Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:11:39.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of basic parameters for monitoring the haemodynamic effects of midazolam and ketamine as opposed to propofol during cardiac catheterization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2008

Ayse Baysal ,
Tugcin Bora Polat ,
Yalim Yalcin  and
Ahmet Celebi
Ayse Baysal*
Affiliation:
Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Tugcin Bora Polat
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Yalim Yalcin
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Ahmet Celebi
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
*
Correspondence to: Ayse Baysal, 45 ADA Mimoza 1a D:15, Atasehir, Istanbul, Turkey. Tel: +90-216-4562436; Fax: +90-262-6417260; E-mail: ayse_baysal11@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Our aim is to compare the haemodynamic and adverse effects of propofol versus the mixture of midazolam and ketamine as used in sedation for cardiac catheterization in children.

Methods

In a prospective randomized trial, we divided patients needing sedation into 72 receiving a mixture of midazolam and ketamine and 42 receiving propofol. Their ages ranged from 6 months to 12 years, and 1 year to 16 years, respectively. We collected data relative to heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, peripheral saturations of oxygen, and adverse effects. We assessed cyanotic patients to establish any relationship between the haemodynamic data and peripheral arterial saturations of oxygen.

Results

Demographic data, including age, gender, and weight, was not statistically different between the groups. In those receiving midazolam and ketamine, mean systemic arterial pressures before, and 30 minutes after, sedation were 64.3, with standard deviation of 9.8, and 62.5, with standard deviation of 10.2, millimetre of mercury (p equals to 0.237). Heart rates were 131.3, with standard deviation of 13.5, and 109.2, with standard deviation of 17.3 beats per minute, (p less than 0.001) whereas in those given propofol the comparable values were 71.2, with standard deviation of 14.4, and 53.6 with standard deviation of 9.7 millimetres of mercury (p less than 0.001), and 115.2, with standard deviation of 13.6, and 100.5 with standard deviation of 20.1 beats per minute (p less than 0.01), respectively. Mean systemic arterial pressures in the subgroups of cyanotic patients before and 30 minutes after sedation were 74.8, with standard deviation of 14.6, and 72.7, with standard deviation of 12.4 millimetres of mercury for those receiving midazolam and ketamine (p equals to 0.544), and heart rates were 119.3, with standard deviation of 12.2, and 104.6 with standard deviation of 16.1 beats per minute (p equals to 0.001). In those given propofol, the comparable values were 71.1 with deviation of 15.5 and 53.9 with deviation of 9.2 millimetres of mercury (p equals to 0.001), and 126.7 with deviation of 20.8 and 107.2 with deviation of 13.5 beats per minute (p equals to 0.001), respectively.

Conclusions

In cyanotic children, propofol used as a sedative agent during cardiac catheterization causes a decrease in mean arterial pressure and arterial desaturation. Ketamine produces more stable haemodynamic data in children with congenitally malformed hearts.

Keywords

Haemodynamicssedative agentsside effects
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 351 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Krauss, B, Green, SM. Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. Review. Lancet 2006; 367: 766–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Da Silva, PSL, Brasil, S, Iglesias, O, Leao, FVF, Aguiar, VE, De Carvalho, WB. Procedural sedation for insertion of central venous catheters in children: comparison of midazolam/fentanyl with midazolam/ketamine. Pediatr Anesthesia 2007; 17: 358–363.Google Scholar
3. Jobeir, A, Galal, MO, Bulbul, ZR, Solymar, L, Darwish, A, Schmaltz, AA. Use of low-dose ketamine and/or midazolam for pediatric cardiac catheterization: Is an anesthesiologist needed. Pediatr Cardiol 2003; 24: 236–243.Google Scholar
4. Parker, RI, Mahan, RA, Giugliano, D, Parker, MM. Efficacy and safety of intravenous midazolam and ketamine as sedation for therapeutic and diagnostic procedures in children. Pediatrics 1997; 99: 427–432.Google Scholar
5. Cheuk, DKL, Wong, WHS, Ma, E, et al. Use of midazolam and ketamine as sedation for children undergoing minor operative procedures. Support Care Cancer 2005; 13: 1001–1009.Google Scholar
6. Lebovic, S, Reich, DL, Steinberg, G, Vela, FP, Silvay, G. Comparison of propofol versus ketamine for anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Anesth Analg 1992; 74: 490–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Williams, GD, Jones, TK, Hanson, KA, Morray, JP. The hemodynamic effects of propofol in children with congenital heart disease. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: 1411–1416.Google Scholar
8. Oklu, E, Bulutcu, FS, Yalcın, Y, Ozbek, U, Cakalı, E, Bayındır, O. Which anesthetic agent alters the hemodynamic status during pediatric catheterization? Comparison of propofol versus ketamine. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anest 2003; 17: 686–690.Google Scholar
9. Malviya, S, Voepel-Lewis, T, Tait, AR, Merkel, S, Tremper, K, Naughton, N. Depth of sedation in children undergoing computed tomography: validity and reliability of the University of Michigan Sedation Scale. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 241–245.Google Scholar
10. Steward, DJ. A simplified scoring system for the post-operative recovery room. Can Anaesth Soc J 1975; 22: 111–113.Google Scholar
11. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization. 2001 sedation and anesthesia care standards. JCAHO, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Oakbrook Terrace (IL), 2005.Google Scholar
12. Kogan, A, Efrat, R, Katz, J, Vidne, B. Propofol-Ketamine mixture for anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anest 2003; 17: 691–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Akin, A, Esmaoglu, A, Guler, G, Demircioglu, R, Narin, N, Boyaci, A. Propofol and propofol-ketamine in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Pediatr Cardiol 2005; 26: 553–557.Google Scholar
14. Tosun, Z, Akin, A, Guler, G, Esmaoglu, A, Boyaci, A. Dexmedetomidine-ketamine and propofol-ketamine combinations for anesthesia in spontaneously breathing pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anest 2006; 20: 515–519.Google Scholar
15. Miller, MA, Levy, P, Patel, MM. Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: what are the risks? Emerg Med Clin North Am 2005; 23: 551–572.Google Scholar
16. Doyle, L, Coletti, JE. Pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia. Pediatr Clin North Am 2006; 53: 279–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Gayatri, P, Suneel, PR, Sinha, PK. Evaluation of propofol-ketamine anesthesia for children undergoing cardiac catheterization procedures. J Interv Cardiol 2007; 20: 158–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Baysal, A, Polat, TB, Yalcin, Y, Celebi, A. Can analysis of the bispectral index prove helpful when monitoring titration of doses of midazolam and ketamine for sedation during pediatric cardiac catheterization. Cardiol Young 2007; 18: 51–57.Google Scholar
19. Wheeler, DS, Vaux, KK, Ponaman, ML. The safe and effective use of propofol sedation in children undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: Experience in a pediatric ICU and a review of the literature. Pediatr Emerg Care 2003; 19: 385–392.Google Scholar