HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zgleszewski, S. E. Articles by Mason, K. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zgleszewski, S. E. Articles by Mason, K. P.

Is Propofol a Safe Alternative to Pentobarbital for Sedation during Pediatric Diagnostic CT?¹

¹ From the Departments of Anesthesia (S.E.Z., D.Z., K.P.M.) and Radiology (D.Z., P.J.F., P.D., K.P.M.), Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115. From the 2005 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received December 7, 2006; revision requested February 19, 2007; revision received September 12; accepted September 28; final version accepted October 29. Address correspondence to S.E.Z. (e-mail: steven.zgleszewski{at}childrens.harvard.edu).

Purpose: 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.

© RSNA, 2008