Sedation for bronchoscopy in children: A prospective randomized double‐blinded trial

Introduction In pediatric patients, flexible bronchoscopy requires deep sedation. Different sedation regimes are common, but only some of them include opioids. Due to their antitussive effect, the use of short‐acting opioids may be beneficial for this particular indication, but additional respirator...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pediatric pulmonology 2021-05, Vol.56 (5), p.1221-1229
Main Authors: Tschiedel, Eva, Eckerland, Maximilian, Felderhoff‐Mueser, Ursula, Dohna‐Schwake, Christian, Stehling, Florian
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anesthesia
Bronchoscopy
child
Narcotics
Patient satisfaction
Pediatrics
propofol
remifentanil
sedation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction In pediatric patients, flexible bronchoscopy requires deep sedation. Different sedation regimes are common, but only some of them include opioids. Due to their antitussive effect, the use of short‐acting opioids may be beneficial for this particular indication, but additional respiratory depression may lead to an increase in adverse events. Here, we systematically compared sedation regimes in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with either propofol alone, or a combination of propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome parameter was the frequency of coughing episodes during the intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were frequency and types of complications, patient satisfaction, examiner satisfaction, and recovery time after finishing the sedation. Methods Fifty children aged 1–17 years undergoing flexible bronchoscopy under deep sedation with propofol were randomly assigned to two groups: PR receiving propofol and remifentanil and PP receiving propofol only. Sedation depth was predefined as Comfort Score 10–13. Results We found significantly less coughing episodes ([med (IQR)] PR: 0.73 (0.28–2.45)/min; PP: 1.98 (1.26–3.12)/min; p = .010) and shorter recovery time in Group PR (PR: 13.5 (8–17.5) min; PP: 21.0 (14–27) min; p = .011). Examiner's satisfaction was higher in Group PR (PR: 10 (8–10); PP: 9 (7–9); p = .012). The number of adverse events, patient satisfaction, and required propofol dose during the intervention did not differ between groups. Conclusion We suggest the combination of propofol with remifentanil instead of using propofol alone in pediatric procedural sedation for flexible bronchoscopy.
ISSN:8755-6863
1099-0496
DOI:10.1002/ppul.25235