A comparison of propofol and chloral hydrate for sedation of young children during magnetic resonance imaging scans

SAMUEL M. BARST, CRAIG M. MEROLA, AVRAHAM E. MARKOWITZ, CINDY ALBARRACIN, Philip W. Lebowitz, ROBERT S. BIENKOWSKI

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two methods of providing sedation for young children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies on efficiency of scanner utilization. Thirty‐nine patients were randomized to receive either propofol or chloral hydrate. Age and gender distributions were not significantly different between the groups. Induction time was significantly less for propofol than for chloral hydrate (6 ± 3 min vs 41 ± 9 min; P < 0.0001); and recovery time for propofol was significantly shorter than for chloral hydrate (18 ± 7 min vs 47 ± 28 min; P < 0.0001). Procedure times were not significantly different. Three of 19 patients who received chloral hydrate moved and their scans were interrupted; two of these received propofol. None of the patients in the propofol group moved. Utilization efficiency of the MRI scanner, defined as 100 ± (Procedure Time)/(Induction Time + Procedure Time), was 87 ± 6% for propofol and 45 ± 13% for chloral hydrate. These data demonstrate that propofol sedation allows the MRI scanner to be utilized more efficiently than chloral hydrate sedation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)243-247
Number of pages5
JournalPediatric Anesthesia
Volume4
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1994

Fingerprint

Chloral Hydrate
Propofol
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Age Distribution

Keywords

  • paediatric MRI, chloral hydrate, propofol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

BARST, SAMUEL. M., MEROLA, CRAIG. M., MARKOWITZ, AVRAHAM. E., ALBARRACIN, CINDY., Lebowitz, P. W., & BIENKOWSKI, ROBERT. S. (1994). A comparison of propofol and chloral hydrate for sedation of young children during magnetic resonance imaging scans. Pediatric Anesthesia, 4(4), 243-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.1994.tb00171.x

A comparison of propofol and chloral hydrate for sedation of young children during magnetic resonance imaging scans. / BARST, SAMUEL M.; MEROLA, CRAIG M.; MARKOWITZ, AVRAHAM E.; ALBARRACIN, CINDY; Lebowitz, Philip W.; BIENKOWSKI, ROBERT S.

In: Pediatric Anesthesia, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1994, p. 243-247.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

BARST, SAMUELM, MEROLA, CRAIGM, MARKOWITZ, AVRAHAME, ALBARRACIN, CINDY, Lebowitz, PW & BIENKOWSKI, ROBERTS 1994, 'A comparison of propofol and chloral hydrate for sedation of young children during magnetic resonance imaging scans', Pediatric Anesthesia, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 243-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.1994.tb00171.x
BARST SAMUELM, MEROLA CRAIGM, MARKOWITZ AVRAHAME, ALBARRACIN CINDY, Lebowitz PW, BIENKOWSKI ROBERTS. A comparison of propofol and chloral hydrate for sedation of young children during magnetic resonance imaging scans. Pediatric Anesthesia. 1994;4(4):243-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.1994.tb00171.x
BARST, SAMUEL M. ; MEROLA, CRAIG M. ; MARKOWITZ, AVRAHAM E. ; ALBARRACIN, CINDY ; Lebowitz, Philip W. ; BIENKOWSKI, ROBERT S. / A comparison of propofol and chloral hydrate for sedation of young children during magnetic resonance imaging scans. In: Pediatric Anesthesia. 1994 ; Vol. 4, No. 4. pp. 243-247.
@article{bfd453c250cf4de2a8f8d6d397b25aa4,
title = "A comparison of propofol and chloral hydrate for sedation of young children during magnetic resonance imaging scans",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two methods of providing sedation for young children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies on efficiency of scanner utilization. Thirty‐nine patients were randomized to receive either propofol or chloral hydrate. Age and gender distributions were not significantly different between the groups. Induction time was significantly less for propofol than for chloral hydrate (6 ± 3 min vs 41 ± 9 min; P < 0.0001); and recovery time for propofol was significantly shorter than for chloral hydrate (18 ± 7 min vs 47 ± 28 min; P < 0.0001). Procedure times were not significantly different. Three of 19 patients who received chloral hydrate moved and their scans were interrupted; two of these received propofol. None of the patients in the propofol group moved. Utilization efficiency of the MRI scanner, defined as 100 ± (Procedure Time)/(Induction Time + Procedure Time), was 87 ± 6{\%} for propofol and 45 ± 13{\%} for chloral hydrate. These data demonstrate that propofol sedation allows the MRI scanner to be utilized more efficiently than chloral hydrate sedation.",
keywords = "paediatric MRI, chloral hydrate, propofol",
author = "BARST, {SAMUEL M.} and MEROLA, {CRAIG M.} and MARKOWITZ, {AVRAHAM E.} and CINDY ALBARRACIN and Lebowitz, {Philip W.} and BIENKOWSKI, {ROBERT S.}",
year = "1994",
doi = "10.1111/j.1460-9592.1994.tb00171.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "243--247",
journal = "Paediatric Anaesthesia",
issn = "1155-5645",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of propofol and chloral hydrate for sedation of young children during magnetic resonance imaging scans

AU - BARST, SAMUEL M.

AU - MEROLA, CRAIG M.

AU - MARKOWITZ, AVRAHAM E.

AU - ALBARRACIN, CINDY

AU - Lebowitz, Philip W.

AU - BIENKOWSKI, ROBERT S.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two methods of providing sedation for young children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies on efficiency of scanner utilization. Thirty‐nine patients were randomized to receive either propofol or chloral hydrate. Age and gender distributions were not significantly different between the groups. Induction time was significantly less for propofol than for chloral hydrate (6 ± 3 min vs 41 ± 9 min; P < 0.0001); and recovery time for propofol was significantly shorter than for chloral hydrate (18 ± 7 min vs 47 ± 28 min; P < 0.0001). Procedure times were not significantly different. Three of 19 patients who received chloral hydrate moved and their scans were interrupted; two of these received propofol. None of the patients in the propofol group moved. Utilization efficiency of the MRI scanner, defined as 100 ± (Procedure Time)/(Induction Time + Procedure Time), was 87 ± 6% for propofol and 45 ± 13% for chloral hydrate. These data demonstrate that propofol sedation allows the MRI scanner to be utilized more efficiently than chloral hydrate sedation.

AB - The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two methods of providing sedation for young children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies on efficiency of scanner utilization. Thirty‐nine patients were randomized to receive either propofol or chloral hydrate. Age and gender distributions were not significantly different between the groups. Induction time was significantly less for propofol than for chloral hydrate (6 ± 3 min vs 41 ± 9 min; P < 0.0001); and recovery time for propofol was significantly shorter than for chloral hydrate (18 ± 7 min vs 47 ± 28 min; P < 0.0001). Procedure times were not significantly different. Three of 19 patients who received chloral hydrate moved and their scans were interrupted; two of these received propofol. None of the patients in the propofol group moved. Utilization efficiency of the MRI scanner, defined as 100 ± (Procedure Time)/(Induction Time + Procedure Time), was 87 ± 6% for propofol and 45 ± 13% for chloral hydrate. These data demonstrate that propofol sedation allows the MRI scanner to be utilized more efficiently than chloral hydrate sedation.

KW - paediatric MRI, chloral hydrate, propofol

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0007233232&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0007233232&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1460-9592.1994.tb00171.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1460-9592.1994.tb00171.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0007233232

VL - 4

SP - 243

EP - 247

JO - Paediatric Anaesthesia

JF - Paediatric Anaesthesia

SN - 1155-5645

IS - 4

ER -