MEDLINE Abstracts: Propofol for Pediatric Anesthesia
What's the latest in pediatric anesthesia with propofol? Find out in this easy-to-navigate collection of recent MEDLINE Abstracts compiled by the editors at Medscape Pharmacotherapy.
Elitsur Y, Blankenship P, Lawrence Z
Endoscopy. 2000;32:788-791
Background And Study Aims: Propofol sedation has been used successfully in various outpatient minor procedures in children. Limited data are available on the usefulness of propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience of propofol sedation in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.
Materials And Methods: The charts of all children who had undergone diagnostic endoscopic procedures, and were sedated by propofol, were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, cardiovascular monitoring, and drug dosages were recorded. Patients evaluated their sedation efficacy by answering a questionnaire before discharge.
Results: A total of 104 children underwent 107 procedures. Propofol alone was given in 19 procedures and in combination with midazolam and/or fentanyl in 88 procedures. All procedures were completed and significant complication occurred in only one patient. No significant difference was observed in the amount of sedative drugs or recovery time between upper and lower endoscopic procedures. A lower propofol dosage was needed when a combination of drugs was given compared to propofol drug alone. Patients' assessment of their sedation showed that the vast majority had experienced postendoscopic amnesia.
Conclusion: Propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures is safe and acceptable for children. Propofol sedation should be offered to young children, especially those who express significant anxiety.
Filippi CG, Ulug AM, Lin D, Heier LA, Zimmerman RD
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:394-399
Background And Purpose: MR imaging is the method of choice for pediatric neuroimaging. Sedation is often needed to suppress patient motion and ensure diagnostic image quality, and propofol is rapidly becoming the preferred anesthetic. The purpose of this study was to document a new finding on fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (fast-FLAIR) MR images of children anesthetized with propofol that can be mistaken for subarachnoid space pathologic abnormality.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 55 MR images of the brain for children who ranged in age from 1 week to 12 years. Forty-two patients received chloral hydrate, and 13 received propofol anesthetic. Multiplanar MR images were studied to detect the presence or absence of hyperintense signal (artifact) in the subarachnoid spaces and basal cisterns. The T1 values and null times of chloral hydrate, propofol, and CSF were determined in vitro at room temperature by using an inversion recovery pulse sequence at 1.5 T.
Results: The fast-FLAIR images of all 13 patients who received propofol had hyperintense signal abnormality. For 10 (77%) of 13 patients, this artifact was in the basal cisterns and subarachnoid spaces overlying the brain convexity. For three (23%) of 13 patients, this artifact was in the convexity region only. Two patients underwent follow-up MR imaging with a nonpropofol anesthetic agent, and the artifact resolved. None of the images of the children who received chloral hydrate had this artifact. The T1 value of chloral hydrate was 0.2 s, of propofol was 1.86 s, and of CSF was 2.32 s at room temperature.
Conclusion: The fast-FLAIR images of children anesthetized with propofol have artifactual hyperintense signal in the basal cisterns and subarachnoid spaces, and this artifact mimics disease of the subarachnoid space. The T1 value of propofol approaches that of CSF. Depending on the chosen null time, there may be incomplete nulling of signal coming from propofol. To account for this observation, other possible causes include increased CSF pulsation in children creating motion artifact, changes in arterial oxygen concentration intrinsic to propofol or related to the supplemental oxygen normally administered, or changes in CSF protein levels related to propofol binding to proteins for uptake into CSF.
Hertzog JH, Dalton HJ, Anderson BD, Shad AT, Gootenberg JE, Hauser GJ
Pediatrics. 2000;106:742-747
Objectives: To evaluate our experience with propofol anesthesia delivered by pediatric intensivists in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) to facilitate elective oncology procedures in children performed by pediatric oncologists.
Methods: Elective oncology procedures performed with propofol anesthesia in our multidisciplinary, university-affiliated PICU were prospectively evaluated over a 7-month period. Ambulatory and hospitalized children were prescheduled for their procedure, underwent a medical evaluation, and met fasting requirements before the start of anesthesia. Continuous cardiorespiratory and neurologic monitoring was performed by a pediatric intensivist and a PICU nurse, while the procedure was performed by a pediatric oncologist. Propofol was delivered in intermittent boluses to achieve the desired level of anesthesia. Information studied included patient demographics, procedures performed, induction and total doses of propofol used, the duration of the different phases of the patient's PICU stay, the occurrence of side effects, the need for therapeutic interventions, and the incidence of recall of the procedure.
Results: Fifty procedures in 28 children (mean age: 7.5 +/- 4.3 years) were evaluated. Sixty-one percent of patients had established diagnoses. Fifty-four percent of procedures were lumbar puncture with intrathecal chemotherapy administration and 26% of procedures were bone marrow aspirations with biopsy. Induction propofol doses were 2. 0 +/-.8 mg/kg for ambulatory and hospitalized patients, while total propofol doses were 6.6 +/- 2.3 mg/kg and 7.9 +/- 2.4 mg/kg for ambulatory and hospitalized patients, respectively. Induction time was 1.5 +/-.7 minutes, recovery time was 23.4 +/- 11.5 minutes, and total PICU time was 88.8 +/- 27.7 minutes. Transient decreases in systolic blood pressure less than the fifth percentile for age occurred in 64% of procedures, with a mean decrease of 25% +/- 10%. Intravenous fluids were administered in 31% of these cases. Hypotension was more common in ambulatory patients but was not predicted by propofol dose, anesthesia time, or age. Partial airway obstruction was noted in 12% of procedures while apnea requiring bag-valve-mask ventilation occurred in 2% of procedures. Neither was associated with age, propofol dose, or the duration of anesthesia. All procedures were successfully completed and there were no incidences of recall of the procedure.
Conclusions: Propofol anesthesia is effective in achieving patient comfort and amnesia, while optimizing conditions for elective oncology procedures in children. Although transient hypotension and respiratory depression may occur, propofol anesthesia seems to be safe to use for these procedures in the PICU setting. Recovery from anesthesia was rapid and total stay was brief. Under the proper conditions, propofol anesthesia delivered by pediatric intensivists in the PICU is a reasonable option available to facilitate invasive oncology procedures in children.
Uezono S, Goto T, Terui K, et al.
Anesth Analg. 2000;91:563-566
Sevoflurane may be associated with a high incidence of emergence agitation in preschool children. We tested the hypothesis that maintenance of anesthesia with propofol after sevoflurane induction would reduce the incidence of this excitatory behavior compared with continuing sevoflurane for maintenance. We conducted a randomized, single-blinded, two-period, cross-over study in 16 preschool age children undergoing repeated brief general anesthetics for eye examination. After sevoflurane induction, patients were randomly assigned to receive either sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia for maintenance. The alternative anesthetic was used for the maintenance of anesthesia on the second occasion. We compared the speed and quality of recovery characteristics of these anesthetics, as well as overall parent satisfaction with anesthesia. Eight patients first received sevoflurane and the remaining eight patients first received propofol. Of the patients who received sevoflurane for the maintenance of anesthesia, 38% developed emergence agitation. In contrast, none developed emergence agitation when propofol was administered for maintenance of anesthesia. Despite emergence agitation, sevoflurane provided a shorter postanesthesia care unit stay than propofol. Parent satisfaction with anesthesia was greater with propofol than with sevoflurane. IMPLICATIONS: In this cross-over study, we observed the incidence of emergence agitation with sevoflurane (38%) was significantly greater than with propofol (0%) in premedicated, preschool-aged children undergoing minor noninvasive surgery.
Masters LT, Perrine K, Devinsky O, Nelson PK
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1302-1305
Background And Purpose: Wada testing may provide important information for surgical planning in pediatric patients with medically refractory epilepsy, but it is often not used because of the difficulties in performing the angiographic portion of the procedure in conscious children. We reviewed our experience using propofol, a short-acting IV administered anesthetic agent, for pediatric patients undergoing Wada testing.
Methods: In a retrospective review of Wada tests performed on patients younger than 18 years, we identified 24 cases in which propofol anesthesia was used. We reviewed the medical records of these patients, with particular reference to dose of propofol, physiological parameters during anesthesia, and adequacy of neuropsychological testing after emergence from anesthesia.
Results: Patients ranged in age from 6 to 16 years (mean age, 12.5 years). Propofol induced mild reductions in blood pressure (12.4% for systolic and 13.9% for diastolic blood pressure) and heart rate (mean reduction of 4.7%), which did not require specific treatment in any patient. Recovery from anesthesia was smooth and rapid, allowing initiation of Wada testing within 15 to 25 minutes of cessation of propofol. Wada testing was successfully accomplished in all patients.
Conclusion: Propofol provided rapid induction of anesthesia, was administered without endotracheal intubation, and did not cause substantial changes in cardiorespiratory parameters. Propofol anesthesia allowed controlled angiography among patients as young as 6 years and did not interfere with neuropsychological testing.
Montes RG, Bohn RA
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2000;31:41-46
Background: Sevoflurane is an inhaled anesthetic agent with ideal properties for achieving deep sedation during pediatric outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy. This is a comparison of experience with this gas and other sedation methods used in the authors' hospital.
Methods: Retrospective chart review and statistical analysis of data from children receiving inhaled sevoflurane administered by an anesthesiologist through laryngeal insufflation, intravenous propofol, or intravenous midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine in any combination to achieve deep sedation for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy. Anesthesia was administered in a dedicated procedure room. The intravenous drugs were administered by pediatric intensivists in the intensive care unit. The same endoscopist performed all the procedures.
Results: A total of 248 procedures were reviewed (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 67, propofol 114, and sevoflurane 67). All patients were adequately sedated with sevoflurane, and no intravenous access was required. Time (in minutes) to awakening (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 47.15, propofol 36.12, sevoflurane 5.70), discharge (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 141.99, propofol 91.20, sevoflurane 53.34), and total time, including induction and procedure (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 163.97, propofol 119.40, sevoflurane 73.93), were significantly lower for sevoflurane (P < 0.01). The complication rate for sevoflurane (4.5%) was lower (P < 0.05) than for midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine (13.4%) and for propofol (17.5%). Charges for room use and medications were also lower for sevoflurane (P < 0.01). The total charges for sedation (U.S.$) were comparable for sevoflurane (688.10) and propofol (723.08) but were higher for midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine (855.10, P < 0.01).
Conclusions: Deep sedation with inhaled sevoflurane for pediatric outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy is as safe as conventional sedation techniques, potentially less expensive, increases endoscopy unit productivity, and eliminates the inconvenience associated with obtaining intravenous access in children.
Rich JB, Yaster M, Brandt J
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1999;21:535-546
Prior to anesthesia with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, sets of pictures were presented to 20 children and adolescents (M age = 12 years). Word pairs (e.g., "hiking-woods") were presented via earphones after the children were anesthetized. Upon regaining consciousness, the children were tested for explicit memory of both the picture sets and word pairs by free recall, cued recall, and yes/no recognition. Implicit memory was tested by free association to category cues for the pictures and by word association for the word pairs. Postoperative testing revealed retrograde memory for material presented preoperatively but total amnesia for material presented intraoperatively. There was no evidence of implicit memory for material not available explicitly. The finding of uninterrupted ability to retain and retrieve information presented prior to anesthesia despite total anterograde amnesia has implications for preoperative communication directed toward pediatric patients as well as for intraoperative communication among surgical staff.
Havel CJ Jr, Strait RT, Hennes H
Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6:989-997
Objective: To compare the effectiveness, recovery time from sedation, and complication rate of propofol with those of midazolam when used for procedural sedation in the pediatric emergency department (PED).
Methods: A prospective, blinded, randomized, clinical trial comparing propofol and midazolam was conducted in the PED of a tertiary pediatric center. Eligible patients were aged 2-18 years with isolated extremity injuries necessitating closed reduction. All patients received morphine for pain, then were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam for sedation. Vital signs, pulse oximetry, and sedation scores were recorded prior to sedation and every 5 minutes thereafter until recovery. Recovery time, time from cast completion to discharge, and other time intervals during the PED course and all sedation-related complications were also recorded.
Results: Between August 1996 and October 1997, 91 patients were enrolled. Demographic data, morphine doses, and sedation scores were similar between the propofol and midazolam groups. Mean +/- SD recovery time for the propofol group was 14.9+/-11.1 minutes, compared with 76.4+/-47.5 minutes for the midazolam group, p<0.001. Mild transient hypoxemia was the most significant complication, occurring in 5 of 43 (11.6%) patients given propofol and 5 of 46 (10.9%) patients given midazolam (odds ratio 1.08, 95% CI = 0.24 to 4.76).
Conclusion: In this study, propofol induced sedation as effectively as midazolam but with a shorter recovery time. Complication rates for propofol and midazolam were comparable, though the small study population limits the power of this comparison. Propofol may be an appropriate agent for sedation in the PED; however, further study is necessary before routine use can be recommended.
Lai LP, Lin JL, Wu MH, et al.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999;22:1358-1364
General anesthesia is sometimes required during radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of various tachyarrhythmias because of an anticipated prolonged procedure and the need to ensure stability during critical ablation. In this study, we examine the feasibility of using propofol anesthesia for RFCA procedure. There were 150 patients (78 male, 72 female; mean age 30 years, range 4-96 years) in the study. Electrophysiologic study was performed before and during propofol infusion in the initial 20 patients and was performed only during propofol infusion in the remaining 130 patients. In the initial 20 patients, propofol infusion increased the sinus rate and facilitated AV nodal conduction. The accessory pathway effective refractory period, as well as the sinus node recovery time, atrial effective refractory period, and ventricular effective refractory period were not significantly changed. There were 152 tachyarrhythmias in 150 patients (24 atrial flutter, 31 AV nodal reentrant tachycardia, 68 AV reciprocating tachycardia, 12 ventricular tachycardia, and 17 atrial tachycardia). Most (148/152) tachycardias remained inducible after anesthesia and RFCA was performed uneventfully. However, in four of the seven pediatric patients with ectopic atrial tachycardia, the tachycardia terminated after propofol infusion and could not be induced by isoproterenol infusion. Consequently, RFCA could not be performed. Intravenous propofol anesthesia is feasible during RFCA for most tachyarrhythmias except for ectopic atrial tachycardia in children.
Viitanen H, Annila P, Viitanen M, Yli-Hankala A
Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:766-771
Purpose: To study the effect of midazolam premedication on the recovery characteristics of sevoflurane anesthesia induced with propofol in pediatric outpatients.
Methods: Sixty children, one to three years, presenting for ambulatory adenoidectomy were randomly assigned, in a double-blind fashion, to receive either 0.5 mg x kg(-1) midazolam (Group M) or placebo (Group P) p.o. 30 min before anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced with 10 microg x kg(-1) atropine, 10 microg x kg(-1) alfentanil, and 3-4 mg x kg(-1) propofol i.v. Tracheal intubation was facilitated with 0.2 mg x kg(-1) mivacurium. Anesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide/oxygen (FiO2 0.3) and sevoflurane with controlled ventilation. Recovery characteristics were compared using the modified Aldrete scoring system, the Pain/Discomfort scale and measuring specific recovery end-points (emergence, full Aldrete score, discharge). A postoperative questionnaire was used to evaluate the children's well-being at home until 24 hr after discharge.
Results: Emergence from anesthesia (22 +/- 9 vs 16 +/- 6 min (mean +/- SD), P = 0.005) and achieving full Aldrete scores (30 +/- 11 vs 24 +/- 16 min, P = 0.006) were delayed in patients receiving midazolam. Children in the placebo group were given postoperative analgesia sooner than those in the midazolam group (18 +/- 11 vs 23 +/- 8 min, P = 0.009). More children premedicated with midazolam suffered from arousal distress (20% vs 3%, P = 0.04) and scored higher on the Pain/Discomfort scale (P = 0.004) at 20 min after arrival in the recovery room. Discharge was not affected by premedication and well-being at home was similar in the groups.
Conclusions: Oral premedication with midazolam delays early recovery but not discharge after ambulatory sevoflurane anesthesia induced with propofol in children one to three years. Midazolam did not improve the quality of recovery.
Reber A, Wetzel SG, Schnabel K, Bongartz G, Frei FJ
Anesthesiology. 1999;90:1617-1623
Background: In pediatric patients, obstruction of the upper airway is a common problem during general anesthesia. Chin lift is a commonly used technique to improve upper airway patency. However, little is known about the mechanism underlying this technique.
Methods: The authors studied the effect of the chin lift maneuver on airway dimensions in 10 spontaneously breathing children (aged 2-11 yr) sedated with propofol during routine magnetic resonance imaging. The minimal anteroposterior and corresponding transverse diameters of the pharynx were determined at the levels of the soft palate, dorsum of the tongue, and tip of the epiglottis before and during the chin lift maneuver. Additionally, cross-sectional areas were calculated at these sites, including tracheal areas 2 cm below the glottic level.
Results: Minimal anteroposterior diameter of the pharynx increased significantly during chin lift at all three levels in all patients. The diameters of the soft palate, tongue, and epiglottis increased from 6.7+/-2.8 mm (SD) to 9.9+/-3.6 mm, from 9.6+/-3.6 mm to 16.5+/-3.1 mm, and from 4.6+/-2.5 mm to 13.1+/-2.8 mm, respectively. The corresponding transverse diameter of the pharynx also increased significantly at all three levels in all patients but without significant predominance. The diameters at the levels of the soft palate, tongue, and epiglottis increased from 15.8+/-5.1 mm to 22.8+/-4.5 mm, from 13.5+/-4.9 mm to 18.7+/-5.3 mm, and from 17.2+/-3.9 mm to 21.2+/-3.7 mm, respectively. Cross-sectional pharyngeal areas increased significantly at all levels (soft palate, from 0.88+/-0.58 cm to 1.79+/-0.82 cm; tongue, from 1.15+/-0.45 cm to 2.99+/-1.30 cm; epiglottis, from 1.17+/-0.70 cm to 3.04+/-0.99 cm), including the subglottic level (from 0.44+/-0.15 cm to 0.50+/-0.14 cm).
Conclusions: This study shows that all children had a preserved upper airway at all measured sites during propofol sedation. Chin lift caused a widening of the entire pharyngeal airway that was most pronounced between the tip of the epiglottis and the posterior pharyngeal wall. In pediatric patients, chin lift may be used as a standard procedure during propofol sedation.
Hertzog JH, Campbell JK, Dalton HJ, Hauser GJ
Pediatrics. 1999;103:E30
Objectives: To describe our experience with propofol anesthesia to facilitate invasive procedures for ambulatory and hospitalized children in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) setting.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of 115 children who underwent 251 invasive procedures with propofol anesthesia in our multidisciplinary, university-affiliated PICU during a 20-month period. All patients underwent a medical evaluation and were required to fast before anesthesia. Continuous monitoring of the patient's cardiorespiratory and neurologic status was performed by a pediatric intensivist, who also administered propofol in intermittent boluses to obtain the desired level of anesthesia, and by a PICU nurse, who provided written documentation. Data on patient demographics, procedures performed, doses of propofol used, the occurrence of side effects, induction time, recovery time, and length of stay in the PICU were obtained.
Results: Propofol anesthesia was performed successfully in all children (mean age, 6.4 years; range, 10 days to 20.8 years) who had a variety of underlying medical conditions, including oncologic, infectious, neurologic, cardiac, and gastrointestinal disorders. Procedures performed included lumbar puncture with intrathecal chemotherapy administration, bone marrow aspiration and biopsy, central venous catheter placement, endoscopy, and transesophageal echocardiogram. The mean dose of propofol used for induction of anesthesia was 1.8 mg/kg, and the total mean dose of propofol used was 8.8 mg/kg. In 13% of cases, midazolam also was administered but did not affect the doses of propofol used. The mean anesthesia induction time was 3.9 minutes, and the mean recovery time from anesthesia was 28.8 minutes for all patients. The mean PICU stay for ambulatory and ward patients was 140 minutes. Hypotension occurred in 50% of cases, with a mean decrease in systolic blood pressure of 25%. The development of hypotension was not associated with propofol doses, the concomitant use of midazolam, or the duration of anesthesia, but was associated with older patient age. Hypotension was transient and not associated with altered perfusion. Intravenous fluid was administered in 61% of the cases in which hypotension was present. Respiratory depression requiring transient bag-valve-mask ventilation occurred in 6% of cases and was not associated with patient age, propofol doses, concomitant use of midazolam, or the duration of anesthesia. Transient myoclonus was observed in 3.6% of cases. Ninety-eight percent of procedures were completed successfully, and no procedure failures were considered secondary to the anesthesia. Patients, parents, and health care providers were satisfied with the results of propofol anesthesia.
Conclusions: Propofol anesthesia can safely facilitate a variety of invasive procedures in ambulatory and hospitalized children when performed in the PICU and is associated with short induction and recovery times and PICU length of stay. Hypotension, although usually transient, is common, and respiratory depression necessitating assisted ventilation may occur. Therefore, appropriate monitoring and cardiorespiratory support capabilities are essential. Propofol anesthesia in the PICU setting is a reasonable therapeutic option available to pediatric intensivists to help facilitate invasive procedures in ambulatory and hospitalized children.
Cray SH, Robinson BH, Cox PN
Crit Care Med. 1998;26:2087-2092
Objectives: To describe a severe adverse reaction in a child who received an infusion of propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). To describe the management and further investigation of this patient and review similar published reports.
Design: Case report and literature review.
Setting: Community hospital ICU and tertiary pediatric ICU.
Patient: Infant with upper respiratory obstruction secondary to an esophageal foreign body who required tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation.
Interventions: Conventional cardiovascular and respiratory support. Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) and plasmapheresis.
Measurements And Main Results: The patient received a propofol infusion at a mean rate of 10 mg/kg/hr for 50.5 hrs. He developed lipemia and green urine and subsequently, a progressive severe lactic acidemia and bradyarrhythmias unresponsive to conventional treatment. These abnormalities resolved with CVVH. He was encephalopathic and developed liver and muscle necrosis histologically compatible with a toxic insult. Examination of homogenized muscle tissue demonstrated a reduction in cytochrome C oxidase activity. There was no evidence of systemic infection or underlying metabolic disease. He eventually recovered completely.
Conclusion: Propofol has been associated with severe adverse reactions in children receiving intensive care. The biochemical and histologic abnormalities described in this patient may guide further investigation. We advise against prolonged use of propofol for sedation in children.
What's the latest in pediatric anesthesia with propofol? Find out in this easy-to-navigate collection of recent MEDLINE Abstracts compiled by the editors at Medscape Pharmacotherapy.
Elitsur Y, Blankenship P, Lawrence Z
Endoscopy. 2000;32:788-791
Background And Study Aims: Propofol sedation has been used successfully in various outpatient minor procedures in children. Limited data are available on the usefulness of propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience of propofol sedation in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.
Materials And Methods: The charts of all children who had undergone diagnostic endoscopic procedures, and were sedated by propofol, were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, cardiovascular monitoring, and drug dosages were recorded. Patients evaluated their sedation efficacy by answering a questionnaire before discharge.
Results: A total of 104 children underwent 107 procedures. Propofol alone was given in 19 procedures and in combination with midazolam and/or fentanyl in 88 procedures. All procedures were completed and significant complication occurred in only one patient. No significant difference was observed in the amount of sedative drugs or recovery time between upper and lower endoscopic procedures. A lower propofol dosage was needed when a combination of drugs was given compared to propofol drug alone. Patients' assessment of their sedation showed that the vast majority had experienced postendoscopic amnesia.
Conclusion: Propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures is safe and acceptable for children. Propofol sedation should be offered to young children, especially those who express significant anxiety.
Filippi CG, Ulug AM, Lin D, Heier LA, Zimmerman RD
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:394-399
Background And Purpose: MR imaging is the method of choice for pediatric neuroimaging. Sedation is often needed to suppress patient motion and ensure diagnostic image quality, and propofol is rapidly becoming the preferred anesthetic. The purpose of this study was to document a new finding on fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (fast-FLAIR) MR images of children anesthetized with propofol that can be mistaken for subarachnoid space pathologic abnormality.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 55 MR images of the brain for children who ranged in age from 1 week to 12 years. Forty-two patients received chloral hydrate, and 13 received propofol anesthetic. Multiplanar MR images were studied to detect the presence or absence of hyperintense signal (artifact) in the subarachnoid spaces and basal cisterns. The T1 values and null times of chloral hydrate, propofol, and CSF were determined in vitro at room temperature by using an inversion recovery pulse sequence at 1.5 T.
Results: The fast-FLAIR images of all 13 patients who received propofol had hyperintense signal abnormality. For 10 (77%) of 13 patients, this artifact was in the basal cisterns and subarachnoid spaces overlying the brain convexity. For three (23%) of 13 patients, this artifact was in the convexity region only. Two patients underwent follow-up MR imaging with a nonpropofol anesthetic agent, and the artifact resolved. None of the images of the children who received chloral hydrate had this artifact. The T1 value of chloral hydrate was 0.2 s, of propofol was 1.86 s, and of CSF was 2.32 s at room temperature.
Conclusion: The fast-FLAIR images of children anesthetized with propofol have artifactual hyperintense signal in the basal cisterns and subarachnoid spaces, and this artifact mimics disease of the subarachnoid space. The T1 value of propofol approaches that of CSF. Depending on the chosen null time, there may be incomplete nulling of signal coming from propofol. To account for this observation, other possible causes include increased CSF pulsation in children creating motion artifact, changes in arterial oxygen concentration intrinsic to propofol or related to the supplemental oxygen normally administered, or changes in CSF protein levels related to propofol binding to proteins for uptake into CSF.
Hertzog JH, Dalton HJ, Anderson BD, Shad AT, Gootenberg JE, Hauser GJ
Pediatrics. 2000;106:742-747
Objectives: To evaluate our experience with propofol anesthesia delivered by pediatric intensivists in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) to facilitate elective oncology procedures in children performed by pediatric oncologists.
Methods: Elective oncology procedures performed with propofol anesthesia in our multidisciplinary, university-affiliated PICU were prospectively evaluated over a 7-month period. Ambulatory and hospitalized children were prescheduled for their procedure, underwent a medical evaluation, and met fasting requirements before the start of anesthesia. Continuous cardiorespiratory and neurologic monitoring was performed by a pediatric intensivist and a PICU nurse, while the procedure was performed by a pediatric oncologist. Propofol was delivered in intermittent boluses to achieve the desired level of anesthesia. Information studied included patient demographics, procedures performed, induction and total doses of propofol used, the duration of the different phases of the patient's PICU stay, the occurrence of side effects, the need for therapeutic interventions, and the incidence of recall of the procedure.
Results: Fifty procedures in 28 children (mean age: 7.5 +/- 4.3 years) were evaluated. Sixty-one percent of patients had established diagnoses. Fifty-four percent of procedures were lumbar puncture with intrathecal chemotherapy administration and 26% of procedures were bone marrow aspirations with biopsy. Induction propofol doses were 2. 0 +/-.8 mg/kg for ambulatory and hospitalized patients, while total propofol doses were 6.6 +/- 2.3 mg/kg and 7.9 +/- 2.4 mg/kg for ambulatory and hospitalized patients, respectively. Induction time was 1.5 +/-.7 minutes, recovery time was 23.4 +/- 11.5 minutes, and total PICU time was 88.8 +/- 27.7 minutes. Transient decreases in systolic blood pressure less than the fifth percentile for age occurred in 64% of procedures, with a mean decrease of 25% +/- 10%. Intravenous fluids were administered in 31% of these cases. Hypotension was more common in ambulatory patients but was not predicted by propofol dose, anesthesia time, or age. Partial airway obstruction was noted in 12% of procedures while apnea requiring bag-valve-mask ventilation occurred in 2% of procedures. Neither was associated with age, propofol dose, or the duration of anesthesia. All procedures were successfully completed and there were no incidences of recall of the procedure.
Conclusions: Propofol anesthesia is effective in achieving patient comfort and amnesia, while optimizing conditions for elective oncology procedures in children. Although transient hypotension and respiratory depression may occur, propofol anesthesia seems to be safe to use for these procedures in the PICU setting. Recovery from anesthesia was rapid and total stay was brief. Under the proper conditions, propofol anesthesia delivered by pediatric intensivists in the PICU is a reasonable option available to facilitate invasive oncology procedures in children.
Uezono S, Goto T, Terui K, et al.
Anesth Analg. 2000;91:563-566
Sevoflurane may be associated with a high incidence of emergence agitation in preschool children. We tested the hypothesis that maintenance of anesthesia with propofol after sevoflurane induction would reduce the incidence of this excitatory behavior compared with continuing sevoflurane for maintenance. We conducted a randomized, single-blinded, two-period, cross-over study in 16 preschool age children undergoing repeated brief general anesthetics for eye examination. After sevoflurane induction, patients were randomly assigned to receive either sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia for maintenance. The alternative anesthetic was used for the maintenance of anesthesia on the second occasion. We compared the speed and quality of recovery characteristics of these anesthetics, as well as overall parent satisfaction with anesthesia. Eight patients first received sevoflurane and the remaining eight patients first received propofol. Of the patients who received sevoflurane for the maintenance of anesthesia, 38% developed emergence agitation. In contrast, none developed emergence agitation when propofol was administered for maintenance of anesthesia. Despite emergence agitation, sevoflurane provided a shorter postanesthesia care unit stay than propofol. Parent satisfaction with anesthesia was greater with propofol than with sevoflurane. IMPLICATIONS: In this cross-over study, we observed the incidence of emergence agitation with sevoflurane (38%) was significantly greater than with propofol (0%) in premedicated, preschool-aged children undergoing minor noninvasive surgery.
Masters LT, Perrine K, Devinsky O, Nelson PK
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1302-1305
Background And Purpose: Wada testing may provide important information for surgical planning in pediatric patients with medically refractory epilepsy, but it is often not used because of the difficulties in performing the angiographic portion of the procedure in conscious children. We reviewed our experience using propofol, a short-acting IV administered anesthetic agent, for pediatric patients undergoing Wada testing.
Methods: In a retrospective review of Wada tests performed on patients younger than 18 years, we identified 24 cases in which propofol anesthesia was used. We reviewed the medical records of these patients, with particular reference to dose of propofol, physiological parameters during anesthesia, and adequacy of neuropsychological testing after emergence from anesthesia.
Results: Patients ranged in age from 6 to 16 years (mean age, 12.5 years). Propofol induced mild reductions in blood pressure (12.4% for systolic and 13.9% for diastolic blood pressure) and heart rate (mean reduction of 4.7%), which did not require specific treatment in any patient. Recovery from anesthesia was smooth and rapid, allowing initiation of Wada testing within 15 to 25 minutes of cessation of propofol. Wada testing was successfully accomplished in all patients.
Conclusion: Propofol provided rapid induction of anesthesia, was administered without endotracheal intubation, and did not cause substantial changes in cardiorespiratory parameters. Propofol anesthesia allowed controlled angiography among patients as young as 6 years and did not interfere with neuropsychological testing.
Montes RG, Bohn RA
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2000;31:41-46
Background: Sevoflurane is an inhaled anesthetic agent with ideal properties for achieving deep sedation during pediatric outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy. This is a comparison of experience with this gas and other sedation methods used in the authors' hospital.
Methods: Retrospective chart review and statistical analysis of data from children receiving inhaled sevoflurane administered by an anesthesiologist through laryngeal insufflation, intravenous propofol, or intravenous midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine in any combination to achieve deep sedation for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy. Anesthesia was administered in a dedicated procedure room. The intravenous drugs were administered by pediatric intensivists in the intensive care unit. The same endoscopist performed all the procedures.
Results: A total of 248 procedures were reviewed (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 67, propofol 114, and sevoflurane 67). All patients were adequately sedated with sevoflurane, and no intravenous access was required. Time (in minutes) to awakening (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 47.15, propofol 36.12, sevoflurane 5.70), discharge (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 141.99, propofol 91.20, sevoflurane 53.34), and total time, including induction and procedure (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 163.97, propofol 119.40, sevoflurane 73.93), were significantly lower for sevoflurane (P < 0.01). The complication rate for sevoflurane (4.5%) was lower (P < 0.05) than for midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine (13.4%) and for propofol (17.5%). Charges for room use and medications were also lower for sevoflurane (P < 0.01). The total charges for sedation (U.S.$) were comparable for sevoflurane (688.10) and propofol (723.08) but were higher for midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine (855.10, P < 0.01).
Conclusions: Deep sedation with inhaled sevoflurane for pediatric outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy is as safe as conventional sedation techniques, potentially less expensive, increases endoscopy unit productivity, and eliminates the inconvenience associated with obtaining intravenous access in children.
Rich JB, Yaster M, Brandt J
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1999;21:535-546
Prior to anesthesia with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, sets of pictures were presented to 20 children and adolescents (M age = 12 years). Word pairs (e.g., "hiking-woods") were presented via earphones after the children were anesthetized. Upon regaining consciousness, the children were tested for explicit memory of both the picture sets and word pairs by free recall, cued recall, and yes/no recognition. Implicit memory was tested by free association to category cues for the pictures and by word association for the word pairs. Postoperative testing revealed retrograde memory for material presented preoperatively but total amnesia for material presented intraoperatively. There was no evidence of implicit memory for material not available explicitly. The finding of uninterrupted ability to retain and retrieve information presented prior to anesthesia despite total anterograde amnesia has implications for preoperative communication directed toward pediatric patients as well as for intraoperative communication among surgical staff.
Havel CJ Jr, Strait RT, Hennes H
Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6:989-997
Objective: To compare the effectiveness, recovery time from sedation, and complication rate of propofol with those of midazolam when used for procedural sedation in the pediatric emergency department (PED).
Methods: A prospective, blinded, randomized, clinical trial comparing propofol and midazolam was conducted in the PED of a tertiary pediatric center. Eligible patients were aged 2-18 years with isolated extremity injuries necessitating closed reduction. All patients received morphine for pain, then were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam for sedation. Vital signs, pulse oximetry, and sedation scores were recorded prior to sedation and every 5 minutes thereafter until recovery. Recovery time, time from cast completion to discharge, and other time intervals during the PED course and all sedation-related complications were also recorded.
Results: Between August 1996 and October 1997, 91 patients were enrolled. Demographic data, morphine doses, and sedation scores were similar between the propofol and midazolam groups. Mean +/- SD recovery time for the propofol group was 14.9+/-11.1 minutes, compared with 76.4+/-47.5 minutes for the midazolam group, p<0.001. Mild transient hypoxemia was the most significant complication, occurring in 5 of 43 (11.6%) patients given propofol and 5 of 46 (10.9%) patients given midazolam (odds ratio 1.08, 95% CI = 0.24 to 4.76).
Conclusion: In this study, propofol induced sedation as effectively as midazolam but with a shorter recovery time. Complication rates for propofol and midazolam were comparable, though the small study population limits the power of this comparison. Propofol may be an appropriate agent for sedation in the PED; however, further study is necessary before routine use can be recommended.
Lai LP, Lin JL, Wu MH, et al.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999;22:1358-1364
General anesthesia is sometimes required during radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of various tachyarrhythmias because of an anticipated prolonged procedure and the need to ensure stability during critical ablation. In this study, we examine the feasibility of using propofol anesthesia for RFCA procedure. There were 150 patients (78 male, 72 female; mean age 30 years, range 4-96 years) in the study. Electrophysiologic study was performed before and during propofol infusion in the initial 20 patients and was performed only during propofol infusion in the remaining 130 patients. In the initial 20 patients, propofol infusion increased the sinus rate and facilitated AV nodal conduction. The accessory pathway effective refractory period, as well as the sinus node recovery time, atrial effective refractory period, and ventricular effective refractory period were not significantly changed. There were 152 tachyarrhythmias in 150 patients (24 atrial flutter, 31 AV nodal reentrant tachycardia, 68 AV reciprocating tachycardia, 12 ventricular tachycardia, and 17 atrial tachycardia). Most (148/152) tachycardias remained inducible after anesthesia and RFCA was performed uneventfully. However, in four of the seven pediatric patients with ectopic atrial tachycardia, the tachycardia terminated after propofol infusion and could not be induced by isoproterenol infusion. Consequently, RFCA could not be performed. Intravenous propofol anesthesia is feasible during RFCA for most tachyarrhythmias except for ectopic atrial tachycardia in children.
Viitanen H, Annila P, Viitanen M, Yli-Hankala A
Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:766-771
Purpose: To study the effect of midazolam premedication on the recovery characteristics of sevoflurane anesthesia induced with propofol in pediatric outpatients.
Methods: Sixty children, one to three years, presenting for ambulatory adenoidectomy were randomly assigned, in a double-blind fashion, to receive either 0.5 mg x kg(-1) midazolam (Group M) or placebo (Group P) p.o. 30 min before anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced with 10 microg x kg(-1) atropine, 10 microg x kg(-1) alfentanil, and 3-4 mg x kg(-1) propofol i.v. Tracheal intubation was facilitated with 0.2 mg x kg(-1) mivacurium. Anesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide/oxygen (FiO2 0.3) and sevoflurane with controlled ventilation. Recovery characteristics were compared using the modified Aldrete scoring system, the Pain/Discomfort scale and measuring specific recovery end-points (emergence, full Aldrete score, discharge). A postoperative questionnaire was used to evaluate the children's well-being at home until 24 hr after discharge.
Results: Emergence from anesthesia (22 +/- 9 vs 16 +/- 6 min (mean +/- SD), P = 0.005) and achieving full Aldrete scores (30 +/- 11 vs 24 +/- 16 min, P = 0.006) were delayed in patients receiving midazolam. Children in the placebo group were given postoperative analgesia sooner than those in the midazolam group (18 +/- 11 vs 23 +/- 8 min, P = 0.009). More children premedicated with midazolam suffered from arousal distress (20% vs 3%, P = 0.04) and scored higher on the Pain/Discomfort scale (P = 0.004) at 20 min after arrival in the recovery room. Discharge was not affected by premedication and well-being at home was similar in the groups.
Conclusions: Oral premedication with midazolam delays early recovery but not discharge after ambulatory sevoflurane anesthesia induced with propofol in children one to three years. Midazolam did not improve the quality of recovery.
Reber A, Wetzel SG, Schnabel K, Bongartz G, Frei FJ
Anesthesiology. 1999;90:1617-1623
Background: In pediatric patients, obstruction of the upper airway is a common problem during general anesthesia. Chin lift is a commonly used technique to improve upper airway patency. However, little is known about the mechanism underlying this technique.
Methods: The authors studied the effect of the chin lift maneuver on airway dimensions in 10 spontaneously breathing children (aged 2-11 yr) sedated with propofol during routine magnetic resonance imaging. The minimal anteroposterior and corresponding transverse diameters of the pharynx were determined at the levels of the soft palate, dorsum of the tongue, and tip of the epiglottis before and during the chin lift maneuver. Additionally, cross-sectional areas were calculated at these sites, including tracheal areas 2 cm below the glottic level.
Results: Minimal anteroposterior diameter of the pharynx increased significantly during chin lift at all three levels in all patients. The diameters of the soft palate, tongue, and epiglottis increased from 6.7+/-2.8 mm (SD) to 9.9+/-3.6 mm, from 9.6+/-3.6 mm to 16.5+/-3.1 mm, and from 4.6+/-2.5 mm to 13.1+/-2.8 mm, respectively. The corresponding transverse diameter of the pharynx also increased significantly at all three levels in all patients but without significant predominance. The diameters at the levels of the soft palate, tongue, and epiglottis increased from 15.8+/-5.1 mm to 22.8+/-4.5 mm, from 13.5+/-4.9 mm to 18.7+/-5.3 mm, and from 17.2+/-3.9 mm to 21.2+/-3.7 mm, respectively. Cross-sectional pharyngeal areas increased significantly at all levels (soft palate, from 0.88+/-0.58 cm to 1.79+/-0.82 cm; tongue, from 1.15+/-0.45 cm to 2.99+/-1.30 cm; epiglottis, from 1.17+/-0.70 cm to 3.04+/-0.99 cm), including the subglottic level (from 0.44+/-0.15 cm to 0.50+/-0.14 cm).
Conclusions: This study shows that all children had a preserved upper airway at all measured sites during propofol sedation. Chin lift caused a widening of the entire pharyngeal airway that was most pronounced between the tip of the epiglottis and the posterior pharyngeal wall. In pediatric patients, chin lift may be used as a standard procedure during propofol sedation.
Hertzog JH, Campbell JK, Dalton HJ, Hauser GJ
Pediatrics. 1999;103:E30
Objectives: To describe our experience with propofol anesthesia to facilitate invasive procedures for ambulatory and hospitalized children in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) setting.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of 115 children who underwent 251 invasive procedures with propofol anesthesia in our multidisciplinary, university-affiliated PICU during a 20-month period. All patients underwent a medical evaluation and were required to fast before anesthesia. Continuous monitoring of the patient's cardiorespiratory and neurologic status was performed by a pediatric intensivist, who also administered propofol in intermittent boluses to obtain the desired level of anesthesia, and by a PICU nurse, who provided written documentation. Data on patient demographics, procedures performed, doses of propofol used, the occurrence of side effects, induction time, recovery time, and length of stay in the PICU were obtained.
Results: Propofol anesthesia was performed successfully in all children (mean age, 6.4 years; range, 10 days to 20.8 years) who had a variety of underlying medical conditions, including oncologic, infectious, neurologic, cardiac, and gastrointestinal disorders. Procedures performed included lumbar puncture with intrathecal chemotherapy administration, bone marrow aspiration and biopsy, central venous catheter placement, endoscopy, and transesophageal echocardiogram. The mean dose of propofol used for induction of anesthesia was 1.8 mg/kg, and the total mean dose of propofol used was 8.8 mg/kg. In 13% of cases, midazolam also was administered but did not affect the doses of propofol used. The mean anesthesia induction time was 3.9 minutes, and the mean recovery time from anesthesia was 28.8 minutes for all patients. The mean PICU stay for ambulatory and ward patients was 140 minutes. Hypotension occurred in 50% of cases, with a mean decrease in systolic blood pressure of 25%. The development of hypotension was not associated with propofol doses, the concomitant use of midazolam, or the duration of anesthesia, but was associated with older patient age. Hypotension was transient and not associated with altered perfusion. Intravenous fluid was administered in 61% of the cases in which hypotension was present. Respiratory depression requiring transient bag-valve-mask ventilation occurred in 6% of cases and was not associated with patient age, propofol doses, concomitant use of midazolam, or the duration of anesthesia. Transient myoclonus was observed in 3.6% of cases. Ninety-eight percent of procedures were completed successfully, and no procedure failures were considered secondary to the anesthesia. Patients, parents, and health care providers were satisfied with the results of propofol anesthesia.
Conclusions: Propofol anesthesia can safely facilitate a variety of invasive procedures in ambulatory and hospitalized children when performed in the PICU and is associated with short induction and recovery times and PICU length of stay. Hypotension, although usually transient, is common, and respiratory depression necessitating assisted ventilation may occur. Therefore, appropriate monitoring and cardiorespiratory support capabilities are essential. Propofol anesthesia in the PICU setting is a reasonable therapeutic option available to pediatric intensivists to help facilitate invasive procedures in ambulatory and hospitalized children.
Cray SH, Robinson BH, Cox PN
Crit Care Med. 1998;26:2087-2092
Objectives: To describe a severe adverse reaction in a child who received an infusion of propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). To describe the management and further investigation of this patient and review similar published reports.
Design: Case report and literature review.
Setting: Community hospital ICU and tertiary pediatric ICU.
Patient: Infant with upper respiratory obstruction secondary to an esophageal foreign body who required tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation.
Interventions: Conventional cardiovascular and respiratory support. Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) and plasmapheresis.
Measurements And Main Results: The patient received a propofol infusion at a mean rate of 10 mg/kg/hr for 50.5 hrs. He developed lipemia and green urine and subsequently, a progressive severe lactic acidemia and bradyarrhythmias unresponsive to conventional treatment. These abnormalities resolved with CVVH. He was encephalopathic and developed liver and muscle necrosis histologically compatible with a toxic insult. Examination of homogenized muscle tissue demonstrated a reduction in cytochrome C oxidase activity. There was no evidence of systemic infection or underlying metabolic disease. He eventually recovered completely.
Conclusion: Propofol has been associated with severe adverse reactions in children receiving intensive care. The biochemical and histologic abnormalities described in this patient may guide further investigation. We advise against prolonged use of propofol for sedation in children.
SHARE
