmedetomidine and propofol after premedication with ketamine and midazolam are suitable for MRI sedation, although propofol use results in shorter recovery time. Less interventions are needed when dexmedetomidine is used.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种静脉镇静方法在儿童磁共振成像中的前瞻性、随机比较。
背景:儿童通常需要镇静甚至麻醉进行磁共振成像(MRI)研究。由于没有普遍接受的方法用于此目的,我们进行了一项前瞻性,随机比较异丙酚和右美托咪定在1至10岁儿童中的作用。方法:经机构委员会批准和家长知情同意后,纳入64名ASA状态为I或II的儿童,计划进行MRI扫描。患者预先静脉注射咪达唑仑(0.1 mg kg -1)和氯胺酮(1 mg kg -1),随机分为异丙酚(P)组或右美托咪定(D)组。采用异丙酚1 mg kg -1滴注4 mg kg -1 h-1,或右美托咪定1µg kg -1滴注2µg kg -1 h-1。每隔5分钟监测并记录心率、SpO 2和无创血压。采用标准统计学方法对结果进行比较。结果:氯胺酮、咪达唑仑预用药后右美托咪定和异丙酚均适用于MRI镇静,但异丙酚恢复时间较短。当使用右美托咪定时,需要较少的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA. Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis. Measures of preoperative anxiety: Part two. Navigating through the paradox of choice: prediction of outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nutritional management in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1