Propofol Versus Dexmedetomidine for Procedural Sedation in a Pediatric Population
Autor: | Nicole M Schacherer, Amy M. Perkins, James M Schmidt, Tamara M. Armstrong, Michael P Poirier |
---|---|
Rok vydání: | 2019 |
Předmět: |
Male
Adolescent medicine.medical_treatment Sedation Conscious Sedation 01 natural sciences 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine medicine Humans Hypnotics and Sedatives Intubation 030212 general & internal medicine 0101 mathematics Dexmedetomidine Child Adverse effect Propofol Retrospective Studies Dose-Response Relationship Drug business.industry 010102 general mathematics Infant Newborn Infant Retrospective cohort study General Medicine Airway obstruction medicine.disease Treatment Outcome Child Preschool Anesthesia Female Airway management Emergencies medicine.symptom business medicine.drug |
Zdroj: | Southern Medical Journal. 112:277-282 |
ISSN: | 1541-8243 0038-4348 |
DOI: | 10.14423/smj.0000000000000973 |
Popis: | OBJECTIVES Frequently, infants and children require sedation to facilitate noninvasive procedures and imaging studies. Propofol and dexmedetomidine are used to achieve deep procedural sedation in children. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of propofol versus dexmedetomidine in pediatric patients undergoing sedation in a pediatric sedation unit. METHODS A retrospective analysis of patients sedated with either propofol or dexmedetomidine in a pediatric sedation unit by pediatric emergency physicians was performed. Both medications were dosed per protocol with propofol 2 mg/kg induction and 150 μg · kg-1 · min-1 maintenance and dexmedetomidine 3 μg/kg induction for 10 minutes and 2 μg · kg-1 · h-1maintenance. The variables collected included drug dose, sedation time (time that the drug was given to the completion of the procedure), recovery time (end of the study to the return to the presedation sedation score for 15 minutes), need for dose rate changes, airway management, and adverse events. RESULTS A total of 2432 children were included- 1503 who received propofol and 929 who received dexmedetomidine. Propofol and dexmedetomidine resulted in successful completion of the study in 98.8% and 99.7%, respectively (P = 0.02). The mean recovery time for propofol was 34.3 minutes, compared with 65.6 minutes for dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). The need for unexpected airway management was 9.7% for propofol and 2.2% for dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in 8.6% and 6% of patients in the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Propofol use led to significantly shorter recovery times, with an increased need for airway management, but rates of bag-mask ventilation (2.3%), airway obstruction (1.1%), and desaturation (1.6%) were low. No patients required intubation. Propofol is a reasonable alternative to dexmedetomidine, with a clinically acceptable safety profile. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |