Pediatric pulmonology · 2026
Impact of Anesthesia Strategy on Infant Pulmonary Function Test Quality and Duration.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zaveri Aditi K, Yoho Brian, Blasiole Brian, Forno Erick, Weiner Daniel J, Gaietto Kristina
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: While chloral hydrate (CH) has been standard for infant pulmonary function testing (iPFT) sedation, CH shortages are necessitating use of different sedation approaches. We aimed to compare the safety, test duration, and test quality of alternative sedation strategies for iPFT.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of iPFT conducted at our center from January 2019 to December 2021. We manually abstracted patient demographics, sedation medications given, adverse events, and iPFT type (raised volume-rapid thoracic compression, plethysmography, bronchodilator response, and/or multiple breath washout), duration (induction, procedure, recovery, and total times), and quality (satisfactory vs unsatisfactory), then compared features of tests conducted with CH to tests conducted with ketamine and midazolam (KM), dexmedetomidine (DX), or multiple agents (polypharmacy, PP) using bivariate and multivariable analysis.
RESULTS: Sixty-six children had iPFT (CH n = 42, KM n = 10, PP n = 8, and DX n = 6). Testing types and proportion of satisfactory tests did not significantly differ between CH and the other sedation strategies. In the multivariable analysis, compared to CH, we found that procedure time was shorter for KM, induction time was shorter for DX, and recovery time was longer for DX, yet total testing duration did not differ between CH and KM (p = 0.61) or DX (p = 0.22). In adjusted analyses, total testing time was longer for PP compared to CH (β = 12.0 min, p = 0.047). Adverse events, all of which were mild, occurred in three patients (PP n = 2, DX n = 1).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide preliminary evidence that KM, DX, and PP may be safe and effective alternatives to CH for iPFT sedation.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of iPFT conducted at our center from January 2019 to December 2021. We manually abstracted patient demographics, sedation medications given, adverse events, and iPFT type (raised volume-rapid thoracic compression, plethysmography, bronchodilator response, and/or multiple breath washout), duration (induction, procedure, recovery, and total times), and quality (satisfactory vs unsatisfactory), then compared features of tests conducted with CH to tests conducted with ketamine and midazolam (KM), dexmedetomidine (DX), or multiple agents (polypharmacy, PP) using bivariate and multivariable analysis.
RESULTS: Sixty-six children had iPFT (CH n = 42, KM n = 10, PP n = 8, and DX n = 6). Testing types and proportion of satisfactory tests did not significantly differ between CH and the other sedation strategies. In the multivariable analysis, compared to CH, we found that procedure time was shorter for KM, induction time was shorter for DX, and recovery time was longer for DX, yet total testing duration did not differ between CH and KM (p = 0.61) or DX (p = 0.22). In adjusted analyses, total testing time was longer for PP compared to CH (β = 12.0 min, p = 0.047). Adverse events, all of which were mild, occurred in three patients (PP n = 2, DX n = 1).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide preliminary evidence that KM, DX, and PP may be safe and effective alternatives to CH for iPFT sedation.