Suppr超能文献

右美托咪定与咪达唑仑用于白血病患儿程序性镇静中丙泊酚减量的连续病例系列研究

Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for Propofol Sparing in Procedural Sedation of Children With Leukemia: A Consecutive Case Series.

作者信息

Squillaci Domenica, Console Karen, Colussi Lara, Kiren Valentina, Rabusin Marco, Stocco Gabriele, Longo Antonella, Dalena Paolo, Barbi Egidio

机构信息

University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.

Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Trieste, Italy.

出版信息

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2025 Sep;69(8):e70107. doi: 10.1111/aas.70107.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Propofol is commonly used in procedural sedation in oncology due to its rapid sedative effect and favorable recovery profile. However, several preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated a dose-dependent neurotoxic effect of this drug. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are potential adjuvants that, if used as premedication, could reduce the required dose of propofol. This study compares the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in terms of propofol dose reduction during procedural sedation in oncology patients.

METHODS

This one-year retrospective study compared the outcomes of procedural sedation, in terms of propofol-sparing, in 24 pediatric oncology patients who received midazolam (MP group, 52 procedures) or dexmedetomidine (DP group, 51 procedures) as premedication combined with propofol during bone marrow aspiration and/or lumbar puncture procedures. Data on propofol dosage, awakening time, vital parameters, and adverse events were examined.

RESULTS

Premedication with dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower dose of propofol than midazolam (2.51 vs. 4.00 mg/kg, p < 0.001). Wake-up times were longer in the DP group (92 vs. 65 min; p = 0.045). Adverse events were very rare in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine demonstrates superior propofol-sparing effects compared to midazolam, although it requires longer recovery times. These results support dexmedetomidine as a promising alternative in sedation protocols in pediatric oncology.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

This retrospectively analysis of a single center series compared procedural sedation strategies for children involving propofol after standardized intravenous premedication with dexmedetomidine or midazolam. The findings demonstrated that dexmedetomidine in those doses and in combination with propofol confirmed sedative potency and duration more than that of the chosen midazolam premedication dosing.

摘要

引言

由于丙泊酚具有快速镇静作用和良好的恢复情况,常用于肿瘤学中的操作镇静。然而,多项临床前和临床研究表明该药物存在剂量依赖性神经毒性作用。右美托咪定和咪达唑仑是潜在的辅助药物,若用作术前用药,可减少丙泊酚的所需剂量。本研究比较了右美托咪定和咪达唑仑在肿瘤学患者操作镇静期间减少丙泊酚剂量方面的应用情况。

方法

这项为期一年的回顾性研究比较了24例儿科肿瘤患者在骨髓穿刺和/或腰椎穿刺过程中接受咪达唑仑(MP组,52例操作)或右美托咪定(DP组,51例操作)作为术前用药并联合丙泊酚进行操作镇静的结果,从节省丙泊酚的角度进行比较。检查了丙泊酚剂量、苏醒时间、生命体征参数和不良事件的数据。

结果

与咪达唑仑相比,右美托咪定作为术前用药时丙泊酚剂量显著更低(2.51 vs. 4.00mg/kg,p < 0.001)。DP组的苏醒时间更长(92 vs. 65分钟;p = 0.045)。两组的不良事件都非常罕见。

结论

与咪达唑仑相比,右美托咪定具有更优的节省丙泊酚效果,尽管其恢复时间更长。这些结果支持右美托咪定作为儿科肿瘤学镇静方案中一种有前景的替代药物。

编辑评论

这项对单中心系列的回顾性分析比较了儿童在接受右美托咪定或咪达唑仑标准化静脉术前用药后使用丙泊酚的操作镇静策略。研究结果表明,那些剂量的右美托咪定联合丙泊酚所证实的镇静效力和持续时间超过了所选的咪达唑仑术前用药剂量。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验