Open Access

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol as sedatives for pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

  • Authors:
    • Yong Tang
    • Juan Meng
    • Xinxian Zhang
    • Jiong Li
    • Qiang Zhou
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: July 8, 2019     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7751
  • Pages: 1775-1785
  • Copyright: © Tang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Dexmedetomidine and propofol are commonly used sedative agents in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The present meta‑analysis aimed to compare dexmedetomidine with propofol in pediatric patients undergoing MRI using trial sequential analysis (TSA). The PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge databases were systematically searched for entries up to August 2018 for potential randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with propofol in pediatric patients undergoing MRI. Data were extracted by two independent authors and analyzed using Revman version 5.2 software. Six trials involving 415 pediatric patients were included in the final analysis. A shorter recovery time (P<0.01) and onset time of sedation were identified for propofol compared with dexmedetomidine (P<0.01); however, there were no significant differences in the duration of sedation (P=0.37). Furthermore, pediatric patients receiving propofol were discharged sooner than those receiving dexmedetomidine (P=0.02). The incidence of failed sedation did not significantly differ between the two groups (P=0.81). Propofol induced a lower incidence of 5‑min (P=0.03) and 10‑min Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (P<0.01), but a higher incidence of desaturation (P<0.01). The duration of MRI was similar between the two groups (P=0.15). TSA indicated that the monitoring boundary was crossed by the cumulative z curve, providing supportive evidence for the shorter recovery time in the propofol group. Propofol is recommended for pediatric sedation during MRI, owing to shorter recovery time and onset of sedation time, as well as a faster discharge from hospital, and a lower incidence of PAED score >10, compared with dexmedetomidine. However, considering the possibility of desaturation, propofol should be used with caution.

References

1 

Callen DJ, Shroff MM, Branson HM, Lotze T, Li DK, Stephens D and Banwell BL: MRI in the diagnosis of pediatric multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 72:961–967. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Moore MM, Gustas CN, Choudhary AK, Methratta ST, Hulse MA, Geeting G, Eggli KD and Boal DK: MRI for clinically suspected pediatric appendicitis: An implemented program. Pediatr Radiol. 42:1056–1063. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Hartman JH, Bena J, McIntyre S and Albert NM: Does a photo diarydecrease stress and anxiety in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging? A randomized, controlled study. J Radiol Nurs. 28:122–128. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar

4 

McJury M and Shellock FG: Auditory Noise associated with MR procedures: A review. J Magn Reson Imaging. 12:37–45. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Li BL, Ni J, Huang JX, Zhang N, Song XR and Yuen VM: Intranasal dexmedetomidine for sedation in children undergoing transthoracic echocardiography study-a prospective observational study. Paediatr Anaesth. 25:891–896. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Yuen VM, Li BL, Cheuk DK, Leung MKM, Hui TWC, Wong IC, Lam WW, Choi SW and Irwin MG: A randomised controlled trial of oral chloral hydrate vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine before computerised tomography in children. Anaesthesia. 72:1191–1195. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Millar K, Bowman AW, Burns D, McLaughlin P, Moores T, Morton NS, Musiello T, Wallace E, Wray A and Welbury RR: Children's cognitive recovery after day-case general anesthesia: A randomized trial of propofol or isoflurane for dental procedures. Paediatr Anaesth. 24:201–207. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Chiaretti A, Benini F, Pierri F, Vecchiato K, Ronfani L, Agosto C, Ventura A, Genovese O and Barbi E: Safety and efficacy of propofol administered by paediatricians during procedural sedation in children. Acta Paediatr. 103:182–187. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Koroglu A, Demirbilek S, Teksan H, Sagir O, But AK and Ersoy MO: Sedative, haemodynamic and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging examination: Preliminary results. Br J Anaesth. 94:821–824. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Wu J, Mahmoud M, Schmitt M, Hossain M and Kurth D: Comparison of propofol and dexmedetomedine techniques in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth. 24:813–818. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Zhou Q, Shen L, Zhang X, Li J and Tang Y: Dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the sedation of pediatric patients during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning: A meta-analysis of current studies. Oncotarget. 8:102468–102473. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Watt S, Sabouri S, Hegazy R, Gupta P and Heard C: Does dexmedetomidine cause less airway collapse than propofol when used for deep sedation? J Clin Anesth. 35:259–267. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Xiao Y, He P, Jing G, Wang Q and Wen J: Comparison of sedative effect of dexmedetomide injection and propofol injection in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Zhongguo Lin Chuang Yao Li Xue Za Zhi. 33:1764–1767. 2017.(In Chinese).

14 

Knobloch K, Yoon U and Vogt PM: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 39:91–92. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Ringblom J, Wahlin I and Proczkowska M: A psychometric evaluation of the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium scale. Paediatr Anaesth. 28:332–337. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, et al: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 343:d59282011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Bong CL, Lim E, Allen JC, Choo WL, Siow YN, Teo PB and Tan JS: A comparison of single-dose dexmedetomidine or propofol on the incidence of emergence delirium in children undergoing general anaesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging. Anaesthesia. 70:393–399. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Kamal K, Asthana U, Bansal T, Dureja J, Ahlawat G and Kapoor S: Evaluation of efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Saudi J Anaesth. 11:163–168. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Fang H, Yang L, Wang X and Zhu H: Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 8:11881–11889. 2015.PubMed/NCBI

20 

Chandler JR, Myers D, Mehta D, Whyte E, Groberman MK, Montgomery CJ and Ansermino JM: Emergence delirium in children: A randomized trial to compare total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil to inhalational sevoflurane anesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth. 23:309–315. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Isik B, Arslan M, Tunga AD and Kurtipek O: Dexmedetomidine decreases emergence agitation in pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia without surgery. Paediatr Anaesth. 16:748–753. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Wetterslev J, Jakobsen JC and Gluud C: Trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 17:392017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

September 2019
Volume 18 Issue 3

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Tang, Y., Meng, J., Zhang, X., Li, J., & Zhou, Q. (2019). Comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol as sedatives for pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 18, 1775-1785. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7751
MLA
Tang, Y., Meng, J., Zhang, X., Li, J., Zhou, Q."Comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol as sedatives for pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 18.3 (2019): 1775-1785.
Chicago
Tang, Y., Meng, J., Zhang, X., Li, J., Zhou, Q."Comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol as sedatives for pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 18, no. 3 (2019): 1775-1785. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7751