Yu Jeong Bang, Jeayoun Kim, Nam-Su Gil, Woo Seog Sim, Hyun Joo Ahn, Mi Hye Park, Sangmin Maria Lee, Dong-Jae Kim, Ji Seon Jeong
{"title":"儿童磁共振成像中使用异丙酚与异丙酚-氯胺酮镇静后的肺部气胸:随机临床试验","authors":"Yu Jeong Bang, Jeayoun Kim, Nam-Su Gil, Woo Seog Sim, Hyun Joo Ahn, Mi Hye Park, Sangmin Maria Lee, Dong-Jae Kim, Ji Seon Jeong","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.33029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Little is known about the impact of different anesthetic agents used for routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation on pulmonary function in children.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the incidence of pulmonary atelectasis after MRI sedation with propofol vs propofol-ketamine.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This double-masked randomized clinical trial screened 117 consecutive pediatric patients aged 3 to 12 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II undergoing elective MRI under deep sedation from November 2, 2022, to April 28, 2023, at a tertiary referral center. Four patients met the exclusion criteria, and 5 patients refused to participate. The participants and outcome assessors were masked to the group allocation.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>During the MRI, the propofol group received 0.2 mL/kg of 1% propofol and 2 mL of 0.9% saline followed by a continuous infusion of propofol (200 μg/kg/min) and 0.9% saline (0.04 mL/kg/min). The propofol-ketamine group received 0.2 mL/kg of 0.5% propofol and 1 mg/kg of ketamine followed by a continuous infusion of propofol (100 μg/kg/min) and ketamine (20 μg/kg/min).</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measure: </strong>The incidence of atelectasis assessed by lung ultrasonography examination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 107 children (median [IQR] age, 5 [4-6] years; 62 male [57.9%]), with 54 in the propofol group and 53 in the propofol-ketamine group, were analyzed in this study. Notably, 48 (88.9%) and 31 (58.5%) patients had atelectasis in the propofol and propofol-ketamine groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8; P < .001). The incidence of desaturation and interruption of the MRI due to airway intervention or spontaneous movement did not significantly differ between the groups. The propofol-ketamine group showed a faster emergence time than the propofol group (15 [9-23] vs 25 [22-27] minutes in the propofol-ketamine vs propofol group; median difference in time, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, 6.0-12.0 minutes; P < .001). No patient was withdrawn from the trial due to adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this randomized clinical trial, the propofol-ketamine combination reduced sedation-induced atelectasis while allowing for faster emergence compared with propofol alone.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>cris.nih.go.kr Identifier: KCT0007699.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"7 11","pages":"e2433029"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11530935/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pulmonary Atelectasis After Sedation With Propofol vs Propofol-Ketamine for Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yu Jeong Bang, Jeayoun Kim, Nam-Su Gil, Woo Seog Sim, Hyun Joo Ahn, Mi Hye Park, Sangmin Maria Lee, Dong-Jae Kim, Ji Seon Jeong\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.33029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Little is known about the impact of different anesthetic agents used for routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation on pulmonary function in children.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the incidence of pulmonary atelectasis after MRI sedation with propofol vs propofol-ketamine.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This double-masked randomized clinical trial screened 117 consecutive pediatric patients aged 3 to 12 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II undergoing elective MRI under deep sedation from November 2, 2022, to April 28, 2023, at a tertiary referral center. Four patients met the exclusion criteria, and 5 patients refused to participate. The participants and outcome assessors were masked to the group allocation.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>During the MRI, the propofol group received 0.2 mL/kg of 1% propofol and 2 mL of 0.9% saline followed by a continuous infusion of propofol (200 μg/kg/min) and 0.9% saline (0.04 mL/kg/min). The propofol-ketamine group received 0.2 mL/kg of 0.5% propofol and 1 mg/kg of ketamine followed by a continuous infusion of propofol (100 μg/kg/min) and ketamine (20 μg/kg/min).</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measure: </strong>The incidence of atelectasis assessed by lung ultrasonography examination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 107 children (median [IQR] age, 5 [4-6] years; 62 male [57.9%]), with 54 in the propofol group and 53 in the propofol-ketamine group, were analyzed in this study. Notably, 48 (88.9%) and 31 (58.5%) patients had atelectasis in the propofol and propofol-ketamine groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8; P < .001). The incidence of desaturation and interruption of the MRI due to airway intervention or spontaneous movement did not significantly differ between the groups. The propofol-ketamine group showed a faster emergence time than the propofol group (15 [9-23] vs 25 [22-27] minutes in the propofol-ketamine vs propofol group; median difference in time, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, 6.0-12.0 minutes; P < .001). No patient was withdrawn from the trial due to adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this randomized clinical trial, the propofol-ketamine combination reduced sedation-induced atelectasis while allowing for faster emergence compared with propofol alone.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>cris.nih.go.kr Identifier: KCT0007699.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"7 11\",\"pages\":\"e2433029\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11530935/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.33029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.33029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Pulmonary Atelectasis After Sedation With Propofol vs Propofol-Ketamine for Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Importance: Little is known about the impact of different anesthetic agents used for routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation on pulmonary function in children.
Objective: To compare the incidence of pulmonary atelectasis after MRI sedation with propofol vs propofol-ketamine.
Design, setting, and participants: This double-masked randomized clinical trial screened 117 consecutive pediatric patients aged 3 to 12 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II undergoing elective MRI under deep sedation from November 2, 2022, to April 28, 2023, at a tertiary referral center. Four patients met the exclusion criteria, and 5 patients refused to participate. The participants and outcome assessors were masked to the group allocation.
Interventions: During the MRI, the propofol group received 0.2 mL/kg of 1% propofol and 2 mL of 0.9% saline followed by a continuous infusion of propofol (200 μg/kg/min) and 0.9% saline (0.04 mL/kg/min). The propofol-ketamine group received 0.2 mL/kg of 0.5% propofol and 1 mg/kg of ketamine followed by a continuous infusion of propofol (100 μg/kg/min) and ketamine (20 μg/kg/min).
Main outcome and measure: The incidence of atelectasis assessed by lung ultrasonography examination.
Results: A total of 107 children (median [IQR] age, 5 [4-6] years; 62 male [57.9%]), with 54 in the propofol group and 53 in the propofol-ketamine group, were analyzed in this study. Notably, 48 (88.9%) and 31 (58.5%) patients had atelectasis in the propofol and propofol-ketamine groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8; P < .001). The incidence of desaturation and interruption of the MRI due to airway intervention or spontaneous movement did not significantly differ between the groups. The propofol-ketamine group showed a faster emergence time than the propofol group (15 [9-23] vs 25 [22-27] minutes in the propofol-ketamine vs propofol group; median difference in time, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, 6.0-12.0 minutes; P < .001). No patient was withdrawn from the trial due to adverse effects.
Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the propofol-ketamine combination reduced sedation-induced atelectasis while allowing for faster emergence compared with propofol alone.
期刊介绍:
JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health.
JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.