Propofol‐cetamina versus dexmedetomidina‐cetamina para sedação durante endoscopia digestiva alta em pacientes pediátricos: estudo clínico randomizado

IF 1 Q3 Medicine
Akram M. Amer, Azza M. Youssef, Hala S. El‐Ozairy, Ahmed M. El‐Hennawy
{"title":"Propofol‐cetamina versus dexmedetomidina‐cetamina para sedação durante endoscopia digestiva alta em pacientes pediátricos: estudo clínico randomizado","authors":"Akram M. Amer,&nbsp;Azza M. Youssef,&nbsp;Hala S. El‐Ozairy,&nbsp;Ahmed M. El‐Hennawy","doi":"10.1016/j.bjan.2020.08.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Day‐case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We enrolled 120 patients (2−7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (<span>IV</span>) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg<sup>‐1</sup> in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg<sup>‐1</sup>) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg<sup>‐1</sup>). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol‐Ketamine (P‐K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine‐Ketamine (D‐K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes respectively, <em>p</em> &lt;<!--> <!-->0.001). The P‐K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and six patients experienced SpO<sub>2</sub> &lt;<!--> <!-->92% in groups P‐K and D‐K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D‐K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P‐K group, respectively (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001). The P‐K group showed less post‐procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The P‐K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D‐K combination showed less need for additional doses.</p></div><div><h3>Registration number</h3><p>Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21261,"journal":{"name":"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia","volume":"70 6","pages":"Pages 620-626"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bjan.2020.08.005","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034709420304281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background and objectives

Day‐case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

Methods

We enrolled 120 patients (2−7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg‐1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg‐1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg‐1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

Results

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol‐Ketamine (P‐K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine‐Ketamine (D‐K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes respectively, p < 0.001). The P‐K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and six patients experienced SpO2 < 92% in groups P‐K and D‐K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D‐K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P‐K group, respectively (p = 0.001). The P‐K group showed less post‐procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

Conclusions

The P‐K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D‐K combination showed less need for additional doses.

Registration number

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

异丙酚-氯胺酮与右美托咪定-氯胺酮在小儿上消化道内镜下的镇静作用:一项随机临床研究
背景与目的:小儿镇静是一项具有挑战性的研究。右美托咪定是一种不引起呼吸抑制的镇静镇痛药。我们比较了右美托咪定和异丙酚在小儿内镜检查中加入氯胺酮镇静时的恢复时间和血流动力学变化。方法选取年龄在2 ~ 7岁的患者120例,随机分为两组。每位患者静脉注射氯胺酮,剂量为1mg。除异丙酚(1 mg.kg‐1)或右美托咪定(0.5 μg.kg‐1)外。比较恢复时间。监测血流动力学、血氧饱和度、需要额外剂量、术后并发症和内镜医师满意度。结果两组患者血流动力学指标无明显差异。异丙酚-氯胺酮(P‐K)组的恢复时间明显短于右美托咪定-氯胺酮(D‐K)组(分别为21.25和29.75分钟),P <0.001)。P - K组表现出更高的氧饱和度。11例和6例患者出现SpO2和lt;P - K组和D - K组分别为92%。注意到在需要额外剂量方面存在显著差异;D‐K组10%的患者需要额外的一次剂量,5%的患者需要额外的两次剂量,而P‐K组分别为25%和20% (P = 0.001)。P - K组术后恶心和呕吐较少。两组在内窥镜医师满意度方面无统计学差异。结论:P - K联合用药可缩短小儿上消化道内窥镜检查的恢复时间,而D - K联合用药无需额外剂量。注册号:clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861)。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology is the official journal of the Brazilian Anesthesiology Society. It publishes articles classified into the following categories: -Scientific articles (clinical or experimental trials)- Clinical information (case reports)- Reviews- Letters to the Editor- Editorials. The journal focuses primarily on clinical trials, with scope on clinical practice, aiming at providing applied tools to the anesthesiologist and critical care physician. The Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology accepts articles exclusively forwarded to it. Articles already published in other journals are not accepted. All articles proposed for publication are previously submitted to the analysis of two or more members of the Editorial Board or other specialized consultants.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信