Ketamine-Propofol vs Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Combinations in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Burn Dressing Changes:

Subhypnotic Intravenous Ketamine Improves Patient Satisfaction With Burn Wound Care: A Quality Improvement Project

Despite advancements in pain management for burn injuries, analgesia often fails to meet our patients' needs. We hypothesized that low doses of intravenous (IV) ketamine as an adjunct to our current protocol would be safe, improving both nurse and patient satisfaction with analgesia during hydrotherapy. Burn patients admitted who underwent hydrotherapy from June 1, 2021, to June 30, 2023 were surveyed. Ketamine was administered with the standard opioid-midazolam regimen. Demographics, oral morphine equivalents, midazolam, ketamine doses and time of administration, and adverse events were collected. Patient and nurse satisfaction scores were collected. The ketamine and no-ketamine groups were compared. P < .05 was considered significant. Eighty-five hydrotherapies were surveyed, 47 without ketamine, and 38 with ketamine. Demographics, comorbidities, %TBSA, and hospital length of stay were not different. The median amount of ketamine given was 0.79 mg/kg [0.59-1.06]. Patients who received ketamine were more likely to receive midazolam (100% vs 61.7%; P < .001), and both oral and IV opioids (94.7% vs 68.1%; P = .002) prior to hydrotherapy and less likely to receive rescue opioids or midazolam during hydrotherapy. Two patients in the ketamine group had hypertension (defined as SBP > 180) that did not require treatment. Nurses tended to be more satisfied with patient pain control when ketamine was used (10 [8-10] vs 9 [7-10], P = .072). Patient satisfaction was higher in the ketamine group (10 [8.8-10] vs 9 [7-10], P = .006). Utilizing subhypnotic dose of IV ketamine for hydrotherapy is safe and associated with increased patient satisfaction.

Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine-Propofol Combination for Periprocedural Sedation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

RECENT FINDINGS

Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I2 = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I2 = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I2 = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I2 = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I2 = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

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.

Comparison of the Effect of Adding Low-dose Ketamine to Dexmedetomidine and Propofol on the Quality of Sedation and Hemodynamic Response in Children During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: As endoscopy is an invasive and painful procedure, it is necessary to use a suitable sedative with a minimum dose, especially in children. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effect of adding low-dose ketamine to dexmedetomidine and propofol on the quality of sedation and hemodynamic response in children during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: This double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 52 children who were candidates for endoscopy in 2 groups, each consisting of 26 patients. In the first group (Ketadex group), infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.7 - 1 μg/kg) for 10 minutes and ketamine bolus (0.4 mg/kg) for anesthesia induction was prescribed. In the second group (Ketofol group), infusion of propofol (50 - 100 μg/kg) for 10 minutes and ketamine bolus (0.4 mg/kg) for anesthesia induction was prescribed. Results: The mean blood pressure of children decreased slightly during and after the endoscopic procedure in the Ketadex group than in the Ketofol group (P < 0.05). The recovery time was significantly less in the Ketofol group (41.85 ± 7.03 minutes) than in the Ketadex group (55.12 ± 7.55 minutes; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The addition of the low-dose ketamine to propofol and dexmedetomidine did not result in any significant changes in the level of sedation, the incidence of adverse effects, and the endoscopist’s satisfaction; however, the recovery time was shorter in the propofol-ketamine combination than in the dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination.

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.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam when combined with butorphanol for sedation and analgesia during burn dressing changes: A randomized clinical trial

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare dexmedetomidine-butorphanol (DB) and midazolam-butorphanol (MB) combinations for sedation, and analgesia in burn patients undergoing dressing changes.

Methods: A total of 56 ASA I–II burn patients were included in this single-center randomized clinical trial. The ages of these patients were between 20 and 60 years. TBSA ranged from 10% to 50%. They were randomized to group DB and group MB during dressing change. In the DB group, each patient received a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg kg−1) and intermittent boluses of butorphanol (20 μg kg−1). In the MB group, each patient received a bolus dose of midazolam (0.05 mg kg−1) and intermittent boluses of butorphanol (20 μg kg−1). The primary outcomes were sedation scores and pain scores. The second outcomes were vital signs, side effects, and butorphanol consumption.

Results: The sedation scores of these two groups did not differ significantly (p &gt; 0.05), and the pain scores of these groups were not significantly different (p &gt; 0.05). More patients had hypotension in the DB group than in the MB group (6 versus 0, p = 0.01), but the number of patients who had respiratory depression was higher in the MB group compared with the DB group (4 versus 0, p = 0.038). Butorphanol consumption in the MB group was higher than in the DB group (p = 0.025).

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is comparable to midazolam when combined with butorphanol in burn patients during dressing change. Compared with midazolam, it has the advantage of opioid-sparing effect.

Clinical Trial Registration: [http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx&amp;proj=130622], identifier [ChiCTR2100049325].

The Effectiveness of Three Regimens of Sedation for Children Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Clinical Study

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) under sedation requires faster recovery for early discharge and feeding resumption in children with neuropsychiatric disorders. The use of dexmedetomidine alone results in delayed recovery. Propofol, when used alone, can cause hypotension and respiratory depression. A new regimen for sedation was evaluated by exploiting the properties of these drugs, to allow faster recovery with minimal adverse events.

Materials and Methods

One hundred and fifty children aged 2-12 years requiring MRI were randomly allocated to these three groups. Group P (n = 50) received propofol bolus at 2 mg.kg-1 over 10 min followed by infusion at 100 μg.kg-1.min-1. Group D (n = 50) received dexmedetomidine bolus of 2 μg.kg-1 over 10 min followed by infusion at 1 μg.kg-1.h-1. Group PD (n = 50) received propofol bolus at 2 mg.kg-1 over 10 min followed by dexmedetomidine infusion at 1 μg.kg-1.h-1. Recovery characteristics were noted.

Results

Recovery following sedation in Group PD (15 ± 7.0 min) and Group P (17.35 ± 7.4 min) were comparable and significantly (P = 0.03) lesser than Group D (27.58 ± 8.09 min). Emergence delirium scores were significantly less in Group PD (5 ± 1.08) and Group D (5.6 ± 2.4), unlike scores in Group P (9 ± 2.43). About 79.5% (39/49) of children in Group P, 88.2% (45/51) of children in Group D, and 86% (43/50) of children in Group PD completed MRI without any movement. Seven (14.58%) in Group P, 2 (4%) in Group D, and 5 (10.20%) in Group PD required rescue sedation.

Conclusion

The regimen with propofol bolus and dexmedetomidine infusion provided adequate sedation and better recovery characteristics in children aged 2-12 years without systemic complications, as compared to the use of either agent alone.

Ketofol for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in the Pediatric Population

ABSTRACT

The combination of ketamine and propofol, commonly referred to as ketofol, is sometimes used for procedural sedation and analgesia in the pediatric emergency department. This article reviews the pharmacology, dosing, and indications, as well as adverse effects and contraindications of ketamine, propofol, and ketofol.

Early non-excisional debridement of paediatric burns under general anaesthesia reduces time to re-epithelialisation and risk of skin graft

Reported advantages of early excision for larger burn injuries include reduced morbidity, mortality, and hospital length of stay for adult burn patients. However, a paucity of evidence supports the best option for paediatric burns and the advantages of non-excisional (mechanical) debridement. Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department is a popular alternative to debridement in operating theatres under general anaesthesia. This study aims to evaluate the association between early (< 24 h post-injury) non-excisional debridement under general anaesthesia with burn wound re-epithelialisation time and skin graft requirements. Cohort study of children younger than 17 years who presented with burns of five percent total body surface area or greater. Data from January 2013 to December 2019 were extracted from a prospectively collected state-wide paediatric burns' registry. Time to re-epithelialisation was tested using survival analysis, and binary logistic regression for odds of skin graft requirementto analyse effects of early non-excisional debridement in the operating theatre. Overall, 292 children met eligibility (males 55.5%). Early non-excisional debridement under general anaesthesia in the operating theatre, significantly reduced the time to re-epithelialisation (14 days versus 21 days, p = 0.029)) and the odds of requiring a skin graft in comparison to paediatric patients debrided in the emergency department under Ketamine sedation (OR: 6.97 (2.14-22.67), p < 0.001. This study is the first to demonstrate that early non-excisional debridement under general anaesthesia in the operating theatre significantly reduces wound re-epithelialisation time and subsequent need for a skin graft in paediatric burn patients. Analysis suggests that ketamine procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department used for burn wound debridement is not an effective substitute for debridement in the operating theatre.

Dexmedetomidine in combination with ketamine for pediatric procedural sedation or premedication: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness of combinational use of dexmedetomidine and ketamine (DEX-KET) for pediatric procedural sedation or premedication.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified after a literature search in electronic databases and study selection was based on precise eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of mean differences were performed to examine differences in sedation onset and recovery times between DEX-KET and comparators. Changes from baseline in heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and mean arterial pressure (MAP), were pooled. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed to estimate incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

15 studies (1087 patients) were included. Onset of sedation was significantly shorter in DEX-KET than in DEX group. HR declined in DEX-KET group from start (-3.5 beats per minute (BPM) [95% CI: -5.1, -1.9]) through midpoint (-7.2 BPM [95% CI: -12.1, -2.3]) and at end of sedation (-8.7 BPM [95% CI: -13.1, -4.4]). Decrease in HR after DEX administration at start was -11.6 BPM [95% CI: -16.0, -7.1] and remained consistent afterward. There was no change in MAP during DEX-KET sedation. However, after DEX administration, MAP decreased by -6.9 [95% CI: -10.4, -3.3] at start, -7.8 [95% CI: -11.4, -4.2] at middle, and by -6.6 [95% CI: -14.4, 1.1] at end of sedation. Incidence of hypotension was 3% [95% CI: 0, 9] in DEX-KET, 7% [95% CI: 2, 14] in DEX, and 0% [95% CI: 0, 2] in KET groups. Incidence of bradycardia was 2% [95% CI: 0, 6] with DEX-KET and 12% [95% CI: 5, 20] with DEX. Incidence of oxygen desaturation was 3% [95% CI: 0, 8] in DEX-KET, 2% [95% CI: 0, 6] in DEX, 12% [95% CI: 5, 20] in KET, and 13% [95% CI: 6, 21] in PROP-KET groups. MIDA-KET sedation had 13% [95% CI: 4, 25] incidence of tachycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX-KET for pediatric sedation results in better sedation outcomes than DEX or KET by shortening onset of sedation and recovery while maintaining hemodynamic and respiratory stability with low incidence of adverse events. DEX sedation was associated with higher incidence of bradycardia. Higher incidence of oxygen desaturation was observed with KET and PROP-KET whereas MIDA-KET was associated with higher incidence of tachycardia.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine and rectal ketamine for young children undergoing burn wound procedures

BACKGROUND

Safe and effective methods for sedation and analgesia in pediatric burn patients are strongly warranted. This retrospective study of electronic health care records aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with rectal ketamine as procedural sedation for young children undergoing dressing changes and debridement of burn wounds.

METHODS

Documentation was analyzed from 90 procedures in 58 pediatric patients aged <5 years. Safety and efficacy of the method were assessed based on documentation for complications, adverse effects, pain level, level of sedation and preoperative and recovery time.

RESULTS

All 90 sedations were completed without significant adverse events with acute airway management or medical intervention. The combination of dexmedetomidine-ketamine produced acceptable analgesia during the procedure and effectively relieved postoperative pain. However, the approach was insufficient for 7/58 patients (7.8%); these patients were converted from the dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination to intravenous anesthesia. In 23% of the cases an extra dose of either ketamine of dexmedetomidine was administered. Moreover, there were two cases of delayed awakening with recovery time >120 min.

CONCLUSION

The drug combination intranasal dexmedetomidine and rectal ketamine is a safe and reliable approach for procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing burn wound procedures, producing a clinically stable sedative condition requiring only basic monitoring.

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Propofol and Ketamine for Procedural Sedation/Anesthesia in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drugs such as propofol and ketamine are used alone or in combination to provide sedation for medical procedures in children. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the safety and effectiveness of propofol and ketamine to other drug regimens.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Web of Science, and the grey literature (meta-Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar) for randomized controlled studies comparing intravenous propofol and ketamine to any other single or combination drug regimen administered to children undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Meta-analyses were performed for primary (hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events) and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.3. We assessed the risk of bias and the certainty (quality) evidence for all outcomes using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included for analysis. Based on low-to-moderate quality evidence, we concluded that the use of propofol and ketamine may result in a slight-to-small reduction in the risk of hypotension, bradycardia, and apnea, and a slight increase in the risk of tachycardia, hypertension, and other respiratory adverse events, such as cough or laryngospasm. The ratio of propofol to ketamine and comparator drug regimen subgroups effects were important for desaturation and some secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of propofol and ketamine had a minimal effect on the incidence of adverse events and other secondary outcomes. Large-scale studies are required to more accurately estimate adverse event rates and the effects of propofol and ketamine on patient-important outcomes.

Guidelines for Opioid Prescribing in Children and Adolescents After Surgery: An Expert Panel Opinion

IMPORTANCE

Opioids are frequently prescribed to children and adolescents after surgery. Prescription opioid misuse is associated with high-risk behavior in youth. Evidence-based guidelines for opioid prescribing practices in children are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assemble a multidisciplinary team of health care experts and leaders in opioid stewardship, review current literature regarding opioid use and risks unique to pediatric populations, and develop a broad framework for evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines for children who require surgery.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Reviews of relevant literature were performed including all English-language articles published from January 1, 1988, to February 28, 2019, found via searches of the PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Pediatric was defined as children younger than 18 years. Animal and experimental studies, case reports, review articles, and editorials were excluded. Selected articles were graded using tools from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011 levels of evidence. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was applied throughout guideline creation. Consensus was determined using a modified Delphi technique.

FINDINGS

Overall, 14 574 articles were screened for inclusion, with 217 unique articles included for qualitative synthesis. Twenty guideline statements were generated from a 2-day in-person meeting and subsequently reviewed, edited, and endorsed externally by pediatric surgical specialists, the American Pediatric Surgery Association Board of Governors, the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Surgery Executive Committee, and the American College of Surgeons Board of Regents. Review of the literature and guideline statements underscored 3 primary themes: (1) health care professionals caring for children who require surgery must recognize the risks of opioid misuse associated with prescription opioids, (2) nonopioid analgesic use should be optimized in the perioperative period, and (3) patient and family education regarding perioperative pain management and safe opioid use practices must occur both before and after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These are the first opioid-prescribing guidelines to address the unique needs of children who require surgery. Health care professionals caring for children and adolescents in the perioperative period should optimize pain management and minimize risks associated with opioid use by engaging patients and families in opioid stewardship efforts.

Comparison of the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in reducing recovery agitation in pediatric patients after ketamine procedural sedation in emergency department

Background:

Ketamine has been a safe and effective sedative agent commonly used for painful pediatric procedures in the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine (Dex) and propofol when used as co-administration with ketamine on recovery agitation in children who underwent procedural sedation.

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial, 93 children aged between 3 and 17 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I and II undergoing short procedures in the ED were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketadex (Dex 0.7 μg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg), ketofol (propofol 0.5 mg/kg and ketamine 0.5 mg/kg), or ketamine alone (ketamine1 mg/kg) intravenously. Incidence and severity of recovery agitation were evaluated using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and compared between the groups.

Results:

There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups with respect to age, gender, and weight (P > 0.05). The incidence of recovery agitation was 3.2% in the ketadex group, 22.6% in the ketofol group, and 22.6% in the ketamine group (P = 0.002, children undergoing short procedures were recruited). There was a less unpleasant recovery reaction (hallucination, crying, and nightmares) in the ketadex group compared with the ketofol and ketamine groups (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of oxygen desaturation between the groups (P = 0.30).

Conclusion:

The co-administering of Dex to ketamine could significantly reduce the incidence and severity of recovery agitation in children sedated in the ED.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Day-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

METHODS

We enrolled 120 patients (2-7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg^-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg^-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg^-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes respectively, p <0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and six patients experienced SpO₂ <92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p=0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

American Burn Association Guidelines on the Management of Acute Pain in the Adult Burn Patient: A Review of the Literature, a Compilation of Expert Opinion, and Next Steps

The ABA pain guidelines were developed 14 years ago and have not been revised despite evolution in the practice of burn care. A sub-committee of the American Burn Association's Committee on the Organization and Delivery of Burn Care was created to revise the adult pain guidelines. A MEDLINE search of English-language publications from 1968 to 2018 was conducted using the keywords "burn pain," "treatment," and "assessment." Selected references were also used from the greater pain literature. Studies were graded by two members of the committee using Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence. We then met as a group to determine expert consensus on a variety of topics related to treating pain in burn patients. Finally, we assessed gaps in the current knowledge and determined research questions that would aid in providing better recommendations for optimal pain management of the burn patient. The literature search produced 189 papers, 95 were found to be relevant to the assessment and treatment of burn pain. From the greater pain literature 151 references were included, totaling 246 papers being analyzed. Following this literature review, a meeting to establish expert consensus was held and 20 guidelines established in the areas of pain assessment, opioid medications, nonopioid medications, regional anesthesia, and nonpharmacologic treatments. There is increasing research on pain management modalities, but available studies are inadequate to create a true standard of care. We call for more burn specific research into modalities for burn pain control as well as research on multimodal pain control.

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

Background and objectives

Day-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

Methods

We enrolled 120 patients (2−7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg^-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg^-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg^-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

Results

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and 6 patients experienced SpO₂ < 92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p =  0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

Conclusions

The P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.

Registration number

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

Ketamine-propofol (Ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia.

Method

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.

Results

Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: − 14.30 to − 5.46; P = 0.0003; I² = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: − 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I² = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I² = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I² = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I² = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I² = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I² = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I² = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I² = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I² = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I² = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I² = 59%).

Conclusion

There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019127278.

The Pediatric Burn: Current Trends and Future Directions

Management of the pediatric burn patient presents a variety of clinical challenges for the pediatric anesthesiologist. Despite the high incidence of burn injuries, standard management strategies are far from universal. The complex physiologic changes presented by burn injuries present airway management and resuscitation challenges and mandate careful consideration of adequate nutritional support. Long hospital stays with frequent operations and dressing changes necessitate creative approaches to anxiolysis and pain control. Underutilized modalities warranting further research include regional anesthesia and nonpharmacologic approaches, such as virtual reality. Further research and collaboration between burn centers are needed to standardize care for this population.

To Compare the Efficacy of Two Intravenous Combinations of Drugs Ketamine-Propofol vs Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine for Sedation in Children Undergoing Dental Treatment

Objective

To compare the efficacy of two intravenous combinations of drugs ketamine–propofol (KP) vs ketamine–dexmedetomidine (KD) for sedation in children undergoing dental treatment.

Study design

Thirty patients were selected, evaluated according to the predetermined criteria and divided in equal numbers of 15 amongst 2 groups KP and KD.

Materials and methods

Informed consent was taken, nil per oral (NPO) guidelines were followed and the study drug was administered. Dental procedure was performed. Heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP) and oxygen saturation (SPO₂) were monitored continuously throughout the procedure. The modified Ramsay sedation (MRS) score was recorded along with Houpt sedation score. Recovery status was accessed by modified Aldrete's recovery scale.

Statistical analysis

Student t test was used for comparing HR, BP and SPO₂. Chi-square test was used to compare MRS, Houpt sedation score and modified Aldrete's recovery scale amongst the two groups KP and KD.

Results

The sedation achieved with both the groups was adequate. Both the drugs produce adequate hemodynamic stability.

Conclusion

Ketamine–dexmedetomidine has a better efficacy over the other group, ketamine–propofol.

How to cite this article

Joshi AB, Shankaranarayan UR, Hegde A, et al. To Compare the Efficacy of Two Intravenous Combinations of Drugs Ketamine–Propofol vs Ketamine–Dexmedetomidine for Sedation in Children Undergoing Dental Treatment. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(5):529–535.

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.

The pearls of pediatric sedation: polish the old and embrace the new

Over the past decade, as the complexity and breadth of pediatric procedures increases, the actual choices of approved sedatives have remained relatively stagnant. Since the introduction of midazolam, there has not been a sedative approved for pediatric labelling until December 2018. This December, the European approval of ADV6209 (Ozalin) for pediatric usage marked the newest addition to the pediatric sedative armamentarium in over a decade. This review is timely and significant because it will provide a balanced evaluation of the most common sedatives in use today, the most recent sedative to be approved and, most importantly, a critical look at the literature supporting the latest approaches to the most commonly performed procedures.

CE: Original Research: The Efficacy and Safety of an RN-Driven Ketamine Protocol for Adjunctive Analgesia During Burn Wound Care

: Objective: Traditional analgesic regimens often fail to control the severe pain patients experience during burn wound care, and the drugs are frequently administered at doses that can cause oversedation and respiratory depression. Ketamine may be an ideal agent for adjunctive analgesia in such patients because of its unique mechanism of action and lack of association with respiratory depression. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a critical care RN-driven protocol for IV ketamine administration during burn wound care.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined all adult burn patients who received ketamine as part of a critical care RN-driven ketamine protocol for burn wound care from September 2011 through September 2013. Efficacy outcomes were opioid and benzodiazepine requirements (expressed as fentanyl and midazolam equivalents, respectively) four hours after ketamine administration compared with four hours before such administration. Safety parameters assessed were neurologic, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients received 56 ketamine doses as part of this protocol; the mean (SD) dose was 0.75 (0.35) mg/kg. Twenty patients (74%) were male and seven (26%) were female; mean age was 39 years. The average percentage of total body surface area burned was 23.4%. With the protocol, opioid and benzodiazepine requirements were reduced by 29% and 20%, respectively. One patient experienced an episode of oversedation after concomitant administration of ketamine and fentanyl. No patients experienced neurologic or hemodynamic complications following ketamine administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of ketamine during burn wound care using a critical care RN-driven protocol was associated with reduced opioid and benzodiazepine requirements and few adverse effects. Prospective studies are needed to investigate additional patient outcomes and the independent administration of ketamine by critical care RNs.

Pain Management in Pediatric Burn Patients: Review of Recent Literature and Future Directions

Childhood burns are a profoundly traumatic and painful experience. Despite recognition of the prevalence of burn injuries in children and the severity of the associated pain, burn pain remains undertreated. At the same time, more evidence is emerging to suggest that undertreated pain has serious long-term medical and psychiatric consequences, many of which can be ameliorated with improved pain control. Pain in burn patients is, however, notoriously difficult to treat, perhaps because there is a chronic pain aspect underlying the acute pain that accompanies wound care and procedures. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that there are little data to guide decision making in these patients. This article aims to identify the best strategies to guide clinical practice through a review of the past 10 years' development in pediatric burn pain management. However, because clinical investigations remain limited in burned children, we also aim to draw attention to those areas where the data do not identify an optimal approach and further work is needed. Overall, in addition to just the traditional pharmacological approaches to pain, such as acetaminophen, benzodiazepines, and opioids, there is growing evidence to support more widespread use of regional anesthesia and novel technologies such as virtual reality. Starting with an improved understanding of the current state of the literature, we can identify areas of research and important questions whose answers will ultimately improve care and reduce suffering for this unfortunate population of children.

Emergency Care of Pediatric Burns

Although the overall incidence of and mortality rate associated with burn injury have decreased in recent decades, burns remain a significant source of morbidity and mortality in children. Children with major burns require emergent resuscitation. Resuscitation is similar to that for adults, including pain control, airway management, and administration of intravenous fluid. However, in pediatrics, fluid resuscitation is needed for burns greater than or equal to 15% of total body surface area (TBSA) compared with burns greater than or equal to 20% TBSA for adults. Unique to pediatrics is the additional assessment for non-accidental injury and accurate calculation of the percentage of total burned surface area (TBSA) in children with changing body proportions are crucial to determine resuscitation parameters, prognosis, and disposition.

Steel Wool-Aided Dermabrasion of Deep Partial-Thickness Burns

Early tangential excision of the burn wound is essential for removal of necrotic tissue and promotion of burn wound healing process. However, the depth of the burn wound is not easily assessed during the tangential excision performed by hand-held dermatomes, and it may be possible to excise unburned vital dermis unnecessarily, which aids in primary epithelization of the burn wound by adnexal structures. We herein present early clinical results of steel wool-aided dermabrasion in patients with deep partial-thickness burns. This is a retrospective case study of 23 consecutive hospitalized patients with deep partial-thickness burns. All of the steel wool-aided dermabrasions were performed under general anesthesia within 48 hours after injury. Patients were excluded from the study if the admission was not within 24 hours after injury, and if the burn wound was entirely superficial partial- or full-thickness. Thirteen male and 10 female patients with a mean age of 26.2 ± 17.1 years were enrolled in the study. During the follow-up period, all of the patients had burn wounds primary epithelized on postburn day 15.1 ± 1.8, without any complications. None of the patients exhibited a mortal course, and redebridement or skin grafting of the previously dermabraded deep partial-thickness burn wounds were not required in any of the patients. Steel wool-aided dermabrasion is an easy, cost-effective, and reliable technique for the treatment of deep partial-thickness burns, which provides complete removal of necrotic tissue, preserves the vital dermis, reduces the requirement for skin grafting, and decreases length of hospital stay.

Considerations for pediatric burn sedation and analgesia

Burn patients experience anxiety and pain in the course of their injury, treatment, and recovery. Hence, treatment of anxiety and pain is paramount after burn injury. Children, in particular, pose challenges in anxiety and pain management due to their unique physiologic, psychologic, and anatomic status. Burn injuries further complicate pain management and sedation as such injuries can have effects on medication response and elimination. Burn injuries further complicate pain management and sedation as such injuries can have effects on medication response and elimination. The purpose of this review is to describe the challenges associated with management of anxiety, pain, and sedation in burned children and to describe the different options for treatment of anxiety and pain in burned children.

Ketamine: 50 Years of Modulating the Mind

Ketamine was introduced into clinical practice in the 1960s and continues to be both clinically useful and scientifically fascinating. With considerably diverse molecular targets and neurophysiological properties, ketamine’s effects on the central nervous system remain incompletely understood. Investigators have leveraged the unique characteristics of ketamine to explore the invariant, fundamental mechanisms of anesthetic action. Emerging evidence indicates that ketamine-mediated anesthesia may occur via disruption of corticocortical information transfer in a frontal-to-parietal (“top down”) distribution. This proposed mechanism of general anesthesia has since been demonstrated with anesthetics in other pharmacological classes as well. Ketamine remains invaluable to the fields of anesthesiology and critical care medicine, in large part due to its ability to maintain cardiorespiratory stability while providing effective sedation and analgesia. Furthermore, there may be an emerging role for ketamine in treatment of refractory depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. In this article, we review the history of ketamine, its pharmacology, putative mechanisms of action and current clinical applications.

Clinically Relevant Concentrations of Ketamine Inhibit Osteoclast Formation In Vitro in Mouse Bone Marrow Cultures

Ketamine has been used safely in clinics for decades for analgesia and anesthesia. It is increasingly popular in clinical practice due to its new uses and importance for emergency procedures. It is known that ketamine is sequestered in the bone marrow and the major receptors for ketamine, noncompetitive N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors (NMDARs), are expressed in osteoclasts (OCs) and osteoblasts. However, the impact of ketamine on OCs or osteoblasts is unknown. In this study, we investigated the effects of ketamine on osteoclastogenesis and regulation of NMDARs expression in vitro. Bone marrows (BMs) or bone marrow macrophages (BMMs) were cultured in the presence of macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) with or without ketamine for up to 6 days. OC formation peaked at day 5. On day 5 of culture, ketamine inhibited OC formation from both BM and BMM cultures at clinically relevant concentrations (3-200 µM). Ketamine inhibited RANKL-induced expression of nuclear factor of activated T-cells, cytoplasmic, calcineurin-dependent 1 (NFATc1) in BMM cultures. Inhibition of ketamine on RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis is associated with down-regulation of NMDARs. In addition, ketamine significantly inhibited the M-CSF induced migration of BMMs, inhibited cell fusion and significantly increased mature OC apoptosis. We conclude that clinically relevant concentrations of ketamine inhibit OC formation in both BM and BMM cultures in vitro through inhibiting migration and fusion process and enhancing mature OC apoptosis. It is likely that ketamine regulates osteoclastogenesis, at least in part, via its effects on NMDAR expression. J. Cell. Biochem. 118: 914-923, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Intravenous ketamine, propofol and propofol-ketamine combination used for pediatric dental sedation: A randomized clinical study

Background and Objective:

Dental treatments cannot bealways performed under local anesthesia inpediatric non-cooperative patients. For this purpose, differentanesthetic techniques have been applied to increase patient comport to dental treatments.

Methods:

Sixty children classified as ASA I-II, between aged 3 to 9, who were scheduled to undergo tooth extraction, were enrolled for this randomized study. Group K received 1 mg/kg ketamine, Group P received 1 mg/kg propofol, and Group KP received 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5 mg/kg ketamine intravenously for anesthesia induction.

Results:

Recovery time was significantly lower in Group P than Group KP. No significant differences were found between groups regarding HR, before and after the induction, at tenth minute. Fifth minute’s HR was higher in Group K than Group KP. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) values were similar at baseline, before and after the induction, and at tenth minute, whereas significantly lower values were found in Group P and Group KP than in Group K at fifth minute.

Conclusions:

Although ketamine, propofol and ketamine-propofol combination are effective for sedation in tooth extraction in pediatric patients, propofol may be an excellent alternative, with the shortest recovery, no nausea and vomiting, and reasonable surgical satisfaction.

Propofol-ketamine or propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation and analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing burn dressing changes: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we compared the propofol-ketamine and propofol-remifentanil combinations for deep sedation and analgesia during pediatric burn wound dressing changes.

METHODS

Fifty pediatric patients aged 12-36 months, undergoing burn wound dressing changes, were randomly assigned to receive propofol-remifentanil (group PR) or propofol-ketamine (group PK) for deep sedation and analgesia. Patients in the group PR received 2 mg·kg(-1) propofol and 0.1 μg·kg(-1) remifentanil, and 0.05 μg·kg(-1) ·min(-1) remifentanil was infused continuously until the end of the procedure. Patients in the group PK received 2 mg·kg(-1) propofol and 1 mg·kg(-1) ketamine, and the same volume of isotonic saline was infused continuously until the end of the procedure. Additional propofol with remifentanil or ketamine was administered when required. Hemodynamic variables, drug requirements, occurrence of patient movement, surgeon's satisfaction score, recovery time, and the incidence of adverse events were recorded throughout the procedure and recovery.

RESULTS

Recovery time was significantly shorter in the group PR compared to that in the group PK (10.3 [9.1-11.5] min vs 22.5 [20.3-25.6] min, median [interquartile range], respectively; P < 0.001). No significant hypotension or bradycardia occurred throughout the procedure. No significant differences were observed in terms of drug requirements, occurrence of patient movement, surgeon's satisfaction, incidence of respiratory depression, hypoxia, or nausea and vomiting

CONCLUSIONS

The combinations of propofol-ketamine and propofol-remifentanil were effective for sedation and analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing burn dressing changes, but the propofol-remifentanil combination provided faster recovery compared to the propofol-ketamine combination.

Discontinuance of life sustaining treatment utilizing ketamine for symptom management

We present the case of an otherwise healthy 21-year-old female who developed severe respiratory failure following a minor procedure requiring ECMO and bi-level ventilation. During her protracted ICU course, she had significant difficulties with agitation and was titrated to the following regimen: hydromorphone 30 mg/hour, fentanyl 200 mcg/hour, dexmedetomidine 1.5 mcg/kg/hour, propofol at 70 mcg/kg/min, and midazolam at 20 mg/hour. We were consulted to assist in withdrawal of life prolonging measures at the family's request and given high doses of commonly used opioid and sedative medications successfully utilized methadone and ketamine for symptom control. This case study would indicate that in selected patients on high dose opioid and sedative medications prior to withdrawal of life prolonging measures ketamine may be considered for symptom management.

Dexmedetomidine provides neuroprotection: impact on ketamine-induced neuroapoptosis in the developing rat brain

BACKGROUND

Ketamine and dexmedetomidine are increasingly used in combination in pediatric patients. This study examined the hypothesis that dexmedetomidine attenuated ketamine-induced neurotoxicity.

METHODS

Neonatal rats were randomly divided into four groups (n=10, male 5, female 5). Group S+S received an equal volume of normal saline intraperitoneally and subcutaneously at an interval of 5 min. Group K+S received an intraperitoneal injection of 75 mg/kg ketamine followed by subcutaneous injection of normal saline 5 min later. Group S+D were given subcutaneously 25 μg/kg dexmedetomidine 5 min after injection of normal saline. Group K+D received a subcutaneous injection of 25 μg/kg dexmedetomidine 5 min after ketamine injection. The above drugs were given once daily for 3 days. Neuronal apoptosis in the CA1 region and the dentate gyrus of rats was examined by transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) assays. Learning and memory abilities of 2-month old rats were examined by Morris water maze test. The results were analyzed by analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The percentage of TUNEL-positive cells in group K+S (CA1, 49.0±9.46 and dentate gyrus, 49.4±5.41) was markedly higher than that in group K+D (CA1, 37.2±5.54 and dentate gyrus, 35.2±5.06) (F=5.49, P<0.05 and F=13.51, P<0.001, respectively). Group K+S took significantly longer time and swimming distance to find the hidden platform on the fourth and fifth training days than group K+D (P<0.05). Moreover, group K+D spent considerably more time in the target quadrant than group K+S (P<0.05). Dexmedetomidine alone caused a small but statistically insignificant increase in neuronal apoptosis of the CA1 region and the dentate gyrus of neonatal rats compared with normal saline.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, ketamine caused neuroapoptosis and impaired brain functions in the developing rat brain which can be effectively attenuated by dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine alone was not neurotoxic to the developing brain.

Perioperative anesthesia management of the burn patient

Burn patients provide numerous challenges to the anesthesiologist. It is important to understand the multiple physiologic disruptions that follow a burn injury as well as the alterations in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of commonly used anesthetics. Thought must be given to surgery during initial fluid resuscitation and the airway challenges many of these patients present. Finally, the central role of pain management through all phases of care is a constant concern.

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine sedation for muscle biopsies in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy

BACKGROUND

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) possesses many potential challenges for anesthetic care. Invasive and noninvasive procedures with corresponding sedation or general anesthesia are frequent and necessary for affected patients. There remains a need for a better agent or agents for procedural sedation in patients with comorbid diseases. This study prospectively evaluated a combination of ketamine with two different doses of dexmedetomidine for sedation during muscle biopsy in patients with DMD.

METHODS

Dexmedetomidine 1.0 or 0.5 μg·kg(-1) was administered as a loading dose over 3 min followed by a continuous infusion of 1.0 or 0.5 μg·kg·h(-1). Ketamine (1 mg·kg(-1)) was administered along with the dexmedetomidine loading dose. As the procedure commenced, additional doses of ketamine (0.5 mg·kg(-1)) were administered as needed. Sedation scores, hemodynamic data, operative times, and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The study cohort included a total of 53 bicep, deltoid, or anterior tibialis muscle biopsies in 19 boys including 24 in the dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg·kg(-1) group and 29 in the dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg·kg(-1) group. Mean age and weight were 9.7 ± 1.4 years and 33.3 ± 7.7 kg in the dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg·kg(-1) group and 8.8 ± 1.8 years and 30.2 ± 10.8 kg in the dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg·kg(-1) group. No significant changes in blood pressure were noted. A decrease in heart rate (HR) occurred after the loading dose of dexmedetomidine in both groups. The HR was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg·kg(-1) group compared with the dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg·kg(-1) group. Total recovery time to discharge was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg·kg(-1) group than the dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg·kg(-1) group (146 ± 65 vs 174 ± 58 min; P = 0.03), although the total ketamine dose was significantly greater in the dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg·kg(-1) group (3.7 ± 1.0 vs 2.0 ± 0.5 mg·kg(-1); P < 0.01). There were no episodes of apnea or hypoventilation; however, a jaw thrust was needed in one patient in the dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg·kg(-1) group.

CONCLUSION

The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine is safe and effective for moderately painful procedures with limited respiratory and cardiovascular effects in a high-risk patient population. Dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg·kg(-1) as a loading dose with ketamine followed by a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine at 0.5 μg·kg(-1) ·h(-1) achieved an adequate sedation level with shorter total recovery times in the perioperative unit compared with a higher dose regimen of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg·kg(-1) loading dose followed by an infusion at 1.0 μg·kg(-1) ·h(-1)).