Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2026
Making MR Imaging Child's Play - Pediatric Neuroimaging Protocol, Guidelines and Procedure
Published on: July 30, 2009
Randomized controlled trial for intermittent versus continuous propofol sedation for pediatric brain and spine
Nabil E Hassan1, Bradford W Betz, Morgan R Cole
1Division of Pediatric Critical Care and Sedation Service, Helen DeVos Children's Hospital, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. nabil.hassan@devosvhildrens.org
Objectives:
Intermittent bolus propofol is an effective agent for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging sedation but requires constant vigilance and dose titration. Magnetic resonance imaging-compatible infusion pumps may make it possible to continuously infuse propofol, achieving a steady level of sedation at a lower total dose. This study investigates total propofol dose, recovery time, and magnetic resonance image quality in children receiving intermittent vs. continuously infused propofol sedation in children undergoing brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging studies.
Design:
An open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled study. A single-blinded radiologist rated the quality of magnetic resonance images.
Setting:
Children's hospital pediatric radiology sedation center.
Patients:
One hundred seventy children age 1 month to 18 yrs undergoing deep sedation for brain, spine, or both brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging.
Interventions:
After informed consent, patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 (intermittent) received a propofol bolus of 2-4 mg/kg, followed by repeat boluses of 0.5-2 mg/kg/dose as needed. Group C (continuous) received a bolus of propofol 2-4 mg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of 100 μg/kg/min with 1-mg/kg/dose boluses with drip titration to effect.
Measurements And Main Results:
Patient demographics, sedation risk assessment, propofol dose, sedation recovery times, incidence of complications, and quality of the magnetic resonance imaging studies were measured. A total of 170 children were enrolled in the study, with 75 in group C and 95 in group I. Both groups were similar with regard to age, weight, gender, and magnetic resonance imaging study type. Group C required a lesser dose of propofol (132 ± 54 μg/kg/min) compared to (162 ± 74 μg/kg/min) in that required in group I (p = .018). There were no differences between the two groups with regard to quality of the imaging study, recovery time, or incidence of complications.
Conclusions:
Compared to intermittent bolus dosing, continuous propofol infusion provides lesser dose exposure without impacting recovery time or quality of the magnetic resonance imaging study.
