Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 341–344 | Cite as

Comparison of sedation regimens for pediatric outpatient CT

  • J. K. Pereira
  • P. E. Burrows
  • H. M. Richards
  • S. H. Chuang
  • P. S. Babyn
Originals

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the concurrent use of chloral hydrate (CH), intramuscular Nembutal (IMN) and intravenous Nembutal (IVN) for sedation. Data was collected on all pediatric outpatients requiring sedation for CT over a 2.5-year period. During this period, 2178 outpatients required sedation of whom, 1324 (60.8%) received IMN, 710 (32.6%) IVN and 110 (5%) CH. The overall success rate was 97% and was similar in all three groups. IVN however, produced betterquality sedation than IMN or CH. The IVN group received a significantly lower dose of Nembutal than the IMN group (p=0.001). Patients receiving IVN had a significantly lower induction time (p=0.0001) and total examination time (p=0.001) than IMN or CH. There was an increased occurrence of desaturation in patients sedated with IVN, especially in those with airway obstruction. IVN sedation permits faster, more efficient and better-quality sedation for outpatient CT scanning than IMN or CH in patients requiring intravenous contrast but may not be appropriate for departments that perform relatively few sedations or lack proper resuscitation facilities.

Keywords

Hydrate Success Rate Chloral Airway Obstruction Sedation Regimen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Keeter S, Benator RM, Weinberg SM, Hartenberg MA (1990) Sedation in pediatric CT: national survey of current practice. Radiology 175:745–752PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook BA, Bass James W, Nomizou S, Alexander ME (1992) Sedation of children for technical procedures: current standards of practice. Clin Pediatr 31 (3): 137–142Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barth KH, Matsumoto AH (1991) Patient care in interventional radiology: a perspective. Radiology 178: 11–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strain JD, Harvey LA, Foley LC, Campbell JB (1986) Intravenously administered pentobarbital sodium for sedation in pediatric CT. Radiology 161: 105–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merrick PA, Case BJ, Jagjivan B, Spackman TJ (1991) Care of pediatric patients sedated with pentobarbital sodium in MRI. Pediatr Nurs 17 (1): 34–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lind LJ, Mushlin PS (1987) Sedation, analgesia, and anesthesia for radiologic procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 10: 247–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheppard JK, Hall-Craggs MA, Griffin JP, Bingham RM (1990) Sedation in children scanned with high field magnetic resonance: the experience at the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, Br J Radiol 63: 794–797PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strain JD, Campbell JB, Harvey LA, Foley LC (1988) IV Nembutal: safe sedation for children undergoing CT. AJNR 9: 955–959Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hubbard AM, Markowitz RI, Kimmel B, Kroger M, Bartko MB (1992) Sedation for pediatric patients undergoing CT and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16 (1): 3–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bisset GS III, Ball WS Jr (1991) Preparation, sedation, and monitoring of the Pediatric patient in the magnetic resonance suite. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 12: 376–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson S (1990) Conscious sedation and pulse oximetry: false alarms? Pediatr Dent 12 (4): 228–32PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. K. Pereira
    • 1
  • P. E. Burrows
    • 1
  • H. M. Richards
    • 1
  • S. H. Chuang
    • 1
  • P. S. Babyn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic ImagingHospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations