Key result
Intravenous sufentanil-midazolam exerted more favorable effects on systemic hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency during anesthetic induction compared to sevoflurane (P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Knowledge regarding the effects of intravenous sufentanil-midazolam versus inhalational sevoflurane on hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency during pediatric cardiac surgery induction remains limited.
Does intravenous sufentanil-midazolam improve hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency compared to sevoflurane for anesthesia induction in children undergoing ventricular septal defect repair?
RCT (n=44)
Does intravenous sufentanil-midazolam improve hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency compared to sevoflurane for anesthesia induction in children undergoing ventricular septal defect repair?
p-value: p=<0.0001
Intravenous sufentanil-midazolam exerts more favorable effects on systemic hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency than inhalational sevoflurane during anesthetic induction in children undergoing VSD repair.
Supports sufentanil-midazolam for induction hemodynamics in pediatric VSD repair; extends RCT evidence on anesthesia selection in congenital heart surgery.
Background Intravenous sufentanil-midazolam and inhalational sevoflurane are widely used for anesthetic induction in children undergoing cardiac surgery. However, knowledge about their effects on hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency remains limited due largely to the lack of direct monitoring method. We used minimally invasive technique pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) to directly monitor hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency and compared the effects of the two anesthetic regimens in children undergoing ventricular septal defect repair. Methods Forty-Four children (2.3±0.9 years) were randomly divided into two groups to receive either intravenous sufentanil (1 μg/kg) and midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) (Group SM) or 2.0 minimal alveolar concentration (MAC) sevoflurane (Group S) to complete induction after sedation was obtained with 2.0 MAC sevoflurane. Systemic hemodynamic data recorded by PRAM included heart rate (HR), systolic (SBP) and mean (MBP) blood pressure, stroke volume index (SVI), cardiac index (CI), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), the maximal slope of systolic upstroke (dp/dtmax) and cardiac cycle efficiency (CCE) after sedation obtained, 1, 2, 5 min after induction achieved, 1, 2, 5 and 10 min after intubation. Results HR, SVRI showed a decrease in Group SM but an increase in Group S (Ptime*group<0.0001) in the study period. SVI and CCE showed an increase in Group SM but a decrease in Group S (Ptime*group<0.0001). SBP, MBP and CI were related to time after polynomial transformation, and showed an increase after intubation in Group SM but a decrease in Group S (Ptime2*group<0.0001). Conclusion PRAM provides meaningful and direct monitoring of hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency during the dynamic period of anesthetic induction in children undergoing cardiac surgery. As compared to inhalational sevoflurane, intravenous sufentanil-midazolam exerts more favorable effects on systemic hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency during anesthetic induction in this group of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ding et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Ventricular septal defect (n=44). Sufentanil and midazolam vs. 2.0 MAC sevoflurane was evaluated on Systemic hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency (p=<0.0001). Intravenous sufentanil-midazolam exerted more favorable effects on systemic hemodynamics and cardiac efficiency during anesthetic induction compared to sevoflurane (P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: