TY - JOUR
T1 - Titrated propofol induction vs. continuous infusion in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging
AU - Cho, J. E.
AU - Kim, W. O.
AU - Chang, D. J.
AU - Choi, E. M.
AU - Oh, S. Y.
AU - Kil, H. K.
PY - 2010/4
Y1 - 2010/4
N2 - Background: Propofol is the popular intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetic for paediatric sedation because of its rapid onset and recovery. We compared the efficacy and safety of a single dose and conventional infusion of propofol for sedation in children who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: This was a double-blind, randomized-controlled study. One hundred and sixty children were assigned to group I (single dose) or II (infusion). Sedation was induced with i.v. propofol 2 mg/kg, and supplemental doses of propofol 0.5 mg/kg were administered until adequate sedation was achieved. After the induction of sedation, we treated patients with a continuous infusion of normal saline at a rate of 0.3 ml/kg/h in group I and the same volume of propofol in group II. In case of inadequate sedation, additional propofol 0.5 mg/kg was administered and the infusion rate was increased by 0.05 ml/kg/h. Induction time, sedation time, recovery time, additional sedation and adverse events were recorded. Results: Recovery time was significantly shorter in group I compared with group II [0 (0-3) vs. 1 (0-3), respectively, P<0.001]. Group I (single dose) had significantly more patients with recovery time 0 compared with group II (infusion) (65/80 vs. 36/80, respectively, P<0.001). Induction and sedation times were not significantly different between groups. There was no significant difference in the frequency of additional sedation and adverse events between groups. Conclusion: A single dose of propofol without a continuous infusion can provide appropriate sedation in children undergoing MRI for <30 min.
AB - Background: Propofol is the popular intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetic for paediatric sedation because of its rapid onset and recovery. We compared the efficacy and safety of a single dose and conventional infusion of propofol for sedation in children who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: This was a double-blind, randomized-controlled study. One hundred and sixty children were assigned to group I (single dose) or II (infusion). Sedation was induced with i.v. propofol 2 mg/kg, and supplemental doses of propofol 0.5 mg/kg were administered until adequate sedation was achieved. After the induction of sedation, we treated patients with a continuous infusion of normal saline at a rate of 0.3 ml/kg/h in group I and the same volume of propofol in group II. In case of inadequate sedation, additional propofol 0.5 mg/kg was administered and the infusion rate was increased by 0.05 ml/kg/h. Induction time, sedation time, recovery time, additional sedation and adverse events were recorded. Results: Recovery time was significantly shorter in group I compared with group II [0 (0-3) vs. 1 (0-3), respectively, P<0.001]. Group I (single dose) had significantly more patients with recovery time 0 compared with group II (infusion) (65/80 vs. 36/80, respectively, P<0.001). Induction and sedation times were not significantly different between groups. There was no significant difference in the frequency of additional sedation and adverse events between groups. Conclusion: A single dose of propofol without a continuous infusion can provide appropriate sedation in children undergoing MRI for <30 min.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77649210275&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2009.02169.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2009.02169.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 19930245
AN - SCOPUS:77649210275
SN - 0001-5172
VL - 54
SP - 453
EP - 457
JO - Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
JF - Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
IS - 4
ER -