Comparative Assessment of Propofol and Ketamine on Hemodynamic Indices and Cerebral Oximetry of Pediatric Patients Undergoing Cardiac Catheterization.
Cardiac Catheterization
Cerebral Oximetry
Ketamine
Propofol
Journal
Anesthesiology and pain medicine
ISSN: 2228-7531
Titre abrégé: Anesth Pain Med
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101585412
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
05
06
2022
revised:
26
10
2022
accepted:
11
11
2022
entrez:
20
3
2023
pubmed:
21
3
2023
medline:
21
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Propofol and ketamine are widely used in the induction and maintenance of anesthesia and sedation with different cardiovascular and respiratory effects. In cardiac anesthesia (including pediatric cardiac catheterization), due to the high risk of neurologic complications, cerebral oximetry can effectively monitor cerebral blood oxygen saturation to prevent neurological and respiratory complications. This study aimed to compare the effect of propofol and ketamine on hemodynamic indices and cerebral oxygenation results in children undergoing cardiac catheterization. This clinical trial study was performed on 48 patients who were candidates for cardiac catheterization by easy and continuous sampling. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: ketamine and propofol. In the ketamine group, ketamine was injected at a dose of 1 - 2 mg/kg, and in the propofol group, propofol was injected at a dose of 0.5 - 1.5 mg/kg. In both groups, incremental doses were repeated as needed. The hemodynamic indices, including blood pressure, heart rate, and peripheral SpO The results showed that all demographic characteristics of patients and also the mean duration of catheterization were homogeneous between the 2 groups. Hemodynamic indices (such as systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure) did not show a significant difference between the 2 groups; however, in the ketamine group compared to the propofol group, the heart rate was significantly higher, and mean RSO Propofol has fewer complications than ketamine and is a good drug for sedating children undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Propofol and ketamine are widely used in the induction and maintenance of anesthesia and sedation with different cardiovascular and respiratory effects. In cardiac anesthesia (including pediatric cardiac catheterization), due to the high risk of neurologic complications, cerebral oximetry can effectively monitor cerebral blood oxygen saturation to prevent neurological and respiratory complications.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
This study aimed to compare the effect of propofol and ketamine on hemodynamic indices and cerebral oxygenation results in children undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This clinical trial study was performed on 48 patients who were candidates for cardiac catheterization by easy and continuous sampling. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: ketamine and propofol. In the ketamine group, ketamine was injected at a dose of 1 - 2 mg/kg, and in the propofol group, propofol was injected at a dose of 0.5 - 1.5 mg/kg. In both groups, incremental doses were repeated as needed. The hemodynamic indices, including blood pressure, heart rate, and peripheral SpO
Results
UNASSIGNED
The results showed that all demographic characteristics of patients and also the mean duration of catheterization were homogeneous between the 2 groups. Hemodynamic indices (such as systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure) did not show a significant difference between the 2 groups; however, in the ketamine group compared to the propofol group, the heart rate was significantly higher, and mean RSO
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Propofol has fewer complications than ketamine and is a good drug for sedating children undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36938113
doi: 10.5812/aapm-128763
pmc: PMC10016124
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e128763Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Jun;25(6):560-6
pubmed: 25557125
Anesthesiology. 2005 Aug;103(2):258-68
pubmed: 16052107
Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2004 Jun;42(2):81-6
pubmed: 15346703
Anesth Analg. 2000 Feb;90(2):377-82
pubmed: 10648325
Pediatr Cardiol. 2005 Sep-Oct;26(5):553-7
pubmed: 16132313
Ann Thorac Surg. 1996 Mar;61(3):930-4
pubmed: 8619720
J Res Med Sci. 2014 Sep;19(9):860-6
pubmed: 25535501
Can Anaesth Soc J. 1982 May;29(3):222-6
pubmed: 6804066
Ann Card Anaesth. 2016 Jan-Mar;19(1):20-4
pubmed: 26750669
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002 Aug;46(7):831-5
pubmed: 12139539
Anaesthesia. 1988 Mar;43 Suppl:109-11
pubmed: 3259087
J Clin Anesth. 2005 Aug;17(5):353-7
pubmed: 16102685
Paediatr Anaesth. 2007 Dec;17(12):1187-93
pubmed: 17986038
Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2013 Dec;75:39-43
pubmed: 24465041
Br J Anaesth. 1988 Feb;60(2):146-50
pubmed: 3257879
Can J Anaesth. 1991 Oct;38(7):826-30
pubmed: 1742815
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1987 Dec;7(6):806-11
pubmed: 3121648
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2018 Dec;38(12):2192-2208
pubmed: 30009645
Paediatr Anaesth. 2007 Oct;17(10):983-8
pubmed: 17767636
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jan 04;5(1):
pubmed: 26727967
Br J Anaesth. 1991 Jul;67(1):108-11
pubmed: 1859744
Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2014 Feb;42(1):12-8
pubmed: 27366382
Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2004 Jun;8(2):147-66
pubmed: 15248000
Anesthesiology. 1986 Dec;65(6):666-8
pubmed: 3789440
Anesth Analg. 1992 Apr;74(4):490-4
pubmed: 1554114
Anaesthesia. 1995 Mar;50(3):223-8
pubmed: 7717488
Anesthesiology. 2000 Oct;93(4):947-53
pubmed: 11020744