...
首页> 外文期刊>Pediatric emergency care >Etomidate Versus Pentobarbital for Computed Tomography Sedations: Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium
【24h】

Etomidate Versus Pentobarbital for Computed Tomography Sedations: Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium

机译:依托咪酯与戊巴比妥用于计算机体层摄影术镇静:儿童镇静研究联合会的报告

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: To compare efficacy, sedation duration, and adverse events after administration of etomidate or pentobarbital for diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scans. Methods: A cohort of children sedated for CT scans between July 2004 and October 2005 was identified from a prospectively generated Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database. The 24 Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium institutions prospectively record consecutive sedation data and adverse events on a Web-based tool. This study included all patients of American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II, between 6 months and 6 years old, sedated with etomidate or with intravenous pentobarbital with or without midazolam. Outcomes included sedation efficacy, duration (time from drug administration until cessation of monitoring), and complication rate. Results: Of 3397 pediatric sedations for CT scans, 2587 met age and ASA criteria. Etomidate was administered by pediatric emergency physicians as the sole sedative for 446 sedation service cases; pentobarbital with or without midazolam was used in 396 sedations by a variety of providers. Sedation was "not ideal" for 11 pentobarbital sedations and 1 etomidate sedation. Median etomidate dose was 0.33 mg/kg (intraquartile rank, 0.30-0.44 mg/kg); median pentobarbital dose was 4 mg/kg (intraquartile rank, 3.2-4.8 mg/kg). Mean etomidate sedation (34 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 32-36 minutes) was shorter than pentobarbital (144 minutes; 95% CI, 139-150 minutes). Etomidate patients were younger (24 vs. 29 months), whereas pentobarbital patients were more often of ASA class II (52% vs. 34%), both P < 0.001. Adverse events were more common with pentobarbital (4.5% vs. 0.9%; relative risk, 3.38%; 95% CI, 1.28%-9.45%). One etomidate and 2 pentobarbital patients experienced apnea. Conclusions: Etomidate as given by emergency physicians was more effective and efficient than pentobarbital, with rare adverse events.
机译:目的:比较依托咪酯或戊巴比妥治疗后的有效性,镇静时间和不良事件,以进行诊断型计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描。方法:从前瞻性生成的小儿镇静研究联合会数据库中识别出一组2004年7月至2005年10月进行镇静扫描的儿童。 24个儿科镇静研究联合会机构前瞻性地在基于Web的工具上记录了连续的镇静数据和不良事件。这项研究包括6个月至6岁之间的美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)I或II级所有患者,均使用依托咪酯或静脉注射戊巴比妥镇静,并伴或不伴咪达唑仑。结果包括镇静效果,持续时间(从给药开始到停止监测的时间)和并发症发生率。结果:在用于CT扫描的3397个儿科镇静剂中,有2587个符合年龄和ASA标准。依托咪酯由小儿急诊医师管理,是446例镇静服务病例的唯一镇静剂。许多提供者在396种镇静剂中使用有或没有咪达唑仑的戊巴比妥。镇静对于11种戊巴比妥镇静剂和1种依托咪酯镇静剂“不理想”。依托咪酯中位剂量为0.33 mg / kg(四分位内为0.30-0.44 mg / kg);戊巴比妥中位剂量为4 mg / kg(四分位等级为3.2-4.8 mg / kg)。依托咪酯的平均镇静作用(34分钟; 95%置信区间[CI],32-36分钟)短于戊巴比妥(144分钟; 95%CI,139-150分钟)。依托咪酯患者年龄较小(24个月比29个月),而戊巴比妥患者更常见于ASA II类(52%比34%),两者均P <0.001。戊巴比妥的不良事件更为普遍(4.5%vs. 0.9%;相对风险,3.38%; 95%CI,1.28%-9.45%)。 1名依托咪酯和2名戊巴比妥患者出现呼吸暂停。结论:急诊医师给予的依托咪酯比戊巴比妥更有效,更有效,且不良反应很少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号