Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Phramongkutklao Hospital and Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Anesthesiology, Phramongkutklao Hospital and Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2022 Nov;39(8):681-696. doi: 10.1080/08880018.2022.2055685. Epub 2022 Apr 23.
Children with cancer often require sedation before undergoing invasive procedures. Fentanyl, ketamine, and midazolam are effective drugs widely used for procedural sedation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of midazolam-fentanyl (M-F) compared with midazolam-ketamine (M-K) for bedside procedural sedation among pediatric oncology patients. A randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial was conducted among children with cancer requiring procedural sedation for invasive procedures. Patients were randomly assigned either intravenous M-F or M-K and subsequently received the alternate regimens following the crossover design of the study. The efficacy and safety of the sedations including sedation time intervals, nausea score, vomiting episodes, pain score, adverse effects, and parent's satisfaction were evaluated. In all, 58 patients with 116 procedural sedations were enrolled. M-K provided a shorter induction time (0:58 vs. 1:23 min) ( = 0.005), but longer sedation (9:02 vs. 5:50 min) ( = 0.019) and emergence time (4:26 vs. 0:56 min) ( = 0.011) compared with M-F. Sedation routes affected the sedation time intervals. Patients had higher rates of vomiting (0, range 0-8 vs. 0, range 0-2) ( = 0.033) but experienced less pain (0 vs. 2) ( = 0.008) in the M-K group. Overall satisfaction and other adverse effects were comparable among both sedation regimens. Combined sedative drugs are recommended to improve the effectiveness of bedside procedural sedation. M-K provided shorter induction, but longer sedation and emergence time compared with M-F. These findings correlated with sedative routes. Patients receiving M-K experienced a higher rate of vomiting, but less painfulness compared with M-F. Overall satisfaction and tolerable side effects were comparable among both sedative regimens.
患有癌症的儿童在接受侵入性操作前通常需要镇静。芬太尼、氯胺酮和咪达唑仑是广泛用于操作镇静的有效药物。本研究旨在比较咪达唑仑-芬太尼(M-F)与咪达唑仑-氯胺酮(M-K)在儿科肿瘤患者床边操作镇静中的疗效和安全性。在需要进行侵入性操作镇静的癌症儿童中进行了一项随机、双盲、交叉试验。患者被随机分配接受静脉内 M-F 或 M-K,随后根据研究的交叉设计接受交替方案。评估镇静的疗效和安全性,包括镇静时间间隔、恶心评分、呕吐发作、疼痛评分、不良反应和家长满意度。共有 58 例患者(116 例操作镇静)入组。与 M-F 相比,M-K 诱导时间更短(0:58 与 1:23 分钟)(=0.005),但镇静(9:02 与 5:50 分钟)(=0.019)和苏醒时间(4:26 与 0:56 分钟)(=0.011)更长。镇静途径影响镇静时间间隔。M-K 组呕吐发生率较高(0,范围 0-8 与 0,范围 0-2)(=0.033),但疼痛评分较低(0 与 2)(=0.008)。两种镇静方案的总体满意度和其他不良反应相当。联合镇静药物可提高床边操作镇静的效果。与 M-F 相比,M-K 诱导时间更短,但镇静和苏醒时间更长。这些发现与镇静途径相关。接受 M-K 的患者呕吐发生率较高,但疼痛程度较轻。两种镇静方案的总体满意度和可耐受的不良反应相当。