Previous article Table of Contents  Next article

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 295-299

A comparison of the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging


Department of Anaesthesiology, M. P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Jaydev Dave
11/3, Patel Colony, Bilva-Patra, Jamnagar - 361 008, Gujarat
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Read associated Retraction Notice: Retraction note with this article

DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.84105

Rights and Permissions
Date of Web Publication22-Aug-2011
 

  Abstract 

Aim: To compare the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging procedures. Methods: Sixty children between the age of 1 to 7 years were randomly distributed into two groups: The dexmedetomidine (D) group received 1 μg/kg initial dose followed by continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h, and the propofol group (P) received 3 mg/kg initial dose, followed by a continuous infusion of 100 μg/kg/min. Inadequate sedation was defined as difficulty in completing the procedure because of the child's movement during magnetic resonance imaging. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate (RR) were recorded during the study. Result: The onset of sedation, recovery, and discharge time were significantly shorter in group P than in group D. MAP, heart rate, and RR decreased during sedation from the baseline values in both groups. MAP and RR were significantly lower in group P than in group D during sedation. Dexmedetomidine and propofol provided adequate sedation in most of the children. Conclusion: We conclude that although propofol provided faster anesthetic induction and recovery times, it caused hypotension and desaturation. Dexmedetomidine could be an alternative, reliable sedative drug to propofol in selected patients.

Keywords: Dexmedetomidine, magnetic resonance imaging, propofol


How to cite this article:
Dave J, Vaghela S. A comparison of the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Saudi J Anaesth 2011;5:295-9

How to cite this URL:
Dave J, Vaghela S. A comparison of the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Saudi J Anaesth [serial online] 2011 [cited 2017 Nov 24];5:295-9. Available from: http://www.saudija.org/text.asp?2011/5/3/295/84105

The article found to be Plagiarized and hence been Retracted.





This article has been cited by
1 Caveat Lector
Abdelazeem Eldawlatly,Steven L. Shafer
Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2012; 114(6): 1160
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Caveat lector
Eldawlatly, A. and Shafer, S.L.
Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2012; 114(6): 1160-1162
[Pubmed]
3 Redefining plagiarism; A friend or a foe?
Khan, T.H.
Anaesthesia, Pain and Intensive Care. 2012; 16(2): 119-122
[Pubmed]



 

Top
 
Previous article    Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  IN THIS Article
   Abstract

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2372    
    Printed140    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded167    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal