The comparison of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: The combination of different agents used for procedural sedation allows a greater range of desirable effects while minimizing side effects. The ketamine-dexmedetomidine combination (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) are successful examples. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of ketadex with ketofol used for procedural sedation in pediatric patients. Methods: We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Embase from inception to June 2022. Studies were independently evaluated for inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. Outcome measures for safety comparison were the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and agitation; Outcome measure for efficacy comparison was clinicians' satisfaction. In addition, we compared the recovery time of ketadex and ketofol. Results: Nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with ketofol, ketadex sedation in pediatric patients had lower risk of respiratory depression (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.76, P = 0.0009). However, ketadex displayed significant effect on recovery time (MD: 8.38 min, 95% CI: 7.55-9.22 min, P < 0.00001). Ketadex had similar incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.33-2.67, P = 0.92) and bradycardia (RR: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.64-5.06, P = 0.26) compared to those with ketofol. Clinicians' satisfaction rate of ketadex and ketofol were both high (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.69-1.25, P = 0.62). Also, no significant difference was observed between ketadex and ketofol on the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and agitation. Conclusions: Both ketadex and ketofol can provide effective sedation and maintain stable hemodynamics. In consideration of good safety profile in respiratory problems, we suggest ketadex is a better option for procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Ketamine-propofol (Ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia. METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol. RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%). CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: combination of ketamine and propofol versus ketamine alone for procedural sedation and analgesia in children.

Although ketamine has been used for procedural sedation and analgesia, some researchers have assessed ketamine-propofol as a better alternative because of its reduced adverse events. The goal of this review was to compare adverse events between ketamine-propofol and ketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in children. We searched the literature from their inception to May 2018 without the restriction of language. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing ketamine-propofol with ketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in children. The meta-analysis was conducted using the Stata software. A total of six studies involving 693 individuals were included. Pooling of data showed that subjects with ketamine-propofol had similar incidence of respiratory adverse events compared to those with ketamine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.68-1.98). However, ketamine-propofol was effective in reducing cardiovascular adverse events compared to ketamine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.31). Ketamine-propofol was also effective in reducing psychomimetic adverse events compared to ketamine (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.93). In regard to nausea and vomiting, ketamine-propofol was significantly effective (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.74). In addition, we could not demonstrate differences in efficacious sedation between ketamine-propofol and ketamine. Although our study was not able to demonstrate differences in efficacious sedation between ketamine-propofol and ketamine, we confirmed that ketamine-propofol sedation had a lower frequency of adverse events compared to ketamine sedation in children.

Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy.

AIM: To compare the results of midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation performed by an endoscopy nurse and anaesthetist during colonoscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and safety. METHODS: American Statistical Association (ASA) I-II 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation were randomly divided into two groups: sedation under the supervision of an anaesthetist (SSA) and sedation under the supervision of an endoscopy nurse (SSEN). Both groups were initially administered 1 mg midazolam, 50 mg ketamine and 30-50 mg propofol. Continuation of sedation was performed by the anaesthetist in the SSA group and the nurse with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in the SSEN group. The total propofol consumption, procedure duration, recovery times, pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and satisfaction score of the patients, and side effects were recorded. In addition, the patients were asked whether they remembered the procedure and whether they would prefer the same method in the case of re-endoscopy. RESULTS: Total propofol consumption in the SSEN group was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that in the SSA group. When the groups were compared in terms of VAS score, recovery time, patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, re-preference for the same method in case of re-endoscopy, and side effects, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the two groups. No long-term required intervention side effects were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy sedation in ASA I-II patients can be safely performed by an endoscopy nurse using PCA pump with the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction levels similar to sedation under anaesthetist supervision.

Comparison of ketamine-propofol and ketamine-dexmedetomidine combinations in children for sedation during tooth extraction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of ketamine-propofol and ketamine-dexmedetomidine drugs in children for sedation during tooth extraction. METHODS: The randomised, prospective study was conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey, from September to November 2013, and comprised children who were due to undergo tooth extraction. Non-invasive blood pressures (systolic and diastolic), peripheral oxygen saturation, heart and respiratory rates and Ramsay Sedation Scores were assessed at baseline, after applying the drugs and then every 5 minutes thereafter. Further, the ketamine-propofol group received 1mg kg-1 of ketamine and propofol, and the ketamine-dexmedetomidine group received 1mg kg-1 of ketamine + 0.5 µg kg1 of dexmedetomidine. RESULTS: Of the 60 participants, there were 30 (50%) in each group. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of heart rate, non-invasive blood pressures at any time and the number of drug repetitions (p>0.05). Nausea-vomiting was statistically higher in the ketamine-dexmedetomidine group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine-propofol might be a better option due to lower vomiting and nausea episodes and higher surgeon satisfaction levels.

Thiopental versus ketofol in paediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficiency of intravenous thiopental against intravenous ketamine-propofol combination in paediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at Ondokuz Mayis University Hospital, Samsun, Turkey, from July 1, 2014, to January 1, 2015, and comprised children aged 1 month to 12 years undergoing elective magnetic resonance imaging who were randomly assigned to two equal groups. Group I received thiopental 3 mg/kg intravenously followed by an additional dose of thiopental 1 mg/kg to achieve a Ramsay sedation score of 4. Group II received ketofol, a 1:1 mixture of ketamine 10 mg/mL and propofol 10 mg/mL, in a single syringe intravenously at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg at 1 minute intervals and titrated to reach a Ramsay sedation score of 4. The groups were compared for total drug dose, time to sedation, recovery time, total sedation time, and adverse effects. Data was analysed using SPSS 22. RESULTS: There were 120 children in the study; 60(50%) in each group. The time to sedation was significantly longer with ketofol than thiopental (p<0.01). The mean recovery time was significantly shorter with thiopental than with ketofol (p<0.01). Total sedation time was significantly longer with ketofol than thiopental (p<0.01). Overall, 17(28.3%) ketofol patients had adverse events, whereas no thiopental patients had adverse events (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Thiopental had a comparable effectiveness with shorter anaesthesia inductions and recovery times than ketofol. Intravenous thiopental can be an effective and safe alternative drug in sedating children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging.

Ketamine-propofol sedation in circumcision / Sedação com cetamina-propofol em circuncisão

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the therapeutic effects of ketamine alone or ketamine plus propofol on analgesia, sedation, recovery time, side effects in premedicated children with midazolam-ketamine-atropin who are prepared circumcision operation.METHODS: 60 American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I-II children, aged between 3 and 9 years, undergoing circumcision operations under sedation were recruited according to a randomize and double-blind institutional review board-approved protocol. Patients were randomized into two groups via sealed envelope assignment. Both groups were administered a mixture of midazolam 0.05 mg/kg + ketamine 3 mg/kg + atropine 0.02 mg/kg intramuscularly in the presence of parents in the pre-operative holding area. Patients were induced with propofol-ketamine in Group I or ketamine alone in Group II.RESULTS: In the between-group comparisons, age, weight, initial systolic blood pressure, a difference in terms of the initial pulse rate was observed (p > 0.050). Initial diastolic blood pressure and subsequent serial measurements of 5, 10, 15, 20th min, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate in ketamine group were significantly higher (p < 0.050).CONCLUSION: Propofol-ketamine (Ketofol) provided better sedation quality and hemodynamy than ketamine alone in pediatric circumcision operations. We did not observe significant complications during sedation in these two groups. Therefore, ketofol appears to be an effective and safe sedation method for circumcision operation.

RESUMOJUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVO: Comparar os efeitos terapêuticos da cetamina isolada ou combinação de cetamina-propofol em analgesia, sedação, tempo de recuperação e efeitos colaterais em crianças pré-medicadas com midazolam-cetamina-atropina programadas para procedimentos de circuncisão.MÉTODOS: 60 crianças, estado físico ASA I-II (de acordo com a classificação da Sociedade Americana de Anestesiologistas), com idades entre três e nove anos, submetidas a procedimentos de circuncisão sob sedação, foram recrutadas de acordo com um protocolo de randomização duplo-cego aprovado pelo Conselho de Revisão Institucional. Os pacientes foram randomizados e alocados em dois grupos com o uso do método de envelopes lacrados. Ambos os grupos receberam uma mistura de midazolam 0,05 mg kg-1 + cetamina 3 mg kg-1 + atropina 0,02 mg kg-1 por via intramuscular, na presença dos pais na área de intervenções pré-operatórias. A indução foi realizada com propofol-cetamina no Grupo I ou cetamina isolada no Grupo II.RESULTADOS: Nas comparações entre os grupos foram observadas a idade, o peso, a pressão arterial sistólica inicial e a diferença em relação à taxa de pulso inicial (p > 0,050). A pressão arterial diastólica inicial e as mensurações seriadas subsequentes nos minutos 5, 10, 15 e 20 da pressão arterial sistólica, pressão arterial diastólica e taxa de pulso do grupo cetamina foram significativamente maiores (p < 0,050).CONCLUSÃO: Cetamina-propofol (cetofol) proporcionou melhor qualidade de sedação e estabilidade hemodinâmica que cetamina isolada em cirurgias pediátricas de circuncisão. Não foram observadas complicações significativas durante a sedação nos dois grupos. Portanto, cetofol parece ser um método de sedação eficaz e seguro para procedimentos de circuncisão.

[Ketamine-propofol sedation in circumcision]. / Sedação com cetamina-propofol em circuncisão.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: to compare the therapeutic effects of ketamine alone or ketamine plus propofol on analgesia, sedation, recovery time, side effects in premedicated children with midazolam-ketamine-atropin who are prepared circumcision operation. METHODS: 60 American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I-II children, aged between 3 and 9 years, undergoing circumcision operations under sedation were recruited according to a randomize and double-blind institutional review board-approved protocol. Patients were randomized into two groups via sealed envelope assignment. Both groups were administered a mixture of midazolam 0.05mg/kg+ketamine 3mg/kg+atropine 0.02mg/kg intramuscularly in the presence of parents in the pre-operative holding area. Patients were induced with propofol-ketamine in Group I or ketamine alone in Group II. RESULTS: in the between-group comparisons, age, weight, initial systolic blood pressure, a difference in terms of the initial pulse rate was observed (p>0.050). Initial diastolic blood pressure and subsequent serial measurements of 5, 10, 15, 20thmin, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate in ketamine group were significantly higher (p<0.050). CONCLUSION: propofol-ketamine (Ketofol) provided better sedation quality and hemodynamy than ketamine alone in pediatric circumcision operations. We did not observe significant complications during sedation in these two groups. Therefore, ketofol appears to be an effective and safe sedation method for circumcision operation.

Ketamine-propofol sedation in circumcision.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the therapeutic effects of ketamine alone or ketamine plus propofol on analgesia, sedation, recovery time, side effects in premedicated children with midazolam-ketamine-atropin who are prepared circumcision operation. METHODS: 60 American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I-II children, aged between 3 and 9 years, undergoing circumcision operations under sedation were recruited according to a randomize and double-blind institutional review board-approved protocol. Patients were randomized into two groups via sealed envelope assignment. Both groups were administered a mixture of midazolam 0.05mg/kg+ketamine 3mg/kg+atropine 0.02mg/kg intramuscularly in the presence of parents in the pre-operative holding area. Patients were induced with propofol-ketamine in Group I or ketamine alone in Group II. RESULTS: In the between-group comparisons, age, weight, initial systolic blood pressure, a difference in terms of the initial pulse rate was observed (p>0.050). Initial diastolic blood pressure and subsequent serial measurements of 5, 10, 15, 20thmin, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate in ketamine group were significantly higher (p<0.050). CONCLUSION: Propofol-ketamine (Ketofol) provided better sedation quality and hemodynamy than ketamine alone in pediatric circumcision operations. We did not observe significant complications during sedation in these two groups. Therefore, ketofol appears to be an effective and safe sedation method for circumcision operation.

Comparative evaluation of ketamine - propofol, fentanyl - propofol and butorphanol-propofol on haemodynamics and laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions.

BACKGROUND: Laryngeal mask airway is a non invasive supraglottic device which has led to a radical change in the management of modern general anaesthesia. Propofol as a single agent is unsatisfactory and to overcome problems associated with LMA insertions. In the present study, we evaluated the haemodynamic changes and laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions comparing ketamine and opioids as adjuncts to propofol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 90 patients were randomly divided into 3 groups of 30 each. In Group PK-ketamine 0.5mg kg(-1), in Group PF-fentanyl 1ug kg(-1) and in Group PB - butorphanol 20ug kg(-1) was given intravenously immediately before induction with propofol 2.5 mg kg(-1). Jaw relaxation was assessed according to Young's criteria and the overall conditions according to modified Scheme of Lund and Stovener. RESULTS: The mean total dose of propofol required in Group PK was 160.37 ± 15.75mg, in Group PF 156.22 ± 17.18 mg and in Group PB 140.08 ± 18.97 mg. The incidence of absolute jaw relaxation was highest in Group PB (93.33%) patients, intermediate in Group PF (53.33%) patients and lowest in Group PK i.e. 36.66% patients. Excellent insertion conditions were observed in 12 (40%) patients in Group PK and 13 (43.33%) patients in Group PF and in 26 (86.67%) patients in Group PB. Group PK showed more rise in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate post LMA insertion as compared to Group PF and Group PB. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that addition of butorphanol to propofol for LMA insertion provided absolute jaw relaxation and excellent insertion conditions with stable haemodynamics Side effects like coughing, gagging, lacrimation and laryngospasm were lower as compared to the other two groups.

Randomized double-blind comparison of ketamine-propofol and fentanyl-propofol for the insertion of laryngeal mask airway in children.

BACKGROUND: Till date, different combinations of adjuncts with induction agents have been tried for Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) insertion; yet, the ideal combination that provides the best insertion conditions with minimal side effects has not been identified, particularly in children. PATIENTS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; METHODS: Hundred paediatric ASA grade I and II patients, aged 3-12 years, were randomly allocated to receive intravenously either fentanyl 2µg kg(-1) (Group F, n=50) or ketamine 0.5 mg kg(-1) (Group K, n=50), before induction of anaesthesia with propofol 3.5 mg kg(-1). Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were measured before induction (baseline), immediately before induction, immediately before LMA insertion, and at 1, 3 and 5 minutes after LMA insertion. Following LMA insertion, the following six subjective endpoints were graded by a blinded anaesthetist using ordinal scales graded 1 to 3: mouth opening, gagging, swallowing, head and limb movements, laryngospasm and resistance to insertion. Duration and incidence of apnoea was also recorded. RESULTS: The incidence of resistance to mouth opening, resistance to LMA insertion and incidence of swallowing was not statistically significant between the two groups. Coughing/ gagging was seen in 8% patients in group K as compared to 28% patients in group K. Limb/ head movements were observed in 64% patients in the fentanyl group and in 76% patients in the ketamine group. Laryngospasm was not seen in any patient in either group. Incidence of apnoea was 80% in the fentanyl group and 50% in the ketamine group. The heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure were consistently higher in the ketamine group as compared to the fentanyl group. CONCLUSION: The combination of fentanyl (2µg kg-1) and propofol (3.5mg kg-1) provides better conditions for LMA insertion in children than a combination of ketamine (0.5 mg kg-1) and propofol (3.5mg kg-1).

Dose Response and Hypnotic Interaction of Propofol and Ketamine for Anesthesia Induction in Korean / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: Both propofol and ketamine are useful hypnotics for induction of anesthesia, and the combination of propofol and ketamine has been used for total intravenous anesthesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the dose response of propofol, ketamine and combination of these drug, and determine possible interaction between two drugs in patients. METHODS: The effect of ketamine on the dose response curve for propofol was studied in unpremedicated 165 ASA physical status I or II patients who were scheduled for elective operation. As an endpoint of hypnosis, ability to open eyes on verbal command was checked. Dose response curves for propofol and ketamine were determined with a probit procedure and their type of pharmacologic interaction was determined by fractional and isobolographic analysis. RESULTS: At the hypnotic endpoint, the ED50s were 1.13 mg/kg propofol, 0.66 mg/kg ketamine, and the ED95s were 1.67 mg/kg propofol, 1.09 mg/kg ketamine. The type of interaction between two drugs for hypnosis was found to be additive and ketamine was 1.7 times potent than propofol as an equieffective dose of hypnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The type of interaction between propofol and ketamine for hypnosis was additive.

The Application of Total Intravenous Anesthesia & Propofol-N2O Anesthesia for Cesarean Section / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: According to the increasing rate of cesarean section, the efforts of seeking safer and more satisfactory obstetric anesthesia techniques have been continued. Propofol, 2,6 di-isopropyl phenol, is a relatively new intravenous anesthetic agent and has been used for induction and maintenance for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). Authors examined the anesthetic technique using following anesthetics combinations; N2O-propofol, fentanyl-propofol, ketamine-propofol and made comparison of these ones for intraoperative hemodynamic stability, maternal and fetal safety. METHODS: Sixty patients (ASA physical status 1 or 2) scheduled for cesarean section were randomly allocated into three groups, group N (propofol-N2O, n=20), group F (propofol-fentanyl, n=20), group K (propofol-ketamine, n=20). We checked the changes of blood pressure and heart rates during operation, anesthetic induction time, neonatal status (Apgar score, umbilical vein blood gas analysis), presence of intraoperative awareness and recovery time. RESULTS: No significant differences in intraoperative hemodynamic changes, induction time and baby status. Total propofol dosages were greater in group N than group K (p<0.05) and maternal recovery time was prolonged in group K than group N or F (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthetic management using propofol-N2O or propofol-fentanyl or propofol-ketamine for cesarean section would provide satisfactory anesthesia without significant adverse effects to both mother and fetus.

Low-dose Ketamine or Fentanyl as Analgesic Adjuvants for Intravenous Anesthesia with Propofol / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: This prospective study of 40 patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy at outpaient surgery center was performed to assess the use of ketamine as a analgesic adjuvant during intravenous anesthesia with propofol compared with the combination of propofol-fentanyl. METHOD: Anesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg/kg) and either fentanyl (1 microgram/kg) or ketamine (0.2 mg/kg). Anesthesia was maintained with propofol 200 microgramkg-1min-1 during the first 5 min, followed by 180 microgram/kg 1min 1 for 5 min and then 160 microgram/kg-1min-1 after 10 min. The patient's lungs were mask ventilated with 50% N2O-O2. Increments of propofol were given during anesthesia if analgesia was judged to be inadequate. RESULT: Stable arterial pressure and heart rate were seen in the patients of both groups, except for a temporary increase of heart rate after induction of anesthesia in ketamine group. There were no significant differences between ketamine and fentanyl groups in total dose of propofol, response time, recovery time or VAS at 30 min after operation. Patients who received propofol-ketamine demonstrated a longer discharge time than the patients received propofol-fentanyl. There were higher incidences of dizziness and 1 patient showed emergence delirium in patients given propofol-ketamine, other side effects were similar. CONCLUSION: We concluded that low-dose ketamine with propofol can replace propofol-fentanyl for intravenous outpatient anesthesia.

Low-dose Ketamine or Fentanyl as Analgesic Adjuvants for Intravenous Anesthesia with Propofol / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: This prospective study of 40 patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy at outpaient surgery center was performed to assess the use of ketamine as a analgesic adjuvant during intravenous anesthesia with propofol compared with the combination of propofol-fentanyl. METHOD: Anesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg/kg) and either fentanyl (1 microgram/kg) or ketamine (0.2 mg/kg). Anesthesia was maintained with propofol 200 microgramkg-1min-1 during the first 5 min, followed by 180 microgram/kg 1min 1 for 5 min and then 160 microgram/kg-1min-1 after 10 min. The patient's lungs were mask ventilated with 50% N2O-O2. Increments of propofol were given during anesthesia if analgesia was judged to be inadequate. RESULT: Stable arterial pressure and heart rate were seen in the patients of both groups, except for a temporary increase of heart rate after induction of anesthesia in ketamine group. There were no significant differences between ketamine and fentanyl groups in total dose of propofol, response time, recovery time or VAS at 30 min after operation. Patients who received propofol-ketamine demonstrated a longer discharge time than the patients received propofol-fentanyl. There were higher incidences of dizziness and 1 patient showed emergence delirium in patients given propofol-ketamine, other side effects were similar. CONCLUSION: We concluded that low-dose ketamine with propofol can replace propofol-fentanyl for intravenous outpatient anesthesia.

Effect of Ketamine Pretreatment on Injection Pain and Hemodynamic Changes during Anesthesia Induction with Propofol / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: Propofol is useful agents for anesthesia induction and maintenance, but pain on injection and possible hypotension are a commonly encountered problems during induction. Meanwhile, ketamine has potent analgesic and sympathomimetic effect. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of ketamine pretreatment on injection pain and hemodynamic changes during induction with propofol. METHODS: Premedicated one hundred and twenty ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomly allocated into one of four groups (group 1; propofol only, group 2, 3, 4; pretreatment with 25%, 50%, 75% dose of hypnotic ED50 of ketamine, respectively) groups. Intensity and frequency of injection pain, mean arterial pressure and pulse rate were checked for evaluation of ketamine pretreatment on injection pain and hemodynamic changes during induction with propofol. RESULTS: Incidence of pain on injection was significantly reduced in group 2,3 and 4 compared with group 1. Group 2 and 3 showed more stable hemodynamic changes than Group 1 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: 25-50% of hypnotic ED50 of ketamine (0.17-0.33 mg/kg) pretreatment reduced pain on injection and hemodynamic changes during propofol induction significantly.