Respiratory Adverse Events After LMA® Mask Removal in Children: A Randomized Trial Comparing Propofol to Sevoflurane
Authors:
- 25 February 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Anesthesia & Analgesia
- Vol. 136 (1) , 25-33
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The removal of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA®) in children may be associated with respiratory adverse events. The rate of occurrence of these adverse events may be influenced by the type of anesthesia. Studies comparing total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and sevoflurane are limited with conflicting data whether propofol is associated with a lower incidence of respiratory events upon removal of LMA as compared to induction and maintenance with sevoflurane. We hypothesized that TIVA with propofol is superior to sevoflurane in providing optimal conditions and improved patient’s safety during emergence. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, children aged 6 months to 7 years old were enrolled in 1 of 2 groups: the TIVA group and the sevoflurane group. In both groups, patients were mechanically ventilated. At the end of the procedure, LMAs were removed when patients were physiologically and neurologically recovered to a degree to permit a safe, natural airway. The primary aim of this study was to compare the occurrence of at least 1 respiratory adverse event, the prevalence of individual respiratory adverse events, and the airway hyperreactivity score following emergence from anesthesia between the 2 groups. Secondary outcomes included ease of LMA insertion, quality of anesthesia during the maintenance phase, hemodynamic stability, time to LMA removal, and incidence of emergence agitation. RESULTS: Children receiving TIVA with propofol had a significantly lower incidence (10.8.% vs 36.2%; relative risk, 0.29; 95% CI [0.14–0.64]; P = .001) and lower severity (P = .01) of respiratory adverse outcomes compared to the patients receiving inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane. There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes between the 2 groups, except for emergence agitation that occurred more frequently in patients receiving sevoflurane (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol induction and maintenance exerted a protective effect on healthy children with minimal risk factors for developing perioperative respiratory complications, as compared to sevoflurane.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Anesthesia and ventilation strategies in children with asthmaCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 2014
- Anesthesia and ventilation strategies in children with asthmaCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 2014
- A randomized controlled trial comparing Laryngeal Mask Airway removal during adequate anesthesia and after awakening in children aged 2 to 6 yearsJournal of Clinical Anesthesia, 2012
- Risk assessment for respiratory complications in paediatric anaesthesia: a prospective cohort studyThe Lancet, 2010
- The Impact of Oral Premedication with Midazolam on Respiratory Function in ChildrenAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2009
- A randomized trial comparing sevoflurane and propofol in children undergoing MRI scansPediatric Anesthesia, 2009
- Open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patientsClinical Therapeutics, 2008
- Respiratory Reflex Responses of the Larynx Differ between Sevoflurane and Propofol in Pediatric PatientsAnesthesiology, 2005
- Quality of recovery in children: sevoflurane versus propofolActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2000
- Removal of the laryngeal mask airway in children: Deep anesthesia versus awakeJournal of Clinical Anesthesia, 1997