• Arun K Thevaraja, Yatindra Kumar Batra, Sondekoppam V Rakesh, Nidhi B Panda, Katragadda L N Rao, Monica Chhabra, and Mayank Aggarwal.
• Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
• Paediatr Anaesth. 2013 May 1;23(5):415-21.

IntroductionAim of sedation during pediatric urodynamic studies (UDS) is a calm and cooperative child while not affecting measurements. We compared the effectiveness of midazolam to low-dose ketamine infusion for sedation and their impact on urodynamics.Materials And MethodsASA-I children undergoing UDS were randomly assigned to group K (ketamine) loading dose (0.25 mg·kg(-1)) followed by infusion of 10-20 μg·kg(-1) ·min(-1) or group M (midazolam) loading dose of (0.02 mg·kg(-1)) followed by 1-2 μg·kg(-1) ·min(-1). The sedation scores and reactivity to catheterization were monitored by Children Hospital of Wisconsin Sedation Scale and Frankl Behavior Rating Scale, respectively. The UDS included two-channel filling cystometry in supine position followed by a free uroflowmetry in sitting position. The UDS was performed and interpreted in accordance with good urodynamic practice guidelines of International Continence Society (2002).ResultsA total of 34 children were enrolled. Group K children (n = 17) attained sedation earlier 6.80 (±3.36) min vs. 9.40 (±2.82) min; (P = 0.03) than group M (n = 17) and also recovered earlier 11.60 (±3.13) min vs. 19.67 (±5.49) min (P = 0.01). Reactivity scores during urinary and rectal catheterization were lower in group K (P = 0.03 and 0.01), respectively. Historical UDS data of 21 participants were available for comparison with effect of medication. None of the study drugs affected UDS parameters significantly.ConclusionsMidazolam or low-dose ketamine provide satisfactory sedation during pediatric UDS without impacting urodynamic values.© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

26 keywords...

hide…