A Comparison of the Use of Propofol versus Midazolam for Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation: Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 0.6 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of African Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-14 DOI:10.4103/aam.aam_109_23
Mohammed I A Ismail, Ashraf Aldmour, Lou'i Al-Husinat, Gehane A El-Gendy, Sherif W Mansour
{"title":"A Comparison of the Use of Propofol versus Midazolam for Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation: Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Mohammed I A Ismail, Ashraf Aldmour, Lou'i Al-Husinat, Gehane A El-Gendy, Sherif W Mansour","doi":"10.4103/aam.aam_109_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>The aim of the present study: </strong>The aim of the present study was to do a comparison of the recovery profiles and airway-related adverse events of pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation patients who received propofol alone to those who received midazolam alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was approved by the Mutah University Ethical Approval Committee (No. 2378). A search of the patients' medical records was performed between September 2021 and April 2022 to identify children aged 4 months-11 years who received propofol or midazolam for MRI sedation. The patients were subdivided into two groups: Those who had propofol alone (propofol group) and those who received midazolam (midazolam group) for pediatric MRI sedation. In propofol group, a 1-2 mg/kg of propofol bolus was given to have a deep sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 5). Patients in midazolam group received 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam. During the maintenance state of sedation, the patient received 150 µg/kg/min of propofol, and the infusion rate was adjusted in 25 μg/kg/min increments up or down at the discretion of the anesthesiologists to maintain a state of deep sedation. The major targets of this study were recovery profiles (time to awake and time to discharge) and airway-related intervention ratios in pediatric MRI sedation patients. Patient demographics, MRI sedation, and recovery data, including propofol induction dose, airway intervention, and sedation-related adverse events from the pediatric sedation recovery unit were also collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean (standard deviation [SD]) propofol induction dose was higher compared to midazolam group (2.4 [0.7] mg vs. 1.3 [0.5] mg; mean difference, 1.1 mg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) infusion rate was higher in propofol group compared to midazolam group (161.3 [37.6] μg/min/kg vs. 116.2 [25.6] μg/min/kg; mean difference 45.1 μg/min/kg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) propofol total dose was higher in propofol group compared to midazolam group (236.3 [102.4] mg vs. 180.7 [80.9] mg; mean difference, 155.4 mg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) time to awake was longer in midazolam group compared to propofol group (21.2 [5.6] min vs. 23.0 [7.1] min; mean difference, 1.8 min; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) time to discharge was longer in midazolam group compared to propofol group (34.5 [6.9] min vs. 38.6 [9.4] min; mean difference, 4.1 min; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-5.1; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The administration of midazolam during pediatric MRI sedation can decrease the frequency of airway complications without prolonging the clinically significant recovery profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":7938,"journal":{"name":"Annals of African Medicine","volume":"23 4","pages":"669-673"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556473/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of African Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aam.aam_109_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of the present study: The aim of the present study was to do a comparison of the recovery profiles and airway-related adverse events of pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation patients who received propofol alone to those who received midazolam alone.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was approved by the Mutah University Ethical Approval Committee (No. 2378). A search of the patients' medical records was performed between September 2021 and April 2022 to identify children aged 4 months-11 years who received propofol or midazolam for MRI sedation. The patients were subdivided into two groups: Those who had propofol alone (propofol group) and those who received midazolam (midazolam group) for pediatric MRI sedation. In propofol group, a 1-2 mg/kg of propofol bolus was given to have a deep sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 5). Patients in midazolam group received 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam. During the maintenance state of sedation, the patient received 150 µg/kg/min of propofol, and the infusion rate was adjusted in 25 μg/kg/min increments up or down at the discretion of the anesthesiologists to maintain a state of deep sedation. The major targets of this study were recovery profiles (time to awake and time to discharge) and airway-related intervention ratios in pediatric MRI sedation patients. Patient demographics, MRI sedation, and recovery data, including propofol induction dose, airway intervention, and sedation-related adverse events from the pediatric sedation recovery unit were also collected.

Results: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) propofol induction dose was higher compared to midazolam group (2.4 [0.7] mg vs. 1.3 [0.5] mg; mean difference, 1.1 mg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) infusion rate was higher in propofol group compared to midazolam group (161.3 [37.6] μg/min/kg vs. 116.2 [25.6] μg/min/kg; mean difference 45.1 μg/min/kg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) propofol total dose was higher in propofol group compared to midazolam group (236.3 [102.4] mg vs. 180.7 [80.9] mg; mean difference, 155.4 mg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) time to awake was longer in midazolam group compared to propofol group (21.2 [5.6] min vs. 23.0 [7.1] min; mean difference, 1.8 min; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) time to discharge was longer in midazolam group compared to propofol group (34.5 [6.9] min vs. 38.6 [9.4] min; mean difference, 4.1 min; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-5.1; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The administration of midazolam during pediatric MRI sedation can decrease the frequency of airway complications without prolonging the clinically significant recovery profile.

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
在儿科磁共振成像镇静中使用异丙酚与咪达唑仑的比较:回顾性队列研究。
本研究的目的本研究旨在比较单独使用异丙酚和单独使用咪达唑仑的小儿磁共振成像(MRI)镇静患者的恢复情况和气道相关不良事件:这项回顾性队列研究获得了穆塔大学伦理审批委员会的批准(第 2378 号)。研究人员在 2021 年 9 月至 2022 年 4 月期间对患者的病历进行了检索,以确定接受过丙泊酚或咪达唑仑磁共振成像镇静治疗的 4 个月至 11 岁儿童。患者被细分为两组:单用异丙酚(异丙酚组)和使用咪达唑仑(咪达唑仑组)进行小儿核磁共振成像镇静的患者。在异丙酚组中,给予 1-2 毫克/千克的异丙酚栓剂以达到深度镇静(拉姆塞镇静量表评分 5 分)。咪达唑仑组患者服用的咪达唑仑剂量为 0.05 毫克/千克。在维持镇静状态期间,患者接受 150 微克/千克/分钟的异丙酚输注,输注速度由麻醉师决定以 25 微克/千克/分钟的增量上下调整,以维持深度镇静状态。本研究的主要目标是儿科 MRI 镇静患者的恢复情况(清醒时间和出院时间)和气道相关干预比率。研究还收集了患者的人口统计学特征、磁共振成像镇静和恢复数据,包括异丙酚诱导剂量、气道干预和来自儿科镇静恢复室的镇静相关不良事件:丙泊酚诱导剂量的平均值(标准差 [SD])高于咪达唑仑组(2.4 [0.7] mg vs. 1.3 [0.5] mg;平均差异为 1.1 mg;P < 0.001)。与咪达唑仑组相比,异丙酚组的平均(标清)输注速率更高(161.3 [37.6] μg/min/kg vs. 116.2 [25.6] μg/min/kg;平均差 45.1 μg/min/kg;P < 0.001)。与咪达唑仑组相比,丙泊酚组丙泊酚总剂量的平均值(标度)更高(236.3 [102.4] 毫克 vs. 180.7 [80.9] 毫克;平均差 155.4 毫克;P < 0.001)。与异丙酚组相比,咪达唑仑组的平均(标清)清醒时间更长(21.2 [5.6] 分钟 vs. 23.0 [7.1] 分钟;平均差异为 1.8 分钟;P < 0.001)。与异丙酚组相比,咪达唑仑组的平均(标清)出院时间更长(34.5 [6.9] 分钟 vs. 38.6 [9.4] 分钟;平均差异,4.1 分钟;95% 置信区间,3.0-5.1;P < 0.001):结论:在小儿核磁共振成像镇静过程中使用咪达唑仑可减少气道并发症的发生频率,同时不会延长具有临床意义的恢复期。
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
Annals of African Medicine
Annals of African Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Annals of African Medicine is published by the Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria and the Annals of African Medicine Society. The Journal is intended to serve as a medium for the publication of research findings in the broad field of Medicine in Africa and other developing countries, and elsewhere which have relevance to Africa. It will serve as a source of information on the state of the art of Medicine in Africa, for continuing education for doctors in Africa and other developing countries, and also for the publication of meetings and conferences. The journal will publish articles I any field of Medicine and other fields which have relevance or implications for Medicine.
期刊最新文献
A Quasi-Experimental Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Hot Water Footbath Therapy on Quality of Sleep among Cancer Patients. Awareness of Peptic Ulcer Disease among the General Population in Al-Ahsa. Bilateral Endogenous Streptococcus mitis Endophthalmitis Following Dental Implant: A Case Report and Literature Review. Before Venous Sinus Thrombosis is Attributed to Hyperhomocysteinemia, Alternative Causes Must be Thoroughly Ruled Out. Bilateral Corneal Endotheliitis Following Corneal Cross-linking with Riboflavin and Ultraviolet A.
×
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