MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.5114/ait.2023.128715

Медицинская библиотека · Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2023

Prospective, randomised comparison of two intravenous sedation methods for magnetic resonance imaging in children.

Brzózka Viktor Mark, Piotrowski Andrzej Jerzy

Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Children usually need sedation or even anaesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. As there is no universally accepted method for this purpose we undertook a prospective, randomised comparison of propofol and dexmedetomidine in children aged 1 to 10 years.

METHODS

After Institutional Board approval and parents' informed consent 64 ASA status I or II children scheduled for MRI scan were enrolled. Patients were premedicated with intravenous (IV) midazolam (0.1 mg kg -1 ) and ketamine (1 mg kg -1 ) and randomised to propofol (P) or dexmedetomidine (D) group. A propofol bolus of 1 mg kg -1 followed by infusion of 4 mg kg -1 h -1 , or dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg -1 followed by 2 µg kg -1 h-1 infusion were used. Heart rate, SpO 2 and non-invasive blood pressure were monitored and recorded at 5 min intervals. Results were compared by means of standard statistical methods.

RESULTS

Both dexmedetomidine and propofol after premedication with ketamine and midazolam are suitable for MRI sedation, although propofol use results in shorter recovery time. Less interventions are needed when dexmedetomidine is used.

Для цитирования: Brzózka Viktor Mark, Piotrowski Andrzej Jerzy. Prospective, randomised comparison of two intravenous sedation methods for magnetic resonance imaging in children.. Anaesthesiology intensive therapy. 2023. DOI: 10.5114/ait.2023.128715.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.