Research and Opinion in Anesthesia & Intensive Care

RESEARCH PAPER
Year
: 2018  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 198--204

Ketamine–propofol versus ketamine–midazolam for procedural sedation and analgesia in children with hematological malignancies: a randomized, open-labeled, cross-over trial


Oyebola O Adekola1, Edamisan O Temiye2, Gabriel K Asiyanbi3, Nurudeen O Akanmu1, Ibironke Desalu1 
1 Department of Anesthesia, College of Medicine, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
2 Hematology and Oncology Unit, Department of Pediatric, College of Medicine, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
3 Department of Anesthesia, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria

Correspondence Address:
Oyebola O Adekola
Department of Anaesthesia, College of Medicine, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, University of Lagos, PMB 12003 Surulere, Lagos
Nigeria

Background The use of procedural sedation and analgesia for painful procedures in children with hematological malignancies has become a standard practice in recent time. We compared the occurrence of hypoxia, apnea, and pain between ketamine–propofol and ketamine–midazolam combination. Patients and methods This randomized, open-labeled cross-over study was conducted in 60 children aged 1–15 years scheduled for bone marrow aspiration and, or intrathecal chemotherapy. They were divided into two groups of 30 to receive either ketamine–propofol or ketamine–midazolam. Sedation was performed by trained anesthetists according to the study protocol. Data were analyzed with independent t-test, χ2-test and Fisher’s exact test. P value 0.05 or less was considered significant. Results A total of 120 procedures were performed. One (1.7%) patient in each group had hypoxia, (P=0.8). The oxygen saturation decreased to 83 and 88% in ketamine–propofol and ketamine–midazolam groups, respectively. This was accompanied by bradycardia with a heart rate of 56 and 58 beats/min, respectively. Both events responded to oxygen therapy. There was no episode of apnea, and all maintained spontaneous respiration. The number of patients with a pain score of at least 5 during the procedure was comparable; ketamine–propofol group [6 (10%)] versus ketamine–midazolam group [4 (6.7%)] (P=0.4). Hallucinations were more common in the ketamine–propofol group [4(6.7%)] than the ketamine–midazolam group [0 (0%)] (P=0.05). Conclusion The occurrence of hypoxia, apnea, and pain was comparable following the administration of ketamine–propofol and ketamine–midazolam combination.


How to cite this article:
Adekola OO, Temiye EO, Asiyanbi GK, Akanmu NO, Desalu I. Ketamine–propofol versus ketamine–midazolam for procedural sedation and analgesia in children with hematological malignancies: a randomized, open-labeled, cross-over trial.Res Opin Anesth Intensive Care 2018;5:198-204


How to cite this URL:
Adekola OO, Temiye EO, Asiyanbi GK, Akanmu NO, Desalu I. Ketamine–propofol versus ketamine–midazolam for procedural sedation and analgesia in children with hematological malignancies: a randomized, open-labeled, cross-over trial. Res Opin Anesth Intensive Care [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 7 ];5:198-204
Available from: http://www.roaic.eg.net/article.asp?issn=2356-9115;year=2018;volume=5;issue=3;spage=198;epage=204;aulast=Adekola;type=0