Gottschling Sven, Meyer Sascha, Krenn Thomas, Reinhard Harald, Lothschuetz Daniela, Nunold Holger, Graf Norbert
University Children's Hospital, Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University of the Saarland, Homburg, Germany.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2005 Sep;27(9):471-6. doi: 10.1097/01.mph.0000179238.37647.91.
Different pharmacologic agents have been used for sedation in children undergoing invasive procedures. The authors prospectively compared the efficacy, the occurrence of adverse effects, cardiovascular parameters, oxygen saturation and induction, and recovery time in propofol with or without morphine versus midazolam/ketamine sedation for procedural sedation in children with malignancies and hematologic disorders. Fifty children received either propofol with or without morphine or ketamine/midazolam sedation for invasive procedures. Intravenous sedation consisted of 0.1 mg midazolam/kg and 1.0 mg ketamine/kg or 2 mg propofol/kg with or without 0.1 mg morphine/kg. Incremental dosages of ketamine or propofol were given, if necessary, to achieve or to maintain adequate sedation levels. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, time to induce sedation, recovery time, and adverse effects were recorded. All invasive procedures were successfully completed, with satisfactory sedation levels in all 25 patients in the propofol group and 23 of the 25 patients in the ketamine group. In 14 of the 25 procedures in the propofol group and 4 of the 25 procedures in the ketamine group, sedation was associated with side effects, the most common being oxygen desaturation. There was a significant increase in diastolic blood pressure after ketamine medication and a significant decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate in the propofol group. Induction and recovery times in the propofol group were significantly shorter. Both regimens for procedural sedation are efficacious in achieving satisfactory sedation levels for invasive procedures. Propofol offers a quicker onset of sedation and a faster, smoother recovery but is associated with a higher rate of side effects. Considering the substantial rate of adverse effects, these procedural sedations should be performed only by physicians trained in advanced airway management and life support.
不同的药物制剂已被用于接受侵入性操作的儿童的镇静。作者前瞻性地比较了丙泊酚联合或不联合吗啡与咪达唑仑/氯胺酮镇静在患有恶性肿瘤和血液系统疾病的儿童进行操作镇静时的疗效、不良反应的发生情况、心血管参数、血氧饱和度以及诱导和恢复时间。五十名儿童在进行侵入性操作时接受了丙泊酚联合或不联合吗啡或氯胺酮/咪达唑仑镇静。静脉镇静包括0.1毫克/千克咪达唑仑和1.0毫克/千克氯胺酮,或2毫克/千克丙泊酚,联合或不联合0.1毫克/千克吗啡。必要时给予氯胺酮或丙泊酚递增剂量以达到或维持足够的镇静水平。记录收缩压和舒张压、心率、血氧饱和度、诱导镇静时间、恢复时间和不良反应。所有侵入性操作均成功完成,丙泊酚组的25名患者和氯胺酮组的25名患者中的23名镇静水平令人满意。丙泊酚组25例操作中的14例和氯胺酮组25例操作中的4例,镇静与副作用相关,最常见的是血氧饱和度下降。氯胺酮用药后舒张压显著升高,丙泊酚组收缩压和舒张压以及心率显著下降。丙泊酚组的诱导和恢复时间明显更短。两种操作镇静方案在实现侵入性操作的满意镇静水平方面都是有效的。丙泊酚起效更快,恢复更快、更平稳,但副作用发生率更高。考虑到不良反应的发生率较高,这些操作镇静仅应由接受过高级气道管理和生命支持培训的医生进行。