Skip to content

Efficacy of Propofol-Ketamine and Sevoflurane in Children Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Comparison of the Efficacy of Intravenous Propofol-Ketamine and Sevoflurane Administered Via Face Mask in Children Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Prospective, Randomized, Parallel-Group Study

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06832683
Enrollment
230
Registered
2025-02-18
Start date
2025-06-19
Completion date
2025-09-08
Last updated
2025-09-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Hypoxemia, Patient Safety, Recovery Period

Keywords

recovery period, Hypoxemia, Patient Safety, Sedation, Moderate, propofol, ketamine, sevoflurane

Brief summary

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is becoming increasingly important in the diagnosis and follow-up of pediatric diseases. However, successful MRI requires complete and prolonged immobility, which can be challenging for young children and infants. To overcome this challenge, various anesthesia techniques are employed by anesthesiologists. The ideal anesthesia method for children during MRI should be both safe and enable rapid recovery, allowing the child to remain still during the procedure while minimizing risks during the recovery period. \*\*Sevoflurane has become a popular choice for this purpose due to its rapid onset, limited respiratory side effects at low concentrations, reduced airway irritation, and hemodynamic stability. However, propofol and ketamine, used as an alternative sedation method, are also being increasingly utilized during these procedures. The major side effects of propofol include respiratory depression, apnea, loss of protective reflexes, and hemodynamic instability. To minimize these side effects, some experts recommend the combined use of propofol and ketamine. This combination provides effective sedation while also contributing to a reduction in side effects. In this context, the aim of our study is to compare the efficacy of intravenous propofol and ketamine with sevoflurane administered via a face mask during pediatric MRI.

Detailed description

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio using a computer program, stratified based on MRI durations, and divided into two groups: Group S and Group P. All participants received intravenous midazolam at a dose of 0.05 mg/kg (max 2 mg). During MRI, all patients were monitored with pulse oximetry and end-tidal CO2, and procedural oxygen masks (POM) were applied to deliver oxygen at a flow rate of 5 L/min. For Group S, 8% sevoflurane was administered for induction via the procedural oxygen mask for 2 minutes through the external output of the anesthesia machine. The concentration was then reduced to 2%. If any undesired movements occurred, they were recorded, and the sevoflurane concentration was increased by 0.5%. In Group P, 1 mg/kg ketamine was administered intravenously, followed by 1.0 mg/kg propofol as a bolus. In the event of undesired movements, an additional 0.5 mg/kg of propofol was administered, and all additional doses were recorded. The target sedation level was set at a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 4, which was maintained throughout the procedure. At the end of the procedure, patients were awakened with verbal and tactile stimulation. Once an RSS score of 2 was achieved, they were transferred to the Post-Anesthetic Care Unit (PACU). Vital signs, procedure durations, and drug doses were recorded for each patient during the procedure. All clinical decisions regarding the patients were made by the attending anesthesiologist. In the PACU, patients with a modified Aldrete score of 10 were deemed eligible for discharge. After discharge approval, all patients were observed in the outpatient unit for 1 hour. The study concluded at this point.

Interventions

DRUGSevoflurane

For Group S, 8% sevoflurane was administered for induction via the procedural oxygen mask for 2 minutes through the external output of the anesthesia machine. The concentration was then reduced to 2%. If any undesired movements occurred, they were recorded, and the sevoflurane concentration was increased by 0.5%.

DRUGPropofol

In Group P, 1.0 mg/kg propofol as a bolus. In the event of undesired movements, an additional 0.5 mg/kg of propofol was administered, and all additional doses were recorded.

DRUGKetamine

In Group P, 1 mg/kg, single dose ketamine was administered intravenously and all additional doses were recorded.

Sponsors

Kocaeli City Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER_GOV

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Masking description

Only the participants will be blinded, making this a single-blind study design. The second anesthesiologist measuring the values in the PACU will also remain blinded to the group assignments.

Intervention model description

A Prospective, Randomized, Parallel-Group Study

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
3 Months to 10 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Ages 3 months to 10 years. * Classified as ASA I-II according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. * Patients scheduled for MRI at Kocaeli City Hospital MRI unit.

Exclusion criteria

* Families or children who do not consent to participate in the study. * Patients with allergies to ketamine, propofol, midazolam, or sevoflurane. * Patients with known pulmonary or cardiac diseases. * Patients with known congenital craniofacial or neck anomalies. * Patients dependent on oxygen therapy. * Patients with a recent respiratory tract infection within the past 2 weeks. * Patients requiring tracheal intubation, laryngeal mask, or ventilator support. * Patients at risk of upper airway obstruction. * Patients with behavioral problems. * Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. * Patients with lethargy, stupor, or unresponsiveness to stimuli due to any cause * Patients with active use of antiepileptic or antipsychotic medications

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Recovery timeFrom the end of the MRI scan until the patient reaches a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 2, assessed for a maximum of 60 minutes.Recovery time was defined as the duration (measured in minutes) from the end of the MRI scan until the patient reached a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 2. The Ramsay Sedation Scale ranges from 1 (awake) to 6 (deep sedation), with higher scores indicating deeper sedation. In this study, an RSS score of 2 was considered the criterion for sufficient recovery.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Anesthesia durationFrom the start of anesthesia induction to the completion of the MRI procedure, assessed for a maximum of 60 minutes.Anesthesia duration was defined as the time (measured in minutes) from the start of anesthesia induction until the completion of the MRI procedure.
Incidence of hypoxemiaContinuous SpO2 monitoring will be performed throughout the procedure]Incidence of hypoxemia during sedation (defined as SpO2 \< 93%).
Number of hypoxemia episodesContinuous SpO2 monitoring will be performed throughout the procedurea new episode was recorded if SpO2 fell below 93% again after reaching SpO2 ≥ 93% for at least 30 seconds
Duration of hypoxemiaContinuous SpO2 monitoring will be performed throughout the proceduredefined as the time to reach SpO2 ≥ 93%
Discharge timeFrom the completion of the procedure until the child's Modified Aldrete Score reaches 10, assessed for a maximum of 60 minutes.Discharge time was defined as the duration (measured in minutes) from the completion of the procedure until the child's Modified Aldrete Score reached 10, indicating readiness for discharge. The Modified Aldrete Score ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores representing better recovery status. A score of 10 was considered the criterion for discharge readiness in this study.
airway managementInterventions related to airway management causing interruptions during the procedureProcedure interruptions due to airway interventions during the procedure (chin lift, jaw thrust, mask ventilation, need for suctioning).
Additional anesthetic interventionduring procedureAdditional anesthetic intervention due to undesired movements disrupting image quality and causing interruptions in the procedure.
Image qualityimmediately after the procedureImage quality was evaluated by a radiologist who was not involved in the imaging process, using a 10-point analog scale (0: unacceptable, 5: diagnosis not possible, 8: acceptable, 10: excellent).
Minimum SpO2Continuous SpO2 monitoring will be performed throughout the procedure]observed during the procedure

Countries

Turkey (Türkiye)

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026