↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Two Different Intranasal Doses of Dexmedetomidine in Children for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Drugs, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
11 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of Two Different Intranasal Doses of Dexmedetomidine in Children for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation
Published in
Pediatric Drugs, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40272-015-0145-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aslihan Tug, Ayse Hanci, Hacer Sebnem Turk, Ferda Aybey, Canan Tulay Isil, Pinar Sayin, Sibel Oba

Abstract

Anaesthetic agents used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in paediatric patients should cause few adverse effects and allow fast anaesthetic induction and recovery. The administration route is also important and should be minimally invasive. In this study, we aimed to compare two different doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine applied to children for MRI sedation. Sixty patients between 1 and 10 years of age with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification I or II who were scheduled for MRI were recruited into this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Intranasal dexmedetomidine was administered at doses of 3 µg kg(-1) (Group 1) and 4 µg kg(-1) (Group 2) before imaging. Heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) scores were recorded before the anaesthetic induction of sedation and every 10 min until discharge. If intranasal sedation failed, an intravenous cannula was placed and propofol was applied as a rescue anaesthetic. Bispectral Index (BIS) scores were also recorded before and after MRI. We recorded onset time of sedation, mood at separation from parents (defined as parental separation score), imaging quality, MRI duration, rescue anaesthetic requirement, total duration of sedation, recovery duration, parents' satisfaction and adverse effects. The results related to age, weight and adverse effects were not statistically different between the groups. The parental separation score was significantly higher in Group 2 (P = 0.003). Rescue anaesthetic requirement was significantly higher in Group 1 (P = 0.002). The results related to recovery duration, MRI duration, parents' satisfaction, onset time of sedation and total duration of sedation were not statistically different. HR was significantly lower in all time intervals compared with basal values in both groups. In Group 2, RSS scores were significantly higher in the 30th, 40th and 50th min. The BIS scores in Group 2 were lower at the 50th min. Neither bradycardia nor oxygen desaturation were observed. Imaging studies were completed successfully in all patients. Based on lower rescue anaesthetic requirements, sufficient sedation and parental separation scores in Group 2, intranasal dexmedetomidine 4 µg kg(-1) was more efficient than intranasal dexmedetomidine 3 µg kg(-1). The intranasal route may be an alternative noninvasive route to apply drugs for MRI sedation in paediatric patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02299232.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 56%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2024.
All research outputs
#8,131,732
of 25,101,232 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Drugs
#212
of 584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,581
of 272,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Drugs
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,101,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,803 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.