Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 9:57 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-03-11 @ 6:44 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT02732132
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2016-04-11
First Post:
2016-03-23
Is Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
A Comparison of the Sedation During Endoscopy in Children
Sponsor:
Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Comparison of the Sedation With Intermittent Bolus Midazolam-Ketamine Versus Intermittent Bolus Propofol-Fentanyl During Endoscopy in Children: Randomized Trial
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2016-04
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The primary aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency and safety of midazolam plus ketamine versus fentanyl plus propofol administered to children undergoing UGE and to determine the most appropriate sedation protocol.
Detailed Description:
The patients were given a spray of lidocaine 10% as a topical pharyngeal anaesthesia before sedation. Intravenous midazolam bolus dose 0.1 mg/kg (maximum 4 mg) was administered to Group A. Two minutes later, ketamine bolus dose 1 mg/kg was given intravenously. Patient responses to verbal and tactile stimuli were evaluated two minutes after ketamine application. Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg (maximum of 2 mg/kg) was added in two minute intervals if adequate sedation was not achieved initially. The endoscopy process was initiated by the endoscopist if there was no response. If the patients were agitated after the procedure started, a ketamine 0.5 mg/kg single dose was applied. Intravenous fentanyl bolus dose 1µg/kg was administered to Group B. Two minutes later, propofol bolus dose 1 mg/kg was given intravenously. Patient responses to verbal and tactile stimuli were evaluated two minutes after propofol application. Propofol 0.5 mg/kg was added in two minute intervals if adequate sedation was not achieved. The endoscopy process was initiated by the endoscopist if there was no response. If the patients were agitated after the procedure started, a propofol 0.5 mg/kg single dose was applied. None of the patients were given an antidote after the process during recovery.
All patients were monitored for peripheral oxygen saturation, heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, and RSS during the procedure. Oxygen (2L/min) by nasal cannula was given to all patients during the procedure. Hypoxia (peripheral oxygen saturation \<90% during 60 seconds), apnea, laryngospasm, tachycardia (defined as 30% more than the average heart rate by age), bradycardia (30% less than the average heart rate by age), increase in oral secretions (more than enough to warrant aspiration), flushing, coughing and vomiting were assessed as complications and recorded.
All patients were monitored for peripheral oxygen saturation, heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, and RSS during the procedure. Oxygen (2L/min) by nasal cannula was given to all patients during the procedure. Hypoxia (peripheral oxygen saturation \<90% during 60 seconds), apnea, laryngospasm, tachycardia (defined as 30% more than the average heart rate by age), bradycardia (30% less than the average heart rate by age), increase in oral secretions (more than enough to warrant aspiration), flushing, coughing and vomiting were assessed as complications and recorded.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: