A comparison of the effects of ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations on vital signs of non-cooperative children with dental diseases in a crossover study with repeated measurements: The Bayesian approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Biostatistics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

2 Proteomics Research Center, Department of Biostatistics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

3 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Pedodontist, Fellowship degree in hospital dentistry, private practice, Tehran, Iran.

5 Department of Foreign Languages Education, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

6 Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

7 Proteomics Research Center, Department of Biostatistics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Vital parameters must be monitored during sedation. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of ketamine-midazolam (KM) and ketamine-propofol (KP) combinations on the heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturation (SPO2) of non-cooperative children. The model parameters were estimated using the Bayesian approach.
Methods: The data were collected in a double-masked crossover study with repeated measurements (CSWRM). Twenty-two non-cooperative children 3–6 years old were included, and the linear mixed model was adopted for data analysis. The Bayesian estimation of the parameters and their 95% credible interval were calculated in SAS 9.4.
Results: The mean heart rate of KM recipients compared to KP recipients was significantly different by 4.47 beats per minute (bpm). The mean HR in KP was lower than KM's, but oxygen saturation (SPO2) was not significantly different.
Conclusion: Although the two drug combinations did not differ in SPO2, they differed in HR. As such, the KP combination is recommended.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. James SL, Abate D, Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abbasi
N, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence,
and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries
for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic
analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.
Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789-858. doi: 10.1016/s0140-
6736(18)32279-7.
2. Shitie A, Addis R, Tilahun A, Negash W. Prevalence of dental
caries and its associated factors among primary school
children in Ethiopia. Int J Dent. 2021;2021(1):6637196. doi:
10.1155/2021/6637196.
3. Mohammadi M, Vaisi Raygani AA, Jalali R, Ghobadi A,
Salari N. The prevalence of dental caries in deciduous and
permanent teeth in Iranian children: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. J Res Dent Sci. 2018;15(3):180-9. doi:
10.29252/jrds.15.3.10. [Persian].
4. Jaikaria A, Thakur S, Singhal P, Chauhan D, Jayam C, Syal K. A
comparison of oral midazolam-ketamine, dexmedetomidinefentanyl,
and dexmedetomidine-ketamine combinations
as sedative agents in pediatric dentistry: a triple-blinded
randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(Suppl
2):S197-203. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_818_17.
5. Malamed SF. Sedation-E-Book: Sedation-E-Book. Elsevier
Health Sciences; 2017.
6. Baker S, Parico L. Pathologic paediatric conditions
associated with a compromised airway. Int J Paediatr Dent.
2010;20(2):102-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01022.x.
7. Corcuera-Flores JR, Delgado-Muñoz JM, Ruiz-Villandiego
JC, Maura-Solivellas I, Machuca-Portillo G. Dental treatment
for handicapped patients; sedation vs general anesthesia and
update of dental treatment in patients with different diseases.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014;19(2):e170-6. doi:
10.4317/medoral.19555.
8. Ibrahim H, Nelson T, Thikkurissy S, Xu Z, Scott J. Comparison
of procedures, time and fees associated with procedural
sedation and general anesthesia in a pediatric dentistry
residency program. J Dent Child (Chic). 2022;89(2):104-9.
9. Dal T, Sazak H, Tunç M, Sahin S, Yılmaz A. A comparison of
ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations
used for sedation in the endobronchial ultrasound-guided
transbronchial needle aspiration: a prospective, single-blind,
randomized study. J Thorac Dis. 2014;6(6):742-51. doi:
10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.04.10.
10. Bayraktaroglu M, Kurtay A, Horasanli E. Comparison
of two sedation protocols on intraocular pressure and
hemodynamic responses during colonoscopy. Eur Rev Med
Pharmacol Sci. 2022;26(12):4295-302. doi: 10.26355/
eurrev_202206_29068.
11. Adiban V, Matin S, Hassanpour-Darghah M, Seyed Sadeghi
MS, Ghorbanzadeh K. A comparison of the sedative effect of
ketofol and the combination of midazolam-ketamine in upper
GI tract endoscopy in 1-14 years childeren. J Ardabil Univ
Med Sci. 2020;20(1):104-15. doi: 10.29252/jarums.20.1.104.
[Persian].
12. Fattahi-Saravi Z, Jouybar R, Haghighat R, Asmarian N.
Comparison of the effect of ketamine, ketamine-midazolam
and ketamine-propofol on post-tonsillectomy agitation in
children. Malays J Med Sci. 2021;28(5):72-81. doi: 10.21315/
mjms2021.28.5.7.
13. Matranga D, Firenze A, Vullo A. Can Bayesian models play
a role in dental caries epidemiology? Evidence from an
application to the BELCAP data set. Community Dent Oral
Epidemiol. 2013;41(5):473-80. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12044.
14. Canpolat DG, Yildirim MD, Aksu R, Kutuk N, Alkan A,
Cantekin K. Intravenous ketamine, propofol and propofolketamine
combination used for pediatric dental sedation: a
randomized clinical study. Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32(3):682-7.
doi: 10.12669/pjms.323.9834.
15. Simsek M, Bulut MO, Ozel D, Yucel IK, Aykac Z. Comparison
of sedation method in pediatrics cardiac catheterization. Eur
Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016;20(8):1490-4.
16. Win NN, Fukayama H, Kohase H, Umino M. The
different effects of intravenous propofol and midazolam
sedation on hemodynamic and heart rate variability.
Anesth Analg. 2005;101(1):97-102. doi: 10.1213/01.
ane.0000156204.89879.5c.
17. Wutzler A, Huemer M, Boldt LH, Parwani AS, Attanasio
P, Tscholl V, et al. Effects of deep sedation on cardiac
electrophysiology in patients undergoing radiofrequency
ablation of supraventricular tachycardia: impact of propofol
and ketamine. Europace. 2013;15(7):1019-24. doi: 10.1093/
europace/eut025.
18. Goel S, Bhardwaj N, Jain K. Efficacy of ketamine and
midazolam as co-induction agents with propofol for laryngeal
mask insertion in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2008;18(7):628-
34. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02563.x.
19. Morse Z, Sano K, Kanri T. Decreased intraoral secretions during
sedation-analgesia with propofol-ketamine and midazolamketamine
combinations. J Anesth. 2001;15(4):197-200. doi:
10.1007/s005400170002.
20. Dalal PG, Taylor D, Somerville N, Seth N. Adverse events and
behavioral reactions related to ketamine based anesthesia
for anorectal manometry in children. Paediatr Anaesth.
2008;18(3):260-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02410.x.
21. Sağır Ö, Özaslan S, Yaman İ, Demir HF, Köroğlu A. The
comparison of the effects of propofol-ketamine and
midazolam-ketamine in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
Anestezi Dergisi. 2014;22(2):79-84.
22. Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH. Applied
Longitudinal Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2012. doi:
10.1002/9781119513469.
Journal of Oral Health and Oral Epidemiology
Volume 13, Issue 4
December 2024
Pages 149-155

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 February 2024
  • Revise Date: 01 October 2024
  • Accept Date: 15 October 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics