Previous article   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 Jaydev Dave, Sandip Vaghela 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 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None Check 2 Read associated Retraction Notice: Retraction note with this article DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.84105 Date of Web Publication 22-Aug-2011

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

The article found to be Plagiarized and hence been Retracted.

This article has been cited by 1 Narkose oder Sedierung zu diagnostischen und therapeutischen Prozeduren bei Kindern? F. J. Kretz, G. Badelt, K. Röher Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde. 2020; 168(12): 1118 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 2 COMPARISON OF SEDATIVE AND HAEMODYNAMIC EFFECTS OF INTRAVENOUS DEXMEDETOMIDINE AND MIDAZOLAM COMBINATION AND INTRAVENOUS DEXMEDETOMIDINE IN CHILDREN UNDERGOING MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING Satyanarayana G. K. V., Venkata Vommi Ramesh Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare. 2019; 6(15): 1184 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 3 Caveat Lector Abdelazeem Eldawlatly,Steven L. Shafer Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2012; 114(6): 1160 [Pubmed] | [DOI] 4 Caveat lector Eldawlatly, A. and Shafer, S.L. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2012; 114(6): 1160-1162 [Pubmed] 5 Redefining plagiarism; A friend or a foe? Khan, T.H. Anaesthesia, Pain and Intensive Care. 2012; 16(2): 119-122 [Pubmed]