Open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients

Abstract Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for pediatric patients often requires deep sedation or anesthesia because they must remain completely immobile for a relatively long period to obtain high-quality images. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of propof...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical therapeutics 2008, Vol.30 (1), p.175-181
Hauptverfasser: Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD, Egilmez, Hulusi, MD, Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD, Gursoy, Sinan, MD, Mimaroglu, Caner, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 181
container_issue 1
container_start_page 175
container_title Clinical therapeutics
container_volume 30
creator Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD
Egilmez, Hulusi, MD
Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD
Gursoy, Sinan, MD
Mimaroglu, Caner, MD
description Abstract Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for pediatric patients often requires deep sedation or anesthesia because they must remain completely immobile for a relatively long period to obtain high-quality images. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol IV or inhalation of sevoflurane anesthesia with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for children undergoing MRI. Methods: Children aged 2 to 6 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status of I to II who were scheduled for MRI were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups. The propofol group was administered propofol 4 mg/kg IV followed by infusion of 150 µg/kg · min-1 . Patients in the sevoflurane group were induced with sevoflurane 8% by face mask and maintained with an air/oxygen mixture followed by sevoflurane 1.5%. Data recorded included age, weight, scan time, LMA insertion, removal, and recovery times, hemodynamic parameters, complications, pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scale score, child movement, and MRI interruption. A higher PAED score indicated a higher level of delirium. Results: Eighty-eight children were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Nine children were excluded from analysis due to protocol violations. After completion of the study, there were 37 children in the propofol group (male/female, 18/19; mean [SD] age, 42.1 months; weight, 15.2 [4.9] kg; scan time, 20.5 [4.6] min) and 42 in the sevoflurane group (male/ female, 15/27; mean [SD] age, 44.4 [26.1] months; weight, 15.1 [5.2] kg; scan time, 20.6 [4.8] min). No significant differences were found between the study groups with regard to age, weight, scan time, and hemodynamic parameters at baseline and during the study period. Mean LMA insertion, removal, and recovery times were significantly longer in the propofol group (4.8, 5.2, and 8.8 minutes, respectively) than in the sevoflurane group (3.3, 2.5, and 3.9 minutes, respectively) ( P < 0.05). The mean PAED score in the propofol group was significantly lower than that in the sevoflurane group (mean [SD], 6.1 [4.0] vs 10.5 [3.7]; P < 0.05). The percentage of MRI interruption in the propofol group was significantly higher than that in the sevoflurane group (4 [11%] vs 0, respectively; P < 0.05). No episodes of hypotension or bradycardia occurred during the study, and alterations in the propofol infusion rate or sevoflurane concentration were not necessary. One child vomited in the sevof
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.01.008
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70407873</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0149291808000568</els_id><sourcerecordid>2732795331</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-d620d47754457a46de1e9e4abad5660f1816c0dd6547d9697ea5e280fd0c7c933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkt-K1DAUxoso7rj6ChoQvdqOSZo27Y2wLP6Dhb1QwbuQSU7HzKZJTdqB8V18V0-dYRf2yqsDyS9fvnO-UxSvGF0zypp3u7XxLkw_Iek1p7RdU7bG8qhYsVZ2JWPix-NiRZnoSt6x9qx4lvOOUlp1NX9anLG2EhWvxar4czNCKL3egL8gY4p5BDO5PVyQpIONg_sNlpg4jDq5HAOJ_UKNsY-eIEAy7GPvZ4SB9DERr9MhbEF7Muh8iwhkdJmd_nc76G2AyRmSAMV0MEAcnrmwJS6QEazTU8LrUU8OwpSfF0967TO8ONXz4vvHD9-uPpfXN5--XF1el0a0fCptw6kVUtZC1FKLxgKDDoTeaFs3De1ZyxpDrW1qIW3XdBJ0DbylvaVGmq6qzou3R13s7deMltXgsgHv0X-cs5JUUNnKBXz9ANzFOQX0phiteIeiYqHkkTI40JygV2PCPtMBIbXkp3bqLj-15KcoU1jw5cuT_rwZwN6_OwWGwJsToLPRvsfBG5fvOE472fB6Ebo8coBj2ztIKhscqcERJ0xY2ej-w8z7BxoL5_DbWzhAvu9cZa6o-rqs27JttMVNq5u2-gvAh9V7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1032928043</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD ; Egilmez, Hulusi, MD ; Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD ; Gursoy, Sinan, MD ; Mimaroglu, Caner, MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD ; Egilmez, Hulusi, MD ; Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD ; Gursoy, Sinan, MD ; Mimaroglu, Caner, MD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for pediatric patients often requires deep sedation or anesthesia because they must remain completely immobile for a relatively long period to obtain high-quality images. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol IV or inhalation of sevoflurane anesthesia with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for children undergoing MRI. Methods: Children aged 2 to 6 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status of I to II who were scheduled for MRI were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups. The propofol group was administered propofol 4 mg/kg IV followed by infusion of 150 µg/kg · min-1 . Patients in the sevoflurane group were induced with sevoflurane 8% by face mask and maintained with an air/oxygen mixture followed by sevoflurane 1.5%. Data recorded included age, weight, scan time, LMA insertion, removal, and recovery times, hemodynamic parameters, complications, pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scale score, child movement, and MRI interruption. A higher PAED score indicated a higher level of delirium. Results: Eighty-eight children were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Nine children were excluded from analysis due to protocol violations. After completion of the study, there were 37 children in the propofol group (male/female, 18/19; mean [SD] age, 42.1 months; weight, 15.2 [4.9] kg; scan time, 20.5 [4.6] min) and 42 in the sevoflurane group (male/ female, 15/27; mean [SD] age, 44.4 [26.1] months; weight, 15.1 [5.2] kg; scan time, 20.6 [4.8] min). No significant differences were found between the study groups with regard to age, weight, scan time, and hemodynamic parameters at baseline and during the study period. Mean LMA insertion, removal, and recovery times were significantly longer in the propofol group (4.8, 5.2, and 8.8 minutes, respectively) than in the sevoflurane group (3.3, 2.5, and 3.9 minutes, respectively) ( P &lt; 0.05). The mean PAED score in the propofol group was significantly lower than that in the sevoflurane group (mean [SD], 6.1 [4.0] vs 10.5 [3.7]; P &lt; 0.05). The percentage of MRI interruption in the propofol group was significantly higher than that in the sevoflurane group (4 [11%] vs 0, respectively; P &lt; 0.05). No episodes of hypotension or bradycardia occurred during the study, and alterations in the propofol infusion rate or sevoflurane concentration were not necessary. One child vomited in the sevoflurane group during the postoperative period. Conclusions: This small study found that sevoflurane, at the doses used in this study, provided shorter induction and faster recovery times than IV propofol for LMA anesthesia in these selected children undergoing MRI. The percentage of MRI interruption in the propofol group was significantly higher than that in the sevoflurane group. Sevoflurane was associated with a significantly higher score on the PAED scale, indicating greater emergence delirium.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0149-2918</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-114X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.01.008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18343254</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bridgewater, NJ: EM Inc USA</publisher><subject>Airway management ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia Recovery Period ; Anesthesiology ; Anesthetics, General - therapeutic use ; Biological and medical sciences ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Delirium - diagnosis ; Drug dosages ; Female ; Humans ; Immobilization - methods ; Internal Medicine ; laryngeal mask ; Laryngeal Masks ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Medical Education ; Medical personnel ; Medical sciences ; Methyl Ethers - therapeutic use ; pediatric anesthesia ; Pediatrics ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; propofol ; Propofol - therapeutic use ; Prospective Studies ; sevoflurane ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Clinical therapeutics, 2008, Vol.30 (1), p.175-181</ispartof><rights>Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights resered.</rights><rights>2008 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights resered.</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-d620d47754457a46de1e9e4abad5660f1816c0dd6547d9697ea5e280fd0c7c933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-d620d47754457a46de1e9e4abad5660f1816c0dd6547d9697ea5e280fd0c7c933</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1032928043?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,780,784,789,790,3550,4024,4050,4051,23930,23931,25140,27923,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=20976258$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18343254$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Egilmez, Hulusi, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gursoy, Sinan, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mimaroglu, Caner, MD</creatorcontrib><title>Open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients</title><title>Clinical therapeutics</title><addtitle>Clin Ther</addtitle><description>Abstract Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for pediatric patients often requires deep sedation or anesthesia because they must remain completely immobile for a relatively long period to obtain high-quality images. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol IV or inhalation of sevoflurane anesthesia with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for children undergoing MRI. Methods: Children aged 2 to 6 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status of I to II who were scheduled for MRI were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups. The propofol group was administered propofol 4 mg/kg IV followed by infusion of 150 µg/kg · min-1 . Patients in the sevoflurane group were induced with sevoflurane 8% by face mask and maintained with an air/oxygen mixture followed by sevoflurane 1.5%. Data recorded included age, weight, scan time, LMA insertion, removal, and recovery times, hemodynamic parameters, complications, pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scale score, child movement, and MRI interruption. A higher PAED score indicated a higher level of delirium. Results: Eighty-eight children were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Nine children were excluded from analysis due to protocol violations. After completion of the study, there were 37 children in the propofol group (male/female, 18/19; mean [SD] age, 42.1 months; weight, 15.2 [4.9] kg; scan time, 20.5 [4.6] min) and 42 in the sevoflurane group (male/ female, 15/27; mean [SD] age, 44.4 [26.1] months; weight, 15.1 [5.2] kg; scan time, 20.6 [4.8] min). No significant differences were found between the study groups with regard to age, weight, scan time, and hemodynamic parameters at baseline and during the study period. Mean LMA insertion, removal, and recovery times were significantly longer in the propofol group (4.8, 5.2, and 8.8 minutes, respectively) than in the sevoflurane group (3.3, 2.5, and 3.9 minutes, respectively) ( P &lt; 0.05). The mean PAED score in the propofol group was significantly lower than that in the sevoflurane group (mean [SD], 6.1 [4.0] vs 10.5 [3.7]; P &lt; 0.05). The percentage of MRI interruption in the propofol group was significantly higher than that in the sevoflurane group (4 [11%] vs 0, respectively; P &lt; 0.05). No episodes of hypotension or bradycardia occurred during the study, and alterations in the propofol infusion rate or sevoflurane concentration were not necessary. One child vomited in the sevoflurane group during the postoperative period. Conclusions: This small study found that sevoflurane, at the doses used in this study, provided shorter induction and faster recovery times than IV propofol for LMA anesthesia in these selected children undergoing MRI. The percentage of MRI interruption in the propofol group was significantly higher than that in the sevoflurane group. Sevoflurane was associated with a significantly higher score on the PAED scale, indicating greater emergence delirium.</description><subject>Airway management</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia Recovery Period</subject><subject>Anesthesiology</subject><subject>Anesthetics, General - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Delirium - diagnosis</subject><subject>Drug dosages</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immobilization - methods</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>laryngeal mask</subject><subject>Laryngeal Masks</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical Education</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Methyl Ethers - therapeutic use</subject><subject>pediatric anesthesia</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>propofol</subject><subject>Propofol - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>sevoflurane</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0149-2918</issn><issn>1879-114X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkt-K1DAUxoso7rj6ChoQvdqOSZo27Y2wLP6Dhb1QwbuQSU7HzKZJTdqB8V18V0-dYRf2yqsDyS9fvnO-UxSvGF0zypp3u7XxLkw_Iek1p7RdU7bG8qhYsVZ2JWPix-NiRZnoSt6x9qx4lvOOUlp1NX9anLG2EhWvxar4czNCKL3egL8gY4p5BDO5PVyQpIONg_sNlpg4jDq5HAOJ_UKNsY-eIEAy7GPvZ4SB9DERr9MhbEF7Muh8iwhkdJmd_nc76G2AyRmSAMV0MEAcnrmwJS6QEazTU8LrUU8OwpSfF0967TO8ONXz4vvHD9-uPpfXN5--XF1el0a0fCptw6kVUtZC1FKLxgKDDoTeaFs3De1ZyxpDrW1qIW3XdBJ0DbylvaVGmq6qzou3R13s7deMltXgsgHv0X-cs5JUUNnKBXz9ANzFOQX0phiteIeiYqHkkTI40JygV2PCPtMBIbXkp3bqLj-15KcoU1jw5cuT_rwZwN6_OwWGwJsToLPRvsfBG5fvOE472fB6Ebo8coBj2ztIKhscqcERJ0xY2ej-w8z7BxoL5_DbWzhAvu9cZa6o-rqs27JttMVNq5u2-gvAh9V7</recordid><startdate>2008</startdate><enddate>2008</enddate><creator>Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD</creator><creator>Egilmez, Hulusi, MD</creator><creator>Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD</creator><creator>Gursoy, Sinan, MD</creator><creator>Mimaroglu, Caner, MD</creator><general>EM Inc USA</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2008</creationdate><title>Open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients</title><author>Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD ; Egilmez, Hulusi, MD ; Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD ; Gursoy, Sinan, MD ; Mimaroglu, Caner, MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-d620d47754457a46de1e9e4abad5660f1816c0dd6547d9697ea5e280fd0c7c933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Airway management</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia Recovery Period</topic><topic>Anesthesiology</topic><topic>Anesthetics, General - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Delirium - diagnosis</topic><topic>Drug dosages</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immobilization - methods</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>laryngeal mask</topic><topic>Laryngeal Masks</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical Education</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Methyl Ethers - therapeutic use</topic><topic>pediatric anesthesia</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>propofol</topic><topic>Propofol - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>sevoflurane</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Egilmez, Hulusi, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gursoy, Sinan, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mimaroglu, Caner, MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical therapeutics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ozdemir Kol, Iclal, MD</au><au>Egilmez, Hulusi, MD</au><au>Kaygusuz, Kenan, MD</au><au>Gursoy, Sinan, MD</au><au>Mimaroglu, Caner, MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients</atitle><jtitle>Clinical therapeutics</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Ther</addtitle><date>2008</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>175</spage><epage>181</epage><pages>175-181</pages><issn>0149-2918</issn><eissn>1879-114X</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for pediatric patients often requires deep sedation or anesthesia because they must remain completely immobile for a relatively long period to obtain high-quality images. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol IV or inhalation of sevoflurane anesthesia with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for children undergoing MRI. Methods: Children aged 2 to 6 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status of I to II who were scheduled for MRI were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups. The propofol group was administered propofol 4 mg/kg IV followed by infusion of 150 µg/kg · min-1 . Patients in the sevoflurane group were induced with sevoflurane 8% by face mask and maintained with an air/oxygen mixture followed by sevoflurane 1.5%. Data recorded included age, weight, scan time, LMA insertion, removal, and recovery times, hemodynamic parameters, complications, pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scale score, child movement, and MRI interruption. A higher PAED score indicated a higher level of delirium. Results: Eighty-eight children were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Nine children were excluded from analysis due to protocol violations. After completion of the study, there were 37 children in the propofol group (male/female, 18/19; mean [SD] age, 42.1 months; weight, 15.2 [4.9] kg; scan time, 20.5 [4.6] min) and 42 in the sevoflurane group (male/ female, 15/27; mean [SD] age, 44.4 [26.1] months; weight, 15.1 [5.2] kg; scan time, 20.6 [4.8] min). No significant differences were found between the study groups with regard to age, weight, scan time, and hemodynamic parameters at baseline and during the study period. Mean LMA insertion, removal, and recovery times were significantly longer in the propofol group (4.8, 5.2, and 8.8 minutes, respectively) than in the sevoflurane group (3.3, 2.5, and 3.9 minutes, respectively) ( P &lt; 0.05). The mean PAED score in the propofol group was significantly lower than that in the sevoflurane group (mean [SD], 6.1 [4.0] vs 10.5 [3.7]; P &lt; 0.05). The percentage of MRI interruption in the propofol group was significantly higher than that in the sevoflurane group (4 [11%] vs 0, respectively; P &lt; 0.05). No episodes of hypotension or bradycardia occurred during the study, and alterations in the propofol infusion rate or sevoflurane concentration were not necessary. One child vomited in the sevoflurane group during the postoperative period. Conclusions: This small study found that sevoflurane, at the doses used in this study, provided shorter induction and faster recovery times than IV propofol for LMA anesthesia in these selected children undergoing MRI. The percentage of MRI interruption in the propofol group was significantly higher than that in the sevoflurane group. Sevoflurane was associated with a significantly higher score on the PAED scale, indicating greater emergence delirium.</abstract><cop>Bridgewater, NJ</cop><pub>EM Inc USA</pub><pmid>18343254</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.01.008</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0149-2918
ispartof Clinical therapeutics, 2008, Vol.30 (1), p.175-181
issn 0149-2918
1879-114X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70407873
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
subjects Airway management
Anesthesia
Anesthesia Recovery Period
Anesthesiology
Anesthetics, General - therapeutic use
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Child, Preschool
Delirium - diagnosis
Drug dosages
Female
Humans
Immobilization - methods
Internal Medicine
laryngeal mask
Laryngeal Masks
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Medical Education
Medical personnel
Medical sciences
Methyl Ethers - therapeutic use
pediatric anesthesia
Pediatrics
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
propofol
Propofol - therapeutic use
Prospective Studies
sevoflurane
Time Factors
title Open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T11%3A09%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Open-label,%20prospective,%20randomized%20comparison%20of%20propofol%20and%20sevoflurane%20for%20laryngeal%20mask%20anesthesia%20for%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging%20in%20pediatric%20patients&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20therapeutics&rft.au=Ozdemir%20Kol,%20Iclal,%20MD&rft.date=2008&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=175&rft.epage=181&rft.pages=175-181&rft.issn=0149-2918&rft.eissn=1879-114X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.01.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2732795331%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1032928043&rft_id=info:pmid/18343254&rft_els_id=S0149291808000568&rfr_iscdi=true