Cargando…
Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging
BACKGROUND: A deep level of sedation is required for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children to ensure optimum image quality. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389234/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28442954 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.203014 |
_version_ | 1782521257673097216 |
---|---|
author | Kamal, Kirti Asthana, Unnati Bansal, Teena Dureja, Jagdish Ahlawat, Geeta Kapoor, Saloni |
author_facet | Kamal, Kirti Asthana, Unnati Bansal, Teena Dureja, Jagdish Ahlawat, Geeta Kapoor, Saloni |
author_sort | Kamal, Kirti |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A deep level of sedation is required for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children to ensure optimum image quality. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of sixty children aged 2–10 years, having physical status 1 or 2 according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists, undergoing MRI were included in the study. Group D: (n = 30) received injection dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg for 10 min followed by continuous infusion of 1.0 μg/kg/h. Group P (n = 30) received injection propofol 1 mg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion of 100 μg/kg/min. RESULTS: The mean time for onset of sedation in Group D was much longer than in Group P (P = 0.000). Mean duration of sedation was comparable in the two groups. The number of patients requiring increased infusion of study drug was significantly higher in Group D (30%) as compared to Group P (16.7%) (P < 0.05). The average recovery time in Group D was much longer than in Group P (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Propofol had an advantage of providing rapid onset of sedation and quicker recovery time. Dexmedetomidine resulted in a better preservation of respiratory rate and oxygen saturation, so it may be more suitable in children who are prone to respiratory depression. Hence, both the drugs could achieve required sedation in children posted for MRI. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5389234 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53892342017-04-25 Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging Kamal, Kirti Asthana, Unnati Bansal, Teena Dureja, Jagdish Ahlawat, Geeta Kapoor, Saloni Saudi J Anaesth Original Article BACKGROUND: A deep level of sedation is required for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children to ensure optimum image quality. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of sixty children aged 2–10 years, having physical status 1 or 2 according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists, undergoing MRI were included in the study. Group D: (n = 30) received injection dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg for 10 min followed by continuous infusion of 1.0 μg/kg/h. Group P (n = 30) received injection propofol 1 mg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion of 100 μg/kg/min. RESULTS: The mean time for onset of sedation in Group D was much longer than in Group P (P = 0.000). Mean duration of sedation was comparable in the two groups. The number of patients requiring increased infusion of study drug was significantly higher in Group D (30%) as compared to Group P (16.7%) (P < 0.05). The average recovery time in Group D was much longer than in Group P (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Propofol had an advantage of providing rapid onset of sedation and quicker recovery time. Dexmedetomidine resulted in a better preservation of respiratory rate and oxygen saturation, so it may be more suitable in children who are prone to respiratory depression. Hence, both the drugs could achieve required sedation in children posted for MRI. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5389234/ /pubmed/28442954 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.203014 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kamal, Kirti Asthana, Unnati Bansal, Teena Dureja, Jagdish Ahlawat, Geeta Kapoor, Saloni Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
title | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
title_full | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
title_short | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
title_sort | evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389234/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28442954 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.203014 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kamalkirti evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT asthanaunnati evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT bansalteena evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT durejajagdish evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT ahlawatgeeta evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT kapoorsaloni evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging |