Ketofol for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in the Pediatric Population

Comparison of Intraoperative Propofol-Dexmedetomidine and Ketofol-Dexmedetomidine Infusions on Recovery from Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

A rapid and smooth emergence is essential in patients undergoing transsphenoidal pituitary surgeries. Ketofol has been used as an anesthetic agent with good recovery characteristics. We conducted this study to compare the recovery profile of the patients receiving propofol-dexmedetomidine or ketofol-dexmedetomidine infusions for transsphenoidal excision of pituitary tumors.

METHODS

Forty adult patients undergoing endoscopic pituitary surgery received either an infusion of propofol (Group P) or ketofol, 1:5 (Group KP) at 0.6-0.9 ml/kg/h. Dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg/kg/h) was administered in both groups. Our aim was to assess the recovery time, extubation time, and emergence time. We also assessed the intraoperative hemodynamics, cerebral oxygenation, quality of the surgical field, and postoperative pain.

RESULTS

The recovery time (Group KP v/s P; 16.5 ± 4.3 vs 8.3 ± 2.7 minutes, P < 0.01), emergence time (12.9 ± 3.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.7 minutes, P < 0.01), and extubation time (14.3 ± 4.2 vs 7.2 ± 2.8 minutes, P < 0.01) were longer in Group KP as compared to Group P. However, the patients in Group KP had lower cough scores and pain scores, along with better maintenance of hemodynamic stability and cerebral oxygenation. The agitation score, cognition score, and quality of the surgical field were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ketofol resulted in a longer recovery time compared to the use of propofol alone. However, ketofol was associated with a better quality of extubation, maintenance of hemodynamic stability, and enhanced postoperative analgesia. Further research is needed to conclusively establish its efficacy and optimal dosage in pituitary surgery.

Pulmonary Atelectasis After Sedation With Propofol vs Propofol-Ketamine for Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Little is known about the impact of different anesthetic agents used for routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation on pulmonary function in children.

Objective

To compare the incidence of pulmonary atelectasis after MRI sedation with propofol vs propofol-ketamine.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This double-masked randomized clinical trial screened 117 consecutive pediatric patients aged 3 to 12 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II undergoing elective MRI under deep sedation from November 2, 2022, to April 28, 2023, at a tertiary referral center. Four patients met the exclusion criteria, and 5 patients refused to participate. The participants and outcome assessors were masked to the group allocation.

Interventions

During the MRI, the propofol group received 0.2 mL/kg of 1% propofol and 2 mL of 0.9% saline followed by a continuous infusion of propofol (200 μg/kg/min) and 0.9% saline (0.04 mL/kg/min). The propofol-ketamine group received 0.2 mL/kg of 0.5% propofol and 1 mg/kg of ketamine followed by a continuous infusion of propofol (100 μg/kg/min) and ketamine (20 μg/kg/min).

Main Outcome and Measure

The incidence of atelectasis assessed by lung ultrasonography examination.

Results

A total of 107 children (median [IQR] age, 5 [4-6] years; 62 male [57.9%]), with 54 in the propofol group and 53 in the propofol-ketamine group, were analyzed in this study. Notably, 48 (88.9%) and 31 (58.5%) patients had atelectasis in the propofol and propofol-ketamine groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8; P < .001). The incidence of desaturation and interruption of the MRI due to airway intervention or spontaneous movement did not significantly differ between the groups. The propofol-ketamine group showed a faster emergence time than the propofol group (15 [9-23] vs 25 [22-27] minutes in the propofol-ketamine vs propofol group; median difference in time, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, 6.0-12.0 minutes; P < .001). No patient was withdrawn from the trial due to adverse effects.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, the propofol-ketamine combination reduced sedation-induced atelectasis while allowing for faster emergence compared with propofol alone.

Trial Registration

cris.nih.go.kr Identifier: KCT0007699.

Effects of propofol, ketamine-propofol mixture in pediatric dental patients undergoing intravenous sedation: a clinical study

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effects, complications (peri- and postoperative), depth of sedation, recovery times, and changes in anxiety levels in paediatric dental patients receiving intravenous sedation with propofol and ketamine-propofol mixtures. This prospective clinical study included 69 healthy children (ASA 1) aged 3-7 years. The patients were assigned randomly to propofol group (n = 23), which received propofol; 1:3 ketofol group (n = 23), which received 1:3 ketofol; or 1:4 ketofol group (n = 23), which received 1:4 ketofol. The bispectral index (BIS) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score were recorded at intervals of 5 min to measure the depth of sedation, and vital signs were evaluated. Peri- and postoperative complications and recovery times were recorded. Anxiety levels were also evaluated using the Facial Image Scale (FIS) and changes in saliva cortisol levels (SCLs) before and after the intravenous sedation procedure. The Kruskal‒Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine pre- and posttreatment parameters. Dunn's test for post hoc analysis was used to determine the differences among groups. Children's pre- and posttreatment anxiety levels did not differ significantly according to FIS scores, and increases in SCLs were detected in 1:3 ketofol and 1:4 ketofol groups after dental treatment was completed. Compared with those in the other groups, the BIS values of the patients in 1:4 ketofol indicated a slightly lower depth of sedation. The recovery time of the patients in 1:3 ketofol was longer than that of patients in propofol and 1:4 ketofol. The incidence of postoperative complications (agitation, hypersalivation, nausea/vomiting, and diplopia) did not differ among the groups. Ketamine-propofol combinations provided effective sedation similar to that of propofol infusion without any serious complications during dental treatment performed under intravenous sedation. The ketofol infusion increased the anxiety level of paediatric dental patients to a greater extent than the propofol infusion.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol: An effective combination with ketamine for adult procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Recently, drug combination protocols have been preferred over single drugs in procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and hemodynamic profile of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketodex) and ketofol as drug combinations with ketamine as a single medication for PSA in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was performed among adult patients (≥18 years) requiring PSA for a painful procedure in the ED. 135 patients were enrolled and assigned into three equal groups to receive either ketodex, ketofol, or ketamine. Additional ketamine was used as a rescue agent for inadequate sedation in three groups. Oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded from baseline until 120 min after induction of PSA. Adverse events, hemodynamic variables, induction, and recovery time were recorded and compared between groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 38.16 ± 19.09 years and no differences were observed between the three groups in terms of demographic variables, pain scores, and procedures between the three groups. Respiratory events had similar incidences between the three groups. The O2 reduction was less in the Ketodex group in comparison with Ketofol and Ketamine groups (1.9%, 6.5%, and 3.8%, P = 0.015). No patient needed endotracheal intubation. Changes in mean arterial pressure from the baseline in Ketamine and Ketofol groups compared to Ketodex was higher (difference was 12.9 mmHg [95% CI, 9.5 to 20.3] and 8.6 mmHg [95% CI, 3.4 to 13.7]. Tachycardia in the Ketamine group had a significantly higher incidence. The recovery time was statistically shorter in the Ketofol group in comparison with other groups. The differences between Ketofol with Ketamine and Ketodex groups were 9.8 min (95% CI, [2.5 to 17.1]) and 8.3 min (95% CI, [1.5 to 15.1]).

CONCLUSION

Ketodex, as well as ketofol, were effective and safe combinations with good recovery profiles and hemodynamic stability for adult PSA in ED.

Uncovering the Benefits of the Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Combination for Procedural Sedation during the Italian COVID-19 Pandemic

This retrospective observational study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ketamine and dexmedetomidine combination (keta-dex) compared to ketamine or dexmedetomidine alone for sedation of patients with acute respiratory distress due to COVID-19 pneumonia who require non-invasive ventilation. The following factors were assessed: tolerance to the ventilation, sedation level on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), hemodynamic and saturation profile, adverse effects, and discontinuation or mortality during ventilation. The study included 66 patients who underwent sedation for non-invasive ventilation using keta-dex (KETA-DEX group, n = 22), ketamine (KET group, n = 22), or dexmedetomidine (DEX group, n = 22). The DEX group showed a slower sedation rate and a significant reduction in blood pressure compared to the KETA-DEX group (p < 0.05). An increase in blood pressure was recorded more frequently in the KET group. No reduction in oxygen saturation and no deaths were observed in any of the groups. None of the patients discontinued ventilation due to intolerance. The mean duration of sedation was 28.12 h. No cases of delirium were observed in any of the groups. Overall, keta-dex was associated with faster sedation rates and better hemodynamic profiles compared to dexmedetomidine alone. Keta-dex is effective and safe for sedation of uncooperative patients undergoing non-invasive ventilation.

Evaluation and Treatment of Pain in Fetuses, Neonates and Children

The perception of pain is individual and differs between children and adults. The structures required to feel pain are developed at 24 weeks of gestation. However, pain assessment is complicated, especially in neonates, infants and preschool-age children. Clinical scales adapted to age are the most used methods for assessing and monitoring the degree of pain in children. They evaluate several behavioral and/or physiological parameters related to pain. Some monitors detect the physiological changes that occur in association with painful stimuli, but they do not yet have a clear clinical use. Multimodal analgesia is recommended for pain treatment with non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. It is necessary to establish pharmacotherapeutic protocols for analgesia adjusted to the acute or chronic, type and intensity of pain, as well as age. The most used analgesics in children are paracetamol, ibuprofen, dipyrone, opioids (morphine and fentanyl) and local anesthetics. Patient-controlled analgesia is an adequate alternative for adolescent and older children in specific situations, such as after surgery. In patients with severe or persistent pain, it is very important to consult with specific pain services.

Pediatric Neuroanesthesia — a Review of the Recent Literature

Purpose of Review

Pediatric neuroanesthesia is a growing and still challenging subspecialty. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available knowledge and highlight the most recent findings of the literature on non-traumatic pediatric neuroanesthesia care.

Recent Findings

Several human studies have confirmed the negative effects of early life anesthetic exposure. According to non-human studies, volatile anesthetics and opioids contribute to tumor progression. Tranexamic acid effectively reduces perioperative blood loss; it is used in several different doses without standard guidelines on optimal dosing. The widespread use of neuromonitoring has necessitated the development of anesthetic methods that do not affect neuromuscular transmission.

Summary

Pediatric anesthetic neurotoxicity, management of intraoperative bleeding, and the effect of anesthesia on tumor growth are among the most debated and researched topics in pediatric neuroanesthesia. The lack of evidence and clinical guidelines underlines the need for further large prospective studies in this subspecialty.

Effective dose of propofol combined with a low-dose esketamine for gastroscopy in elderly patients: A dose finding study using dixon’s up-and-down method

Objective: This study aimed to determine the optimal dose of propofol combined with esketamine to inhibit the response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients.

Methods: This is a prospective, non-controlled, non-randomized, single-center study. Elderly patients aged 65–80 years were enrolled in the study with the American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II undergoing elective gastroscopy. All patients were administered propofol after an intravenous esketamine at the dosage of 0.3 mg/kg 30 s, the subsequent dose of propofol was determined by the response of the previous patient to gastroscope insertion (choking, body movement, etc.) using Dixon’s up-and-down method. The initial dose of propofol administered to the first elderly patient was 3.0 mg/kg, and the standard ratio of propofol dose in adjacent patients was 0.9. At least six crossover points were obtained before the conclusion of the study. By using Probit analysis the median effective dose (ED₅₀), 95% effective dose (ED₉₅), and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for propofol were determined.

Results: The study continued until we obtained seven crossover points and 32 elderly patients (17 males and 15 females) were collected. The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with esketamine inhibiting response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients were found to be 1.479 mg/kg (95% CI 1.331–1.592 mg/kg), and ED₉₅ was found to be 1.738 mg/kg (95% CI 1.614–2.487 mg/kg).

Conclusion: According to the present study, propofol combined with 0.3 mg/kg esketamine is safe and effective for elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. The ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ doses of propofol inhibiting response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients when combined with 0.3 mg/kg esketamine were 1.479 and 1.738 mg/kg, respectively, without apparent adverse effects.

Delayed Adverse Events after Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Background and objectives: Procedural sedation for bone marrow examination (BME) and intrathecal chemotherapy (ITC) is necessary for pediatric patients with hematological malignancies. There has been no report on adverse events after discharge from the recovery room. This retrospective study evaluated the types and incidences of delayed adverse events among pediatric patients scheduled for BME or ITC under deep sedation in a single center for 3 years. Materials and Methods: The patients were divided into two groups: inpatients (group I) and outpatients (group O). All patients were managed during the procedures and the recovery period. In total, 10 adverse events were assessed; these occurred 2 h (T1, acute), 12 h (T2, early), and 24 h (T3, delayed) after the procedure. The duration of each adverse event was also recorded and was classified as 2 h (D1), 12 h (D2), or 24 h (D3). The data of 263 patients (147 inpatients and 116 outpatients) who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Results: The overall incidence of adverse events was statistically significant difference: 48.3% in group I and 33.6% in group O (p = 0.011). The rates of adverse events at T1 and T2 were significantly different between groups I and O (42.8% vs. 11.2% and 7.5% vs. 20.7%, respectively) (p < 0.001). The adverse events were mostly of D1 or D2 duration in both groups. Patients with a higher proportion of ketamine in a propofol−ketamine mixture had a significantly higher proportion of adverse events at T1 (34.6%), as compared with those with a mixture with a lower proportion of ketamine (21.1%) or propofol alone (17.9%) (p = 0.012). Conclusions: The most common adverse events were dizziness or headache; typically, they did not last longer than 12 h. The propofol-ketamine combination with a higher proportion of ketamine seems to produce more adverse events within 2 h after the procedure. Nevertheless, all sedative types appear safe to use without additional management.