4.2 Article

Emergence agitation in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy: a comparison of sevoflurane vs. sevoflurane-remifentanil administration

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 100-105

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Sevoflurane is widely used in paediatric anaesthesia but frequently causes emergence agitation (EA). This study evaluated whether limiting the sevoflurane concentration by combining remifentanil with sevoflurane reduced the incidence of EA. Methods Eighty-four preschool children scheduled for adenotonsillectomy were randomly assigned to either the remifentanil or sevoflurane group. In the remifentanil group, anaesthesia was induced with thiopental, rocuronium, and 1% sevoflurane. It was maintained with 1% sevoflurane, 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil. For the sevoflurane group, anaesthesia was induced with thiopental, rocuronium, and 8% sevoflurane, and was maintained with 23% sevoflurane. Both groups received ketorolac 1?mg/kg and dexamethasone 0.15?mg/kg. EA was measured using the paediatric anaesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scale and a four-point EA scale in the post-anaesthesia care unit. Results The scores on the PAED scales were significantly lower in the remifentanil group than in the sevoflurane group [median (interquartile range); 6 (4.2510.25) vs. 11 (7.7514.0), P?=?0.007], and the proportion of patients with PAED scores =?10 was significantly lower in the remifentanil group than in the sevoflurane group [15 (35.7%) vs. 27 (64.2%), P?=?0.009]. The incidence of EA evaluated using the four-point scale was also lower in the remifentanil group [11 (26.1%) vs. 21 (50%), respectively, P?=?0.025]. Conclusion The incidence of EA was lower in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy who received a lower concentration of sevoflurane combined with remifentanil than in those given a higher concentration of sevoflurane without remifentanil.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据