Why the study?
Risk factors contributing to emergence agitation and the effectiveness of a low-flow anesthesia technique on emergence agitation in pediatric patients needed evaluation.
Does low-flow anesthesia reduce emergence agitation in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia?
Does low-flow anesthesia reduce emergence agitation in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia?
Low-flow anesthesia significantly reduces the incidence of emergence agitation compared to high-flow anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia.
Low-flow anesthesia reduces emergence agitation in pediatric patients; this RCT confirms its advantage over high-flow techniques.
Objectives: This study was designed to see the risk factors that contribute to emergence agitation (EA) and also to know the effectiveness of low-flow (LF) anesthesia technique in EA in pediatric patients. Methods: A total of 200 pediatric patients aged 6 months–6 years underwent surgery with general anesthesia were divided into two groups. The high-flow (HF) group was maintained with 5 l fresh gas flow (FGF), and the LF group was maintained with 500 ml FGF. The outcome was measured after the surgery was completed on Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability and pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scores. Agitation defined in PAED score ≥10, and no agitation defined in PAED score <10. Results: EA incidence in the HF group was higher compared to the LF group (59.5 vs. 4.7%, p<0.001). HF anesthesia technique was a single risk factor for agitation event, whereas LF anesthesia may prevent EA incidence until up to 92.7%. Conclusion: LF anesthesia reduced agitation incidences. The effectiveness of LF was 92.7% in reducing the incidence of agitation. HF anesthesia was the main risk factor for agitation incidences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ryalino et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: