The use of basic parameters for monitoring the haemodynamic effects of midazolam and ketamine as opposed to propofol during cardiac catheterization

Evaluation of the safety of using propofol for paediatric procedural sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Propofol is one of the most widely used drugs for paediatric procedural sedation owing to its known advantages, but some concerns remain regarding respiratory and/or cardiac complications in patients receiving propofol. Although a considerable number of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been conducted to compare it with other sedative agents or opioids for children undergoing various procedures, propofol is still being used off-label for this indication in many countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of those RCTs to provide an overall summation of evidence that can potentially be considered for further regulatory decisions, including reimbursement policies. We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to January 31, 2018. Our meta-analysis of 30 RCTs confirmed that propofol sedation had advantages in recovery time when compared with other drugs, without excessive concerns for cardiovascular or respiratory adverse events. Its safety profile regarding coughing, nausea or vomiting, and emergence delirium was also similar to that of other drugs. The overall evidence suggests that propofol sedation for paediatric procedures should be considered more positively in the context of regulatory decisions.

Propofol versus Ketofol for Sedation of Pediatric Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Implantation: A Double-blind Randomized Study

OBJECTIVE

The study was done to compare propofol and ketofol for sedation of pediatric patients scheduled for elective pulmonary valve implantation in a catheterization laboratory.

DESIGN

This was a double-blind randomized study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in Prince Sultan Cardiac Centre, Saudi Arabia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 60 pediatric patients with pulmonary regurge undergoing pulmonary valve implantation.

INTERVENTION

The study included sixty patients, classified into two groups (n = 30). Group A: Propofol was administered as a bolus dose (1-2 mg/kg) and then a continuous infusion of 50-100 μg/kg/min titrated as needed. Group B: Ketofol was administered 1-2 mg/kg and then infusion of 20-60 μg/kg/min. The medication was prepared by the nursing staff and given to anesthetist blindly.

MEASUREMENTS

The monitors included heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, temperature, SPO2and PaCO2, Michigan Sedation Score, fentanyl dose, antiemetic medications, and Aldrete score.

MAIN RESULTS

The comparison of heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, temperature, SPO2and PaCO2, Michigan Sedation Score, and Aldrete score were insignificant (P > 0.05). The total fentanyl increased in Group A more than Group B (P = 0.045). The required antiemetic drugs increased in Group A patients more than Group B (P = 0.020). The durations of full recovery and in the postanesthesia care unit were longer in Group A than Group B (P = 0.013, P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The use of propofol and ketofol is safe and effective for sedation of pediatric patients undergoing pulmonary valve implantation in a catheterization laboratory. However, ketofol has many advantages more than the propofol. Ketofol has a rapid onset of sedation, a rapid recovery time, decreased incidence of nausea and vomiting and leads to rapid discharge of patients from the postanesthesia care unit.

Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.