Sedation For Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research Articles

Combined sedation in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging: determination of median effective dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam

BackgroundThe exact median effective dose (ED50) of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination in children remains unknow and the aim of this study was to determine the ED50 of their combination.MethodsThis is a prospective dose-finding study. A total of 53 children aged from 2 months to 6 years scheduled for MRI examination from February 2023 to April 2023 were randomly divided into group D (to determine the ED50 of intranasal dexmedetomidine) and group M (to determine the ED50 of oral midazolam). The dosage of dexmedetomidine and midazolam was adjusted according to the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method, and the ED50 was calculated with a probit regression approach.ResultsThe ED50 of intranasal dexmedetomidine when combined with 0.5 mg∙kg− 1 oral midazolam was 0.39 µg∙kg− 1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.46 µg∙kg− 1] while the ED50 of oral midazolam was 0.17 mg∙kg− 1 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.29 mg∙kg− 1) when combined with 1 µg∙kg− 1 intranasal dexmedetomidine. The sedation onset time of children with successful sedation in group D was longer than in group M (30.0[25.0, 38.0]vs 19.5[15.0, 35.0] min, P < 0.05). No other adverse effects were observed in the day and 24 h after medication except one dysphoria.ConclusionThis drug combination sedation regimen appears suitable for children scheduled for MRI examinations, offering a more precise approach to guide the clinical use of sedative drugs in children.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300068611(24/02/2023).

The Impact of Simulation-Based Training on Self-Efficacy in Sedation for Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

In Japan, approximately 35% of facilities experience sedation-related complications for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including severe complications such as respiratory and cardiac arrests. In the medical education field, simulation improves not only the quality of real emergency response but also health care workers' self-efficacy. Individuals with high self-efficacy are better prepared at handling diverse conditions. However, there is no research examining the impact of sedation simulation for pediatric MRI on the self-efficacy of health care workers. This study aimed to retrospectively investigate the impact of sedation simulation for pediatric MRI on the self-efficacy of health care workers in sedation. The study was conducted on August 18, 2023, and enrolled pediatricians, nurses, and radiological technologists. The impact of sedation simulation for pediatric MRI on the participants was analyzed using confidence scale scores and part of the Pediatric Resuscitation and Escalation of Care Self-Efficacy Scale (PRSES), before and after sedation simulation for pediatric MRI. Eighteen participants (six pediatricians, six nurses, and six radiological technologists) were included in this study. Regarding confidence scale scores, a significant improvement was observed in the overall group (P = 0.002) and among the nurses (P = 0.0036). Regarding the item 'When confronted with a clinically deteriorating child, I know how to ask for assistance' of PRSES, a significant improvement was observed in the overall group (P = 0.0035) and among the radiological technologists (P = 0.048). There's a potential for sedation simulation for pediatric MRI to increase the self-efficacy of health care workers in MRI sedation. Our findings suggest that this training has a valuable role in preparing health care workers to practice sedation for pediatric MRI.

Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pregnancy.

Magnetic resonance imaging is being increasingly used to diagnose and follow up avariety of medical conditions in pregnancy, both for maternal and fetal indications. However, limited data regarding its safe use in pregnancy may be asource of anxiety and avoidance for both patients and their healthcare providers. In this review, we critically discuss the main safety concerns of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in pregnancy including energy deposition, acoustic noise, and use of contrast agents, supported by data from animal and human studies. Use of maternal sedatives and concerns related to occupational exposure in pregnant personnel are also addressed. Exposure to gadolinium-based contrast agents and sedation for MRI during pregnancy should be avoided whenever feasible.

Quality comparison of remote anesthetic consultation versus on-site consultation in children with sedation for a magnetic resonance imaging examination-A randomized controlled trial.

In the course of the corona pandemic, digital media has increasingly been used in many areas of medical practice to reduce personal contact. As it is of interest whether this can be practiced in the context of anesthesia consultations without loss of quality, we interviewed parents whose children received a cardiac or neuro magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) under sedation. Parents either received an on-site or a remote consultation conducted by an anesthesiologist. Both parents and anesthesiologist were asked to indicate their satisfaction with the respective consultation procedure in a questionnaire. The aim of this study was to investigate if remote pre-anesthesia consultation, supported by an online video, for parents whose children are receiving MRI examinations under sedation can replace the commonly performed on-site consultation, without decreasing its quality. In this randomized trial, a total of 200 patients were included, one half received pre-anesthesia consultation on-site and the other half was given a link to a video and pre-anesthesia consultation was conducted by phone. As a primary analysis, we compared the level of satisfaction for the general procedure, the quality of the pre-anesthesia consultation and the contact to the anesthesiologists (or parents). We further investigated the frequency of complications and the preference for a possible next informed consent. Both groups showed high levels of satisfaction. Some anesthesiologists and parents were less satisfied with the quality of on-site pre-anesthesia consultation than with the remote. In our patient cohort, there was no evidence for higher risk of complications when information was provided by telephone. Further, parents as well as anesthesiologists clearly favored the combined form of telephone information and online video. Overall, 61.2% of parents and 64% of anesthesiologists would choose this form of pre-anesthesia consultation for repeat anesthesia. We did not observe that combined telephone and video decreased the quality of pre-anesthesia consultation. A remote version seems feasible for simple procedures such as sedation for MRI. Further research on this topic in other areas of anesthesia would be beneficial.

Nurse-led dexmedetomidine sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in children: a 6-year quality improvement project.

We aimed to safely introduce dexmedetomidine into a nurse-led sedation service for magnetic resonance imaging in children. Secondary aims were to increase the number of children eligible for sedation and to increase the actual number of children having sedation performed by our nurse sedation team. We analysed 1768 consecutive intravenous and 219 intranasal dexmedetomidine sedation episodes in infants, children and adolescents having magnetic resonance imaging scans between March 2016 and March 2022. The overall sedation success rate was 98.4%, with a 98.9% success rate for intravenous dexmedetomidine and a 95.0% success rate for intranasal dexmedetomidine. The incidence of scan interruption during intravenous and intranasal dexmedetomidine sedation was 8.8% and 21.9%, respectively. We conclude that paediatric sedation with dexmedetomidine for magnetic resonance scanning is safe and successful.

Low billing rates for pediatric sedation fee on magnetic resonance imaging.

The 2018 revision of social insurance in Japan allows additional fees to be calculated for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that must be performed under sedation. The number and trend of actual claims since this revision was established is unknown. The aim of this study to investigate the use of the additional fees and any regional differences in the use. To analyze the claims of additional fees for pediatric sedated MRI after the fiscal year (FY) 2018, the actual claims in inpatient and outpatient practice was analyzed using publicly-available data from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). We analyzed the calculation rate for all MRI scans. Annual changes in the actual number and calculation rate were analyzed. The ratio of the number of additional fees to the overall number of pediatric radiological procedures was used to examine the geographic disparity. The number of calculations from FY 2018 to FY 2020 was available. In FY 2020, only 1347 additional fees were calculated, corresponding to 0.35% of the total number of MRI scans. The number of fees showed a decreasing trend. Most cases were in the 0-4 year age group; however, there were a few cases in the 10-14 year age group without such a decrease. The relative number of calculations by prefecture showed an up to 14-fold disparity. The requirements for sedation for pediatric MRI are strict, but they are not fully utilized. Measures such as relaxing the requirements for the fee are needed to make MRI-related sedation safer.

Sedation for Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pediatric Patients: Complications and Future Measures

The use of sedation to examine children is common in hospitals. MRI examinations require sedation when applied to pediatric patients, because of the high magnetic field and noisy environment, but complications such as respiratory failure and cardiac arrest have occurred in Japan. Unfortunately, there is no risk-free sedation. In order to perform sedation safely, it is necessary to understand the Recommendation on pediatric sedation for MRI examinations, which was published in 2020. Restrictions on oral intake prior to the exam and the 2-4-6 rules must be adhered to in order to avoid vomiting, and patients must be monitored every 5 minutes during the exam. In addition, non-sedative MRI with the use of videos and preparation tools should be performed more often.

Drug selection for sedation in magnetic resonance imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is extensively used for the diagnostic purposes. Patients who undergo MRI usually spend 30 to 45 minutes in a magnetically confined, loud environment. Therefore, in order to obtain high-quality diagnostic images, the majority of children and agitated adults need anaesthesia or sedation to remain calm and in position. The success of sedation for MRIs has typically been evaluated based on both the safety of the procedure and its efficacy. It can be challenging to keep the patient's respiration and hemodynamic steady while achieving the profound sedation level required to stop them from moving. The purpose of this research is to review the available information about drug selection for sedation in MRI. For painless diagnostic MRI, a single sedative or anaesthetic drug without analgesia is safer than a cocktail of several sedatives. Various commonly used drugs for sedation are dexmedetomidine, ketamine, chloral hydrate, midazolam, pentobarbital among others. Each drug has its own efficacy and safety profile along with certain side effects. It is critically important for the physician to choose the sedative drug appropriately. Drugs used for sedative purposes should have some definite characteristics including quick onset of action, wide therapeutic window, predictable duration among certain others. Dexmedetomidine, which preserves respiratory drive, and propofol, which has a high effectiveness and quick recovery, are currently chosen for children having an ambulatory MRI. Also, the combination of these drugs is used to sedate patients. Research in future can significantly contribute to defining elaborated criteria for selection of drugs since the available literature is scarce and limited mainly to paediatric population studies.

Using intranasal dexmedetomidine with buccal midazolam for magnetic resonance imaging sedation in children: A single-arm prospective interventional study.

ObjectiveAlthough numerous intravenous sedative regimens have been documented, the ideal non-parenteral sedation regimen for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been determined. This prospective, interventional study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of buccal midazolam in combination with intranasal dexmedetomidine in children undergoing MRI.MethodsChildren between 1 month and 10 years old requiring sedation for MRI examination were recruited to receive buccal midazolam 0.2 mg⋅kg–1 with intranasal dexmedetomidine 3 μg⋅kg–1. The primary outcome was successful sedation following the administration of the initial sedation regimens and the completion of the MRI examination.ResultsSedation with dexmedetomidine–midazolam was administered to 530 children. The successful sedation rate was 95.3% (95% confidence interval: 93.5–97.1%) with the initial sedation regimens and 97.7% (95% confidence interval: 96.5–99%) with a rescue dose of 2 μg⋅kg–1 intranasal dexmedetomidine. The median sedation onset time was 10 min, and a significant rising trend was observed in the onset time concerning age (R = 0.2491, P < 0.001). The wake-up and discharge times significantly correlated with the duration of the procedure (R = 0.323, P < 0.001 vs. R = 0.325, P < 0.001). No oxygen deficiency nor medication intervention due to cardiovascular instability was observed in any of the patients. History of a prior failed sedation was considered a statistically significant risk factor for failed sedation in the multivariate logistic regression model [odds ratio = 4.71 (95% confidence interval: 1.24–17.9), P = 0.023].ConclusionIn MRI examinations, the addition of buccal midazolam to intranasal dexmedetomidine is associated with a high success rate and a good safety profile. This non-parenteral sedation regimen can be a feasible and convenient option for short-duration MRI in children between 1 month and 10 years.

Safety of Dexmedetomidine as an Alternative Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Sedative: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

BackgroundDexmedetomidine provides anxiolysis, sedation, dose-dependent hypnosis, and mild analgesia with minimal respiratory function effects. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine for pediatric patients during MRI.Material/MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 87 cases of pediatric sedations for MRI. Dexmedetomidine and a single dose of midazolam were used in all the cases, according to the in-house pediatric sedation protocol for MRI. The patients were divided in to 2 groups: group 1, who reached adequate sedation up to 10 min of induction and group 2, who achieved proper sedation after 10 min.ResultsThe median age was 3 years (0–17). The median duration of procedure was 75 min (40–150). The induction of standardized sedation was performed without additional sedatives and proper depth of sedation was reached in the majority of cases (94.3%). Five patients (5.7%) received additional sedative after 10 min of induction. The median time of adequate sedation was 8 min (3–13) after induction, and 51% of patients achieved RASS-4 in 8 min. There was no significant difference between groups 1 and 2. Ten patients (11.5%) experienced bradycardia, regardless of the usage of additional drugs, dexmedetomidine boluses, duration of the procedure, or induction time.ConclusionsHigh-dose dexmedetomidine with a single dose of midazolam might be an effective combination at the induction stage for pediatric sedation for MRI, with very few adverse events. Over 50% of enrolled patients achieved an adequate level of sedation before 10 min. We conclude that induction of dexmedetomidine infusion can be shortened up to 8 min.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Propofol-Magnesium Sulfate Combination for Sedation in Paediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Brain.- a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Aims: The key to successful sedation for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is to keep the child completely immobile while ensuring rapid recovery. We compared the efficacy of propofol-midazolam and propofol-magnesium sulfate sedation for MRI of the brain in the paediatric population. Methods: Total 60 paediatric patients, aged 1 to 8 years awaiting for MRI brain were randomly allocated into two groups. Group I patients received midazolam 0.05mg/kg and Group II patients received magnesium sulfate 30 mg/kg infusion in the preinduction room. In the MRI room all patients were sedated with 1-2 mg/kg bolus and 100 ug/kg/min infusion of propofol. The two groups were compared for sedation characteristics like discharge time, total number of additional propofol boluses, agitation scores, haemodynamic parameters and adverse events. Fisher exact test was used for all quantitative data. Results: Induction time, scan quality, requirement of additional propofol boluses and awakening time were comparable for the groups (P&gt;0.05). There was no statistically significant incidence of airway instrumentation between both groups (p=0.14)). Heart rate remained on lower normal side, 20 minutes after induction in Group II (P&lt;0.00). Incidence of emergence agitation was significantly lower in Group II (P&lt;0.01). The discharge time was shorter in Group II (41.03 ± 8.39 min versus 32.83 ± 5.97 min; P&lt;0.001). Conclusion: Propofol-magnesium sulfate sedation is a better alternative to propofol-midazolam combination for paediatric brain MRI, as it provides a shorter discharge time and a lower incidence of emergence agitation.

Cover

The cover image is based on the Research Report Trends and patterns in the practice of pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in Japan: A longitudinal descriptive study from 2012 to 2019 by Tatsuya Tsuji et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14396.

Trends and patterns in the practice of pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in Japan: A longitudinal descriptive study from 2012 to 2019.

Worldwide, pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging is a standard practice; however, there are few studies on its trends and patterns. This study aimed to investigate the trends and patterns of pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in Japan and determine the incidence of and risk factors for adverse events/interventions. This longitudinal descriptive study assessed children (age<15years) who underwent sedation for magnetic resonance imaging between April 2012 and December 2019 in Japan using a nationwide claims database. We assessed the patients' demographic characteristics, time trends in sedatives, sedative patterns by age, and adverse events/interventions within two post-sedation days. Further, we used multivariable logistic regression models to explore factors related to the incidence of adverse events/interventions. We identified 29 187 cases (median age, 2.0years; 55.2% males). The most common sedative was triclofos sodium (n=18 812, 51.7%). There was an increasing trend in barbiturate use (17.0% [2012] to 25.0% [2019]) and decreasing trends in the use of triclofos sodium (56.4% [2012] to 47.7% [2019]) and chloral hydrate (15.6% [2012] to 10.8% [2019]). We identified 534 adverse events/interventions in 460 cases (1.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that the incidence of adverse events/interventions mainly increased with the number of sedatives (≥3; adjusted odds ratio, 5.10; 95% confidence interval, 3.67-7.10) and unscheduled setting (adjusted odds ratio, 6.28; 95% confidence interval, 4.85-8.61); further, it decreased with high hospital procedure volume (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.78). Based on a Japanese real-world setting, there is an increasing trend in barbiturate use and decreasing trends in the use of triclofos sodium and chloral hydrate in pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging. Low hospital procedure volumes were associated with an increased risk of adverse events/interventions.

Dexmedetomidine sedation vs. inhaled general anesthesia for pediatric MRI: A retrospective cohort study: Dexmedetomidine sedation vs. inhaled general anesthesia for MRI

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and the efficacy of a dexmedetomidine-based protocol followed by anesthesiologists unaccustomed to using dexmedetomidine during pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations compared to conventional halogenated general anesthesia. MethodsThis was a single-center retrospective cohort study including patients younger than 18 years who underwent sedation for MRI between August 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019. Patients who received dexmedetomidine were included in the DEX group and patients who had general anesthesia formed the GA group. Patients were matched with a ratio of 2 GA:1 DEX, based on age and type of MRI examination. ResultsOverall, 78 patients were included (DEX=26; GA=52). Dexmedetomidine was significantly associated with a decrease in invasive ventilation (p<0.001) with no impact on image quality. The sedation failure rate was 42% with dexmedetomidine vs. 0% with general anesthesia (p<0.001). All cases of failure followed the intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine. ConclusionDexmedetomidine seems to be a suitable sedation option for pediatric MRI. It provides an alternative to halogenated general anesthesia with the aim of limiting exposure to conventional anesthetic agents and invasive ventilation.

Safety and effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine together with midazolam for sedation in neonatal MRI.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been consistently indicated as the imaging modality of choice in children and neonates. MRI is pivotal for the management and prognostication of different neonatal conditions including neonatal encephalopathy, preterm birth and congenital heart diseases. While feed and wrap technique may be used to perform MRI scans without sedation, this is not always possible due to MRI sensitivity to motion artifacts and long duration of the procedure.

The frequency of emergence delirium in children undergoing outpatient anaesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect on the occurrence of emergence delirium of propofol and ketofol with intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam applied as premedication to paediatric patients during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The study included children aged 2-10 years who received sedation for MRI, separated into four groups. Group MP (midazolam-propofol) received intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) for premedication and intravenous (IV) propofol (1 mg/kg) as the anaesthetic agent. Group MK (midazolam-ketofol) received intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) for premedication and IV ketofol (1 mg/kg) as the anaesthetic agent. Group DP (dexmedetomidine-propofol) received intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 mcg/kg) for premedication and IV propofol (1 mg/kg) as the anaesthetic agent. Group DK (dexmedetomidine-ketofol) received intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 mcg/kg) for premedication and IV ketofol (1 mg/kg) as the anaesthetic agent. The Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale was used to evaluate delirium. A PAED score ≥ 10 was accepted as delirium. Statistical analysis was made of 140 paediatric patients. Delirium developed in 1.42% of all the patients, and in 5.7% of Group MP. The mean Aldrete and PAED scores were lower and the length of stay in the recovery room was shorter in Group DP than in the other groups. The need for additional anaesthetic was highest in Group DP at 94.3% and lowest in Group DK at 14.3%. The groups administered ketofol were observed to have a lower requirement for additional anaesthetic. Delirium was seen at a very low rate only in the Group MP and it is difficult to say the best combination in terms of delirium frequency. However, intranasal dexmedetomidine and IV ketofol seem to be better and safer than the other groups in terms of the need for additional doses and the number of side effects. The addition of ketamine to propofol reduces the need for additional doses with a synergistic effect.

Effects of dexmedetomidine sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pediatric sedation is commonly required to obtain high-quality images in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine sedation for MRI in children. A systematic review was conducted to find all randomized controlled trials concerning dexmedetomidine sedation for MRI in children. We searched databases using the Ovid platform in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. This study was registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42020198368. Seven studies and 753 participants were included. Dexmedetomidine sedation showed a significantly delayed onset time [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 8.13min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.64 to 11.63, I2 = 98%] and recovery time (WMD = 5.22min, 95% CI 0.35 to 10.09, I2 = 92%) compared to propofol, ketamine, and midazolam sedation. There was no difference in quality of sedation [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.69, I2 = 89%], or incidence of sedation failure (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.66, I2 = 83%) between groups. Although a significantly decreased heart rate (WMD = - 17.34 beats/minute, 95% CI - 22.42 to - 12.26, I2 = 96%) was observed, bradycardia that required treatment was not increased (RR = 8.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 62.64, I2 = 0%). Dexmedetomidine sedation had a lower incidence of desaturation events (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86, I2 = 4%). However, there was no difference in incidence of postoperative vomiting (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.17, I2 = 17%) between groups. Dexmedetomidine sedation provided a similar sedation quality with a reduced incidence of desaturation events. However, the delayed onset and recovery times were drawbacks. The clinical significance of bradycardia is considered to be low. GRADE assessment revealed the quality of the evidence in this meta-analysis ranged from very low to moderate.

Assessment of the practice of pediatrics procedural sedation and analgesia for magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scan at a teaching hospital, Ethiopia, 2020: A clinical audit

BackgroundThe main goals of paediatric sedation/general anesthesia vary according to the specific imaging procedure, but generally includes anxiety relief, pain control and control of excessive movement. The quality of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) depends largely on immobility of the patient during the procedure, which is often difficult to achieve without sedation in children. Sedation is the depression of the central nervous system and reflexes by the administration of drugs. Brain imaging is routinely used to identify stroke, hemorrhage, and structural abnormalities. All patients undergoing procedural sedation and those receiving general anesthesia should be evaluated equally. AimThe study aimed to perform a clinical audit of sedation and analgesia practices for magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography compared against the guidelines/standards to determine if practice meets the standards and identify areas of non-compliance at a teaching Referral Hospital in Ethiopia. MethodsThis clinical audit was conducted from January 1 to May 30/2020 for 5 months at a teaching Referral Hospital in Ethiopia. All children below the age of 6 years underwent MRI and CT imaging procedures under sedation during a study period were included. Data were collected through direct observation using checklists of standards by a trained data collector. Descriptive statistics were presented with tables, graphs of sums and percentages of items using SPSS version 20. ResultsA total of 40 children underwent MRI and CT imaging were observed at the Hospital imaging sites. Among the 20 standards, 6 of them had 100% compliance rate, 3 of the standards had 0% complaince rate and 11 of the standards had the compliance rate of between 0 and 100%. Conclusions and recommendationsIn general, even though the practice guidelines of procedural sedation for MRI and CT recommend to practice procedures based on the standards, this study showed there were a number of standards that had <100% compliance rate. Therefore, it is recommended that staff should adopt standards or locally prepared protocols for their day-to-day practice.

Lower-Dose Propofol Use for MRI: A Retrospective Review of a Pediatric Sedation Team's Experience.

The aim of the study was to evaluate, in children undergoing procedural sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, whether lower doses of propofol than previously published permitted a high rate of successful MRI completion, whether lower dosages result in a more rapid recovery, and whether age or behavioral diagnosis increases propofol requirements. After institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the pediatric sedation team's sedation database of children receiving propofol infusion for MRI scans between 2007 and 2016. Data collected included propofol induction dose (in milligrams per kilogram), propofol infusion dose (in micrograms per kilogram per hour), total propofol dose (in milligrams per kilogram and in milligrams per kilogram per hour), and the number of administered ancillary sedative medications. Additional data included the American Society of Anesthesiologist status, sedation duration, recovery duration, and successful completion of MRI. Dosing data were also stratified by age. A total of 2354 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight percent of patients received propofol infusion alone, 79% received midazolam before their propofol induction, and 13% received a combination of propofol and other drugs. Mean induction dose was 2.2 + 0.9 mg/kg, mean infusion dose was 93.5 + 29.0 μg/kg per minute, and total mean dose was 9.0 + 3.0 mg/kg per hour. Mean recovery time was 44 minutes, and 99.3% of the scans were completed with good images. We noted an increase requirement in the mean induction dose and total dose in children younger than 1 year. Propofol infusion doses lower than commonly reported permit successful completion of scans and similar recovery times in a single institution. Younger children require more propofol for successful procedural sedation.

TO EVALUATE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF KETAMINE-PROPOFOL COMBINATION AND PROPOFOL ALONE IN DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES (MRI) IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS.

Introduction: There is a growing need for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children for accurate diagnosis and appropriate medical treatment. In recent times, small doses of ketamine have been used along with propofol for pediatric MRI sedation. Aims and objectives: to evaluate safety and effectiveness of Ketamine-propofol combination and propofol alone in diagnostic radiological procedures (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and methods: The present prospective randomized double blinded study was undertaken at Government General Hospital, Tirupati. Pediatric patients aged between 2 to 12 years of both sex, belonging to ASA grade I &amp; II and posted for elective MRI Brain scan were included in the study. Results: KP group had significantly more reactions than P group. Recovery time (time taken to achieve modified aldrete recovery score of 9-10) was 37.33±2.88 min and 19.6±2.67 min in Ketofol group and propofol group respectively. Conclusion: Ketofol is an attractive combination for procedural sedation.