Propofol-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial

Assessing pediatric anesthesia outcomes and prognostic factors: a comparative study of ketamine vs. ketamine + propofol

Objective: To investigate the anesthesia outcomes of ketamine and propofol in pediatric anesthesia and analyze associated prognostic factors. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 160 children who underwent anesthesia and operation in Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from 2020 to 2022. The anesthesia outcomes was analyzed by comparing the blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) at before (T1), during (T2) and after (T3) operations, recovery time after anesthesia, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, adverse reactions, as well as the Steward and FLACC scores between the control and research groups. Univariate analysis and logistic regression analysis were used to identify the prognostic factors in pediatric anesthesia. Results: The changes in SpO2, HR, and MAP were different between the two groups at different time points (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in anesthesia recovery time, PACU stay, Steward and FLACC scores, and incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis revealed that operation time ≥ 49.5 minutes (P = 0.001, OR = 3.828, 95% CI: 1.715-8.544) and single use of ketamine for anesthesia (P = 0.048, OR = 2.257, 95% CI: 1.006-5.063) were independent risk factors for postoperative delirium. Conclusion: Combining propofol with ketamine for pediatric anesthesia yields superior clinical outcome compared to using ketamine alone. This combined approach can effectively maintain stable circulation during operation, lead to shorter anesthesia recovery time, ensure high recovery quality, reduce postoperative pain, adverse reaction rate, and risk of post-anesthesia delirium in children, thereby improving the prognosis.

Intravenous Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine Versus Ketamine-Propofol for Procedural Sedation in Adults Undergoing Short Surgical Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objective Moderate to deep sedation is a prerequisite during total intravenous anesthesia for short-duration surgeries, and it can be achieved by using individual drugs or in combination. Our study compared dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) versus ketamine-propofol (KP) in terms of sedation, procedural interference, hemodynamics, and incidence of side effects in patients undergoing short surgical procedures. Methods A total of 194 patients scheduled for short-duration elective surgeries were randomly allocated into two groups. Group DK received a loading dose of 1 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine and 1 mg/kg of ketamine followed by a maintenance infusion of dexmedetomidine at 0.3 µg/kg/h. Group KP received a loading dose of 1 mg/kg of ketamine and 1 mg/kg of propofol followed by a maintenance infusion of propofol at 25 µg/kg/h. For procedural interference, a rescue ketamine bolus was administered at 0.25 mg/kg. Patients were monitored for the requirement of rescue ketamine bolus, procedural interference, hemodynamics, sedation, recovery time, and adverse effects. Results The procedural interference was higher in group KP than in group DK and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.001). The time to the first rescue bolus was 8.72 ± 4.47 minutes in group KP and 10.82 ± 4.01 minutes in group DK, with a difference of 2.1 minutes (p=0.026). There was no statistically significant difference in the sedation scores between both groups except at time points of six minutes and 15 minutes. Conclusion For short-duration procedures, the DK combination is superior to the KP combination in terms of procedural interference and time to the first rescue bolus, while both groups were comparable with regard to safety and hemodynamics.

Ketamine and dexmedetomidine (Keto-dex) or ketamine and propofol (Keto-fol) for procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Which is safer? A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Optimum procedural sedation is very essential for conducting non-operating room procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (KD) is expected to balance out the undesirable effects of either drug and provide smooth sedation. Together ketamine and propofol (KP) also provide synergistic sedation with stable hemodynamics. This prospective, single-blinded randomized study aimed to compare the effect of both the combinations during ERCP in terms of oxygen desaturation, respiratory depression, hemodynamic parameters, analgesia, recovery time, and ease with which the endoscopist could perform the endoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective, single-blinded randomized study (CTRI/2019/08/020625) was conducted on 84, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I or II patients, of age 18-65 years presenting for ERCP in a tertiary care center. They were randomized to receive either KD (n=42) or KP (n=42) combination during ERCP. Mean SPO₂ at the end of the procedure was compared between the groups. Apart from these periprocedural hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, pain scores on arrival in the recovery room (t0), 15 minutes (t15), and 30 minutes (t30), recovery time, and endoscopist's satisfaction as per a Likert's scale were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean SpO₂ (SpO₂ recorded every minute during the procedure and averaged over procedure time in minutes) in group KP (97.7 [96.1-98.6]) was significantly lower than group KD (98.5 [98.1-98.8]) (p=0.005). The post-procedure pain scores measured at t0 and t15 were higher in group KP (p<0.001 and p=0.043), and comparable at t30 in both the groups (p=0.711). The time to achieve Modified Aldrete score (MAS) ≥ 9 was significantly more in group KD (p<0.001). The lowest mean arterial pressure and heart rate in group KD were significantly lower than in group KP (p<0.001, p=0.006, respectively). The overall endoscopist satisfaction was better in group KP compared to group KD (p= 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ketamine-dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation during ERCP is a safe alternative to ketamine-propofol with a better respiratory profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

CTRI/2019/08/020625 ( www.ctri.nic.in ).

The comparison of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The combination of different agents used for procedural sedation allows a greater range of desirable effects while minimizing side effects. The ketamine-dexmedetomidine combination (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) are successful examples. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of ketadex with ketofol used for procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Embase from inception to June 2022. Studies were independently evaluated for inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. Outcome measures for safety comparison were the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and agitation; Outcome measure for efficacy comparison was clinicians' satisfaction. In addition, we compared the recovery time of ketadex and ketofol.

Results

Nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with ketofol, ketadex sedation in pediatric patients had lower risk of respiratory depression (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34–0.76, P = 0.0009). However, ketadex displayed significant effect on recovery time (MD: 8.38 min, 95% CI: 7.55–9.22 min, P < 0.00001). Ketadex had similar incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.33–2.67, P = 0.92) and bradycardia (RR: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.64–5.06, P = 0.26) compared to those with ketofol. Clinicians' satisfaction rate of ketadex and ketofol were both high (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.69–1.25, P = 0.62). Also, no significant difference was observed between ketadex and ketofol on the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and agitation.

Conclusions

Both ketadex and ketofol can provide effective sedation and maintain stable hemodynamics. In consideration of good safety profile in respiratory problems, we suggest ketadex is a better option for procedural sedation in pediatric patients.