Warning: Undefined variable $zfal in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\mlpefetch.php on line 525
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\mlpefetch.php on line 525
Warning: Undefined variable $sterm in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\mlpefetch.php on line 530
Warning: Undefined variable $sterm in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\mlpefetch.php on line 531
English Wikipedia
Nephropedia Template TP (
Twit Text
DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing |
lüll Is propofol a safe alternative to pentobarbital for sedation during pediatric diagnostic CT?Zgleszewski SE; Zurakowski D; Fontaine PJ; D'Angelo M; Mason KPRadiology 2008[May]; 247 (2): 528-34PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the incidence of adverse respiratory events, the need for airway interventions, and the recovery time after propofol sedation with similar data from a retrospective review of data obtained in patients who underwent pentobarbital sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was conducted with institutional review board approval and parental informed consent. The hospital sedation committee approved a 2-month pilot program of propofol sedation as a potential alternative to pentobarbital sedation. Parents were given the choice of having their child sedated with intravenously administered propofol or pentobarbital. Fifty-two patients (18 female, 34 male; mean age, 2.9 years +/- 2.4 [standard deviation]) received propofol. An equal number of patients (21 female, 31 male; mean age, 2.5 years +/- 1.7) who previously received pentobarbital were included. The sample sizes provided 80% power to detect differences in airway manipulations, adverse respiratory events, and recovery time between the groups by using the Fisher exact test and the Student t test. A two-tailed P value of less than .05 indicated a significant difference. RESULTS: Patients sedated with propofol underwent significantly more airway manipulations to relieve obstruction than did patients sedated with pentobarbital (23% vs 0%, P < .001). More adverse respiratory events occurred in the propofol group than in the pentobarbital group (12% vs 0%, P = .03). Patients in the propofol group had a faster recovery profile than did patients in the pentobarbital group (34 minutes +/- 17 vs 100 minutes +/- 30, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Propofol is associated with a significantly greater incidence of adverse respiratory events than is pentobarbital.|*Tomography, X-Ray Computed[MESH]|Chi-Square Distribution[MESH]|Child[MESH]|Child, Preschool[MESH]|Conscious Sedation/adverse effects/*methods[MESH]|Female[MESH]|Humans[MESH]|Hypnotics and Sedatives/*administration & dosage/adverse effects[MESH]|Linear Models[MESH]|Male[MESH]|Pentobarbital/*administration & dosage/adverse effects[MESH]|Propofol/*administration & dosage/adverse effects[MESH]|Prospective Studies[MESH]|Statistics, Nonparametric[MESH] |