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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical therapeutics 2008, Vol.30 (1), p.175-181 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 < 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 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20976258$$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 < 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 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & 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 & 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 < 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 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 |