4.1 Review

The safe and effective use of propofol sedation in children undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: Experience in a pediatric ICU and a review of the literature

Journal

PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 385-392

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.pec.0000101578.65509.71

Keywords

sedation; propofol; PICU; procedures; diagnostic; therapeutic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To describe our experience using propofol sedation to facilitate elective diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and to document the safety profile of propofol in this setting. Design: Retrospective consecutive case series and review of the literature. Setting: Pediatric intensive care unit of a United States Navy tertiary care medical center. Patients: Children receiving propofol for procedural sedation over an 18-month period. Outcome Measures: Descriptive features of sedation including adverse events. Results: During the study period, 91 children received propofol to facilitate the performance of 110 medical procedures. The mean induction dose was 2.41 mg/kg, the mean infusion rate was 179.3 mug/kg/min, and the mean total dose of propofol administered was 4.23 mg/kg. In all cases, sedation was successfully achieved. The average length of stay in the PICU was 108.4 minutes. Three children (3.3%) had transient episodes of oxygen desaturation that improved with repositioning of the airway. No child required placement of an endotracheal tube. Three (3.3%) children experienced hypotension requiring a decrease in the infusion rate, of propofol and a 10-mL/kg bolus infusion of normal saline. No cardiac arrhythmias or adverse neurologic effects secondary to propofol infusion were identified. Conclusions: Pediatric intensivists can safely and effectively administer propofol to facilitate the performance of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures outside the operating room setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available