Key result
Dexmedetomidine-ketamine provided adequate sedation with significantly lower intraoperative ketamine consumption and a shorter recovery time (9.32 vs 16.21 minutes) compared to midazolam-ketamine in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the effects of midazolam-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine combinations on hemodynamics, sedation level, and recovery period in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Does a dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination improve hemodynamics, sedation, and recovery compared to a midazolam-ketamine combination in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
RCT (n=50)
Double-blind
closed-envelope method
No
Does a dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination improve hemodynamics, sedation, and recovery compared to a midazolam-ketamine combination in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.32% vs 16.21%
p-value: p=<0.05
A dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination provides superior anesthesia for pediatric cardiac catheterization compared to midazolam-ketamine by reducing the need for supplemental ketamine and shortening recovery time.
Supports dexmedetomidine-ketamine preference in pediatric cardiac catheterization; extends RCT evidence on procedural sedation alternatives.
The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of midazolam–ketamine versus dexmedetomidine–ketamine combinations on hemodynamics, sedation level, and recovery period in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for hemodynamic study . Fifty pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for hemodynamic study were enrolled in the current study. Patients were randomly distributed to one of two equal groups: midazolam–ketamine group (group M) and dexmedetomidine–ketamine group (group D). The patients in group M received intravenous midazolam 0.1 mg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg as a bolus for induction, then received an intravenous midazolam infusion of 0.1 mg/kg/h and ketamine infusion of 1 mg/kg/h for maintenance whereas patients in group D received intravenous dexmedetomidine1μg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg as a bolus for induction, then received an intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h and ketamine infusion of 1 mg/kg/h for maintenance. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation (SPO 2 ), and sedation scores were recorded. Recovery time, perioperative adverse events, and total ketamine consumption required for anesthesia maintenance were also recorded. The HR was significantly lower in group D when compared with group M at 10, 20, and 30 min of the procedure with no significant difference as regards the MAP between the two study groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the two study groups in terms of Ramsay sedation scores. Ketamine consumption in group D was significantly lower than in group M. The recovery time was significantly shorter in group D when compared with group M. The dexmedetomidine–ketamine combination was superior to midazolam–ketamine combination because of less intraoperative ketamine consumption required for adequate intraoperative sedation and the shorter recovery time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Menshawi et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Acyanotic congenital heart disease (n=50). Dexmedetomidine-ketamine vs. Midazolam-ketamine was evaluated on Recovery time (minutes) (p=<0.05). Dexmedetomidine-ketamine provided adequate sedation with significantly lower intraoperative ketamine consumption and a shorter recovery time (9.32 vs 16.21 minutes) compared to midazolam-ketamine in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: