Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging
Background: A deep level of sedation is required for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children to ensure optimum image quality. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing MRI. Materials and Methods: A...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2017-01-01
|
| Series: | Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.saudija.org/article.asp?issn=1658-354X;year=2017;volume=11;issue=2;spage=163;epage=168;aulast=Kamal |
| _version_ | 1819157932070141952 |
|---|---|
| author | Kirti Kamal Unnati Asthana Teena Bansal Jagdish Dureja Geeta Ahlawat Saloni Kapoor |
| author_facet | Kirti Kamal Unnati Asthana Teena Bansal Jagdish Dureja Geeta Ahlawat Saloni Kapoor |
| author_sort | Kirti Kamal |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: A deep level of sedation is required for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children to ensure optimum image quality. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing MRI.
Materials and Methods: A total of sixty children aged 2–10 years, having physical status 1 or 2 according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists, undergoing MRI were included in the study. Group D: (n = 30) received injection dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg for 10 min followed by continuous infusion of 1.0 μg/kg/h. Group P (n = 30) received injection propofol 1 mg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion of 100 μg/kg/min.
Results: The mean time for onset of sedation in Group D was much longer than in Group P (P = 0.000). Mean duration of sedation was comparable in the two groups. The number of patients requiring increased infusion of study drug was significantly higher in Group D (30%) as compared to Group P (16.7%) (P < 0.05). The average recovery time in Group D was much longer than in Group P (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Propofol had an advantage of providing rapid onset of sedation and quicker recovery time. Dexmedetomidine resulted in a better preservation of respiratory rate and oxygen saturation, so it may be more suitable in children who are prone to respiratory depression. Hence, both the drugs could achieve required sedation in children posted for MRI. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T16:16:37Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d40afdbdca3a4bd29853bfa6b902be69 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1658-354X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T16:16:37Z |
| publishDate | 2017-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia |
| spelling | doaj.art-d40afdbdca3a4bd29853bfa6b902be692022-12-21T18:20:21ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia1658-354X2017-01-0111216316810.4103/1658-354X.203014Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imagingKirti KamalUnnati AsthanaTeena BansalJagdish DurejaGeeta AhlawatSaloni KapoorBackground: A deep level of sedation is required for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children to ensure optimum image quality. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing MRI. Materials and Methods: A total of sixty children aged 2–10 years, having physical status 1 or 2 according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists, undergoing MRI were included in the study. Group D: (n = 30) received injection dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg for 10 min followed by continuous infusion of 1.0 μg/kg/h. Group P (n = 30) received injection propofol 1 mg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion of 100 μg/kg/min. Results: The mean time for onset of sedation in Group D was much longer than in Group P (P = 0.000). Mean duration of sedation was comparable in the two groups. The number of patients requiring increased infusion of study drug was significantly higher in Group D (30%) as compared to Group P (16.7%) (P < 0.05). The average recovery time in Group D was much longer than in Group P (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Propofol had an advantage of providing rapid onset of sedation and quicker recovery time. Dexmedetomidine resulted in a better preservation of respiratory rate and oxygen saturation, so it may be more suitable in children who are prone to respiratory depression. Hence, both the drugs could achieve required sedation in children posted for MRI.http://www.saudija.org/article.asp?issn=1658-354X;year=2017;volume=11;issue=2;spage=163;epage=168;aulast=KamalDexmedetomidine; magnetic resonance imaging; propofol |
| spellingShingle | Kirti Kamal Unnati Asthana Teena Bansal Jagdish Dureja Geeta Ahlawat Saloni Kapoor Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia Dexmedetomidine; magnetic resonance imaging; propofol |
| title | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_full | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_short | Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_sort | evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging |
| topic | Dexmedetomidine; magnetic resonance imaging; propofol |
| url | http://www.saudija.org/article.asp?issn=1658-354X;year=2017;volume=11;issue=2;spage=163;epage=168;aulast=Kamal |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kirtikamal evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT unnatiasthana evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT teenabansal evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT jagdishdureja evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT geetaahlawat evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging AT salonikapoor evaluationofefficacyofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolforsedationinchildrenundergoingmagneticresonanceimaging |