HEMODYNAMIC AND GAS EXCHANGE RESPONSE IN CHILDREN WITH CNS DISORDERS DURING PROCEDURAL SEDATION UNDERGOING COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2018-15-6-33-41
Abstract
From the safety point of view, procedural sedation results in fairly frequent complications, typical of the anesthetics being used.
The objective: to study the hemodynamics, gas exchange and the character of complications (respiratory disorders, agitation) when using thiopental sodium, ketamine and propofol during procedural sedation in the children with CNS disorders undergoing computed tomography.
Subjects and methods. 90 patients at the age from 8 months to 10 years with the risk degree of II–III as per ASA who underwent computed tomography were enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into three groups depending on the anesthetic being used. Changes in hemodynamics, gas exchange and frequency of complications were analyzed.
Results. Hypercapnia and reduced saturation were documented in the propofol group, which were the consequences of hypoventilation and they required the respiratory support in the form of oxygen insufflation through the face mask in 46.7% of cases or artificial pulmonary ventilation (30% of cases). In ketamine group, agitation was documented in 6% of cases.
Conclusions. For procedural sedation in children with CNS disorders, thiopental sodium is the drug of choice, since it provides the least significant impact on hemodynamics, gas exchange and causes no complications.
About the Authors
R. V. Zhdanov
Belyaev Kemerovo Regional Clinical Hospital; Kemerovo State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Roman V. Zhdanov - Part time Post-Graduate Student of Traumatology Department with Training Course in Intensive Care, Medical Rehabilitation and Physical Training
21, Voroshilova St., Kemerovo, 650056
E. V. Grigoriev
Kemerovo State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeny V. Grigoriev - Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Training Course in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care of Traumatology Department with Training in Intensive Care, Medical Rehabilitation and Physical Training
21, Voroshilova St., Kemerovo, 650056
References
1. Аleksandrovich Yu.S. et al. Аnesteziya v pediatrii.[Anesthesia in pediatrics]. SPB ELBI-SPB Publ., 2013, 160 p.
2. Zilber А.P. Etyudy respiratornoy meditsiny. [Sketches of respiratory medicine]. Moscow, MEDpress-inform Publ., 2007, 792 p.
3. Lazarev V.V., Tsypin L.E. Syndrome of post-anesthesia agitation in inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane in children. Anesteziologiya i Reanimatologiya, 2010, no. 1, pp. 62-104. (In Russ.)
4. Marino P.L. Intensivnaya terapiya. (Russ. Ed. Paul L. Marino. Critical care). A.P. Zilber. eds., Moscow, GEOTAR-Media Publ., 2010, 768 p.
5. Allman K., Wilson A. Oksfordsky spravochnik po anestezii.(Russ. ed.: Allman K., Wilson A. Oxford Handbook of Anaesthesia). Moscow, Binom. Laboratoriya Znaniy Publ., 2009, 764 p.
6. B.P. Pollard. Rukovodstvo po klinicheskoy anesteziologii. (Russ. ed.: B.P. Pollard. Handbook of Clinical Anaesthesia). Moscow, MEDpress-inform Publ., 2006, 912 p.
7. Sabinina T.S., Gubaydullin P.P., Pasechnik I.N. et al. Prevention methods of post-anesthesia agitation syndrome in children after anesthesia with sevoflurane. Current state of the problem. Bezopasnost bolnogo v anesteziologii i reanimatologii: X nauchno-prakticheskaya konferentsiya.[The patient's safety in anesthesiology and intensive care: the Xth Scientific Practical Conference]. Moscow, 2012, pp. 63.
8. Bellolio M.F., Puls H.A., Anderson J.L. et al. Incidence of adverse events in paediatric procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 2016, vol. 6, no. 6, e011384. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011384.
9. Chiaretti A., Benini F., Pierri F. et al. Safety and efficacy of propofol administered by paediatricians during procedural sedation in children. Acta Paediatr.,2014, vol. 103, pp. 182‒187.
10. Clark G., Licker M., Younossian A. B. et al. Titrated sedation with propofol or midazolam for flexible bronchoscopy: a randomised trial. Eur. Respir. J., 2009, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1277‒1283.
11. Cravero J.P., Beach M.L., Blike G.T. et al. The incidence and nature of adverse events during pediatric sedation/anesthesia with propofol for procedures outside the operating room: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Anesth. Analg., 2009, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 795‒804.
12. Deer T., Rich G. Propofol tolerance in a pediatric patient. Anesthesiology, 1992, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 828‒829.
13. Fang H., Yang L., Wang X. et al. Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med., 2015, vol. 8, pp. 11881‒11889.
14. Ghai B., Jain K., Saxena A.K. et al. Comparison of oral midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication for children undergoing CT imaging: a randomized, double-blind, and controlled study. Paediatr. Anaesth., 2017, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 37‒44.
15. Kitt E., Friderici J., Kleppel R. et al. Procedural sedation for MRI in children with ADHD. Paediatr. Anaesth., 2015, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1026‒1032.
16. Koo B.N., Shin S., Kim S.Y. et al. Pharmacodynamic estimate of propofol-induced sedation and airway obstruction effects in obstructive sleep apnea--hypopnea syndrome. Yonsei. Med. J., 2015, vol. 56, pp. 1408‒1414.
17. Krauss B.S., Krauss B.A., Green S.M. Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. N. Engl. J. Med., 2014, vol. 370, e23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMvcm1108559.
18. Langhan M.L., Shabanova V., Li F.Y. et al. A randomized controlled trial of capnography during sedation in a pediatric emergency setting. Am. J. Emerg. Med., 2015, vol. 33, pp. 25‒30.
19. Lo Y.L., Lin T.Y., Fang Y.F. et al. Feasibility of bispectral index-guided propofol infusion for flexible bronchoscopy sedation: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 2011, vol. 6, no. 11, e27769. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027769.
20. Mallory M.D., Baxter A.L., Kost S.I. Propofol vs pentobarbital for sedation of children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: results from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Paediatr. Anaesth.,2009, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 601‒611.
21. Mason K.P. Challenges in paediatric procedural sedation: political, economic, and clinical aspects. Br. J. Anaesth., 2014, vol. 113, suppl. 2, pp. 48‒62.
22. McCoy S., Lyttle M.D., Hartshorn S. et al. A qualitative study of the barriers to procedural sedation practices in paediatric emergency medicine in the UK and Ireland. Emerg. Med. J., 2016, vol. 33, pp. 527‒532.
23. Schulte-Uentrop L., Goepfert M.S. Anaesthesia or sedation for MRI in children. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiology,2010, vol. 23, pp. 513‒517.
24. Soy-allergic and egg-allergic patients can safely receive anesthesia / American Academy of Allergy Asthma &Immunology. https://www.aaaai.org/conditionsand-treatments/library/allergy-library/soy-egg-anesthesia.
25. Stolz D., Kurer G., Meyer A. et al. Propofol versus combined sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Eur. Respir. J.,2009, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1024‒1030.
26. Von der Brelie C., Seifert M., Rot S. et al. Sedation of patients with acute aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage with ketamine is safe and might influence the occurrence of cerebral infarctions associated with delayed cerebral ischemia. World Neurosurg., 2017, vol. 97, pp. 374‒382.
27. Wang X., Ding X., Tong Y. et al. Ketamine does not increase intracranial pressure compared with opioids: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Anesth., 2014, vol. 28, pp. 821‒827.
28. Zeiler F.A., Teitelbaum J., West M. et al. The ketamine effect on ICP in traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit. Care.2014, vol. 21, pp. 163‒173.
Review
For citations:
Zhdanov R.V., Grigoriev E.V. HEMODYNAMIC AND GAS EXCHANGE RESPONSE IN CHILDREN WITH CNS DISORDERS DURING PROCEDURAL SEDATION UNDERGOING COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. Messenger of ANESTHESIOLOGY AND RESUSCITATION. 2018;15(6):33-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2018-15-6-33-41
Email this article 