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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kamal, Kirti, Asthana, Unnati, Bansal, Teena, Dureja, Jagdish, Ahlawat, Geeta, Kapoor, Saloni
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