Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Paediatr Anaesth ; 23(5): 415-21, 2013 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23061785

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Aim of sedation during pediatric urodynamic studies (UDS) is a calm and cooperative child while not affecting measurements. We compared the effectiveness of midazolam to low-dose ketamine infusion for sedation and their impact on urodynamics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASA-I children undergoing UDS were randomly assigned to group K (ketamine) loading dose (0.25 mg·kg(-1)) followed by infusion of 10-20 µg·kg(-1) ·min(-1) or group M (midazolam) loading dose of (0.02 mg·kg(-1)) followed by 1-2 µg·kg(-1) ·min(-1). The sedation scores and reactivity to catheterization were monitored by Children Hospital of Wisconsin Sedation Scale and Frankl Behavior Rating Scale, respectively. The UDS included two-channel filling cystometry in supine position followed by a free uroflowmetry in sitting position. The UDS was performed and interpreted in accordance with good urodynamic practice guidelines of International Continence Society (2002). RESULTS: A total of 34 children were enrolled. Group K children (n = 17) attained sedation earlier 6.80 (±3.36) min vs. 9.40 (±2.82) min; (P = 0.03) than group M (n = 17) and also recovered earlier 11.60 (±3.13) min vs. 19.67 (±5.49) min (P = 0.01). Reactivity scores during urinary and rectal catheterization were lower in group K (P = 0.03 and 0.01), respectively. Historical UDS data of 21 participants were available for comparison with effect of medication. None of the study drugs affected UDS parameters significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam or low-dose ketamine provide satisfactory sedation during pediatric UDS without impacting urodynamic values.


Asunto(s)
Anestésicos Disociativos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes , Ketamina , Midazolam , Urodinámica , Anestésicos Disociativos/administración & dosificación , Presión Sanguínea/efectos de los fármacos , Niño , Preescolar , Sedación Consciente , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Frecuencia Cardíaca/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/administración & dosificación , Ketamina/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Midazolam/administración & dosificación , Oxígeno/sangre , Enfermedades Urológicas/complicaciones , Enfermedades Urológicas/diagnóstico
2.
Paediatr Anaesth ; 20(7): 625-32, 2010 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20642661

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Propofol is a popular agent for providing procedural sedation in pediatric population during lumbar puncture and spinal anesthesia. Adjuvants like clonidine and fentanyl are administered intrathecally to prolong the duration of spinal anesthesia and to provide postoperative analgesia. We studied the propofol requirement after intrathecal administration of clonidine or fentanyl in infants undergoing lower abdominal surgeries. METHODS: Sixty-five ASA I infants undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery under spinal anesthesia were assigned into four groups in this prospective randomized double-blinded study. Group B received bupivacaine based on body weight (<5 kg = 0.5 mg kg(-1); 5-10 kg = 0.4 mg kg(-1)). Group BC received 1 microg kg(-1) of clonidine with bupivacaine, group BF received 1 microg kg(-1) of fentanyl with bupivacaine, and patients in group BCF received 1 microg kg(-1) each of clonidine and fentanyl with bupivacaine. A bolus of 2-3 mg kg(-1) of propofol bolus was administered for lumbar puncture. Sedation was assessed using a six-point sedation score (0-5) and a five-point reactivity score (0-4) which was based on a behavioral score. After achieving a sedation and reactivity score of 3-4, the patients were placed lateral in knee chest position and lumbar puncture performed and test drug administered. Further intraoperative sedation was maintained with an infusion of 25-50 microg kg(-1) min(-1) of propofol infusion. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD infusion requirement of propofol decreased from 35.5 +/- 4.5 in group B to 33.4 +/- 5.4 microg kg(-1) min(-1) in group BF and further decreased to 16.7 +/- 6.2 microg kg(-1) min(-1) and 14.8 +/- 4.9 microg kg(-1) min(-1) in group BC and BCF, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between BC and BCF groups. The mean sedation and reactivity scores were higher in groups BC and BCF when compared to groups B and BF. CONCLUSION: Our study show that the requirement of propofol sedation reduces with intrathecal adjuvants. The reduction was significant with the addition of clonidine and clonidine-fentanyl combination as opposed to bupivacaine alone or with fentanyl. There was no significant difference in propofol infusion requirement with the use of bupivacaine alone or with fentanyl.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos/uso terapéutico , Anestesia Raquidea/métodos , Anestésicos Intravenosos/uso terapéutico , Clonidina/uso terapéutico , Propofol/uso terapéutico , Abdomen/cirugía , Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Anestésicos Locales/administración & dosificación , Bupivacaína/administración & dosificación , Método Doble Ciego , Quimioterapia Combinada/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos , Femenino , Fentanilo/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Lactante , Inyecciones Espinales , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...