Comparison of Two Different Intranasal Doses of Dexmedetomidine in Children for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation
- PMID: 26323489
- DOI: 10.1007/s40272-015-0145-1
Comparison of Two Different Intranasal Doses of Dexmedetomidine in Children for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation
Abstract
Objective: Anaesthetic agents used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in paediatric patients should cause few adverse effects and allow fast anaesthetic induction and recovery. The administration route is also important and should be minimally invasive. In this study, we aimed to compare two different doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine applied to children for MRI sedation.
Methods: Sixty patients between 1 and 10 years of age with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification I or II who were scheduled for MRI were recruited into this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Intranasal dexmedetomidine was administered at doses of 3 µg kg(-1) (Group 1) and 4 µg kg(-1) (Group 2) before imaging. Heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) scores were recorded before the anaesthetic induction of sedation and every 10 min until discharge. If intranasal sedation failed, an intravenous cannula was placed and propofol was applied as a rescue anaesthetic. Bispectral Index (BIS) scores were also recorded before and after MRI. We recorded onset time of sedation, mood at separation from parents (defined as parental separation score), imaging quality, MRI duration, rescue anaesthetic requirement, total duration of sedation, recovery duration, parents' satisfaction and adverse effects.
Results: The results related to age, weight and adverse effects were not statistically different between the groups. The parental separation score was significantly higher in Group 2 (P = 0.003). Rescue anaesthetic requirement was significantly higher in Group 1 (P = 0.002). The results related to recovery duration, MRI duration, parents' satisfaction, onset time of sedation and total duration of sedation were not statistically different. HR was significantly lower in all time intervals compared with basal values in both groups. In Group 2, RSS scores were significantly higher in the 30th, 40th and 50th min. The BIS scores in Group 2 were lower at the 50th min. Neither bradycardia nor oxygen desaturation were observed. Imaging studies were completed successfully in all patients.
Conclusions: Based on lower rescue anaesthetic requirements, sufficient sedation and parental separation scores in Group 2, intranasal dexmedetomidine 4 µg kg(-1) was more efficient than intranasal dexmedetomidine 3 µg kg(-1). The intranasal route may be an alternative noninvasive route to apply drugs for MRI sedation in paediatric patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02299232.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of rescue techniques for failed chloral hydrate sedation for magnetic resonance imaging scans--additional chloral hydrate vs intranasal dexmedetomidine.Paediatr Anaesth. 2016 Mar;26(3):273-9. doi: 10.1111/pan.12824. Epub 2015 Dec 30. Paediatr Anaesth. 2016. PMID: 26714442 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of Sedative Effects of Two Spray Administration of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Doses for Premedication in Children.Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. 2016 Oct 10;38(5):563-567. doi: 10.3881/j.issn.1000-503X.2016.05.013. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. 2016. PMID: 27825415 Clinical Trial.
-
Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for premedication in children undergoing complete dental rehabilitation: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial.Paediatr Anaesth. 2014 Feb;24(2):181-9. doi: 10.1111/pan.12287. Epub 2013 Nov 15. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014. PMID: 24237879 Clinical Trial.
-
[Efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication for children undergoing CT or magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis].Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2020 Apr 2;58(4):314-318. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112140-20191224-00830. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2020. PMID: 32234139 Chinese.
-
Intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate for diagnostic procedures sedation in infants and toddlers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Feb;99(9):e19001. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019001. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020. PMID: 32118711 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Effect of two different doses of nalbuphine for postoperative analgesia in children with cleft palate: a randomized controlled trial.BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 Jan 12;24(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02404-0. BMC Anesthesiol. 2024. PMID: 38216893 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Comparative evaluation of intravenous versus intranasal dexmedetomidine on emergence delirium and hemodynamics in pediatric patients undergoing adenotonsillectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Front Pharmacol. 2025 Jan 30;16:1543344. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1543344. eCollection 2025. Front Pharmacol. 2025. PMID: 39950111 Free PMC article.
-
Intranasal Dexmedetomidine as a Sedative for Pediatric Procedural Sedation.J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Jan-Feb;22(1):4-8. doi: 10.5863/1551-6776-22.1.4. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2017. PMID: 28337075 Free PMC article.
-
Intranasal Dexmedetomidine as Sedative for Medical Imaging in Young Children: A Systematic Review to Provide a Roadmap for an Evidence-Guided Clinical Protocol.Children (Basel). 2022 Aug 28;9(9):1310. doi: 10.3390/children9091310. Children (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36138619 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A randomized double-blind trial of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus intranasal esketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in young children.Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2024 Mar 4;32(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13049-024-01190-5. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2024. PMID: 38439043 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous