Original Article

Propofol Versus Dexmedetomidine for Procedural Sedation in a Pediatric Population

Authors: Nicole M. Schacherer, MD, Tamara Armstrong, MD, Amy M. Perkins, MS, Michael P. Poirier, MD, James M. Schmidt, MD

Abstract

Objectives: Frequently, infants and children require sedation to facilitate noninvasive procedures and imaging studies. Propofol and dexmedetomidine are used to achieve deep procedural sedation in children. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of propofol versus dexmedetomidine in pediatric patients undergoing sedation in a pediatric sedation unit.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients sedated with either propofol or dexmedetomidine in a pediatric sedation unit by pediatric emergency physicians was performed. Both medications were dosed per protocol with propofol 2 mg/kg induction and 150 μg · kg−1 · min−1 maintenance and dexmedetomidine 3 μg/kg induction for 10 minutes and 2 μg · kg−1 · h−1 maintenance. The variables collected included drug dose, sedation time (time that the drug was given to the completion of the procedure), recovery time (end of the study to the return to the presedation sedation score for 15 minutes), need for dose rate changes, airway management, and adverse events.

Results: A total of 2432 children were included— 1503 who received propofol and 929 who received dexmedetomidine. Propofol and dexmedetomidine resulted in successful completion of the study in 98.8% and 99.7%, respectively (P = 0.02). The mean recovery time for propofol was 34.3 minutes, compared with 65.6 minutes for dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). The need for unexpected airway management was 9.7% for propofol and 2.2% for dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in 8.6% and 6% of patients in the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively (P = 0.02).

Conclusions: Propofol use led to significantly shorter recovery times, with an increased need for airway management, but rates of bag-mask ventilation (2.3%), airway obstruction (1.1%), and desaturation (1.6%) were low. No patients required intubation. Propofol is a reasonable alternative to dexmedetomidine, with a clinically acceptable safety profile.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Koroglu A, Teksan H, Sagir O, et al. A comparison of the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Anesth Analg 2006;103:63-67.
2. Cravero JP, Beach ML, Blike GT, et al. The incidence and nature of adverse events during pediatric sedation/anesthesia with propofol for procedures outside the operating room: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Anesth Analg 2009;:108:795-804.
3. Kamat PP, McCracken CE, Gillespie SE, et al. Pediatric critical care physician-administered procedural sedation using propofol: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium Database. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2015;16:11-20.
4. Larsen R, Galloway D, Wadera S, et al. Safety of propofol sedation for pediatric outpatient procedures. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2009;48:819-823.
5. Phan H, Nahata MC. Clinical uses of dexmedetomidine in pediatric patients. Paediatr Drugs 2008;10:49-69.
6. Mason KP, Zgleszewski SE, Prescilla R, et al. Hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine sedation for CT imaging studies. Paediatr Anesth 2008;18:393-402.
7. Mason KP, Zurakowski D, Karian VE, et al. Sedatives used in pediatric imaging: comparison of IV pentobarbital with IV pentobarbital with midazolam added. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;77:427-430.
8. Mallory MD, Baxter AL, Kost SI, et al. Propofol vs pentobarbital for sedation of children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: results from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Paediatr Anaesth 2009;19:601-611.
9. Pershad J, Wan J, Anghelescu DL. Comparison of propofol with pentobarbital/midazolam/fentanyl sedation for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain in children. Pediatrics 2007;120:e629-e636.
10. Boriosi JP, Eickhoff JC, Klein KB, et al. A retrospective comparison of propofol alone to propofol in combination with dexmedetomidine for pediatric 3T MRI sedation. Paediatr Anaesth 2017;27:52-59.
11. Slovis TL. Sedation and anesthesia issues in pediatric imaging. Pediatr Radiol 2011;41(suppl 2):514-516.
12. Emrath ET, Stockwell JA, McCracken CE, et al. Provision of deep procedural sedation by a pediatric sedation team at a freestanding imaging center. Pediatr Radiol 2014;44:1020-1025.
13. Wu J, Mahmoud M, Schmitt M, et al. Comparison of propofol and dexmedetomidine techniques in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth 2014;24:813-818.
14. Mason KP, Prescilla R, Fontaine PJ, et al. Pediatric CT sedation: comparison of dexmedetomidine and pentobarbital. AJR AMJ Roentgenol 2011;196:W194-W198.
15. Siddappa R, Riggins J, Kariyanna S, et al. High-dose dexmedetomidine sedation for pediatric MRI. Paediatr Anaesth 2011;21:153-158.
16. Mason KP, Zurakowski D, Zgleszewski SE, et al. High dose dexmedetomidine as the sole sedative for pediatric MRI. Paediatr Anaesth 2008;18:403-411.
17. Wong J, Steil GM, Curtis M, et al. Cardiovascular effects of dexmedetomidine sedation in children. Anesth Analg 2012;114:193-199.
18. Sulton C, McCracken C, Simon HK, et al. Pediatric procedural sedation using dexmedetomidine: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Hosp Pediatr 2016;6:536-544.
19. Peng K, Li J, Ji FH, et al. Dexmedetomidine compared with propofol for pediatric sedation during cerebral angiography. J Res Med Sci 2014;19:549-554.
20. Wu Y, Zhang Y, Hu X, et al. A comparison of propofol vs. dexmedetomidine for sedation, haemodynamic control and satisfaction, during esophagogastroduodenoscopy under conscious sedation. J Clin Pharm Ther 2015;40:419-425.
21. Grunwell JR, McCracken C, Fortenberry J, et al. Risk factors leading to failed procedural sedation in children outside the operating room. Pediatr Emerg Care 2014;30:381-387.
22. Mason KP. The pediatric sedation service: who is appropriate to sedate, which medications should I use, who should prescribe the drugs, how do I bill? Pediatr Radiol 2008;38(suppl 2):S218-S224.
23. Hoffman GM, Nowakowski R, Troshynski TJ, et al. Risk reduction in pediatric procedural sedation by application of an American Academy of Pediatrics/American Society of Anesthesiologists process model. Pediatrics 2002;109:236-243.