Comparison of alfentanil and fentanyl in painless colonoscopy in children

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6913/mrhk.060201

Keywords:

Alfentanil, Fentanyl, Pediatric anesthesia, Painless enteroscopy, Recovery time, choking, body movement

Abstract

[Objective] To explore the safety and efficacy of alfentanil and fentanyl combined with propofol in painless colonoscopy in children.

[Methods] 60 children aged 3-7 years old who were going to do colonoscopy in our hospital were randomly divided into alfentanil group (AF group) and fentanyl group (F group), with 30 cases in each group. The dosage of alfentanil 10ug/kg and fentanyl 2ug/kg respectively were used in both groups. The recovery time, induced cough, vital signs, physical activity, drug supplementation, postoperative adverse reactions and doctor satisfaction of the two groups of children were observed and recorded.

[Results] The recovery time of AF group was shorter than that of F group, which was (11.40±4.33) minutes and (9.37±2.81) minutes respectively (P< 0.05). The induced cough in AF group was less than that in F group (P< 0.05). AF group had more body motion than F group (P< 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and other vital signs between the two groups (P> 0.05), but the values of vital signs at all observation points in the two groups were lower than those before anesthesia. No adverse reactions occurred in the two groups, and there was no significant difference in the satisfaction of doctors between the two groups.

[Conclusion] Both alfentanil and fentanyl can be effectively used in painless colonoscopy in children. However, alfentanil is more suitable for painless colonoscopy than fentanyl due to its shorter resuscitation time, lower incidence of induced cough and no increased risk of adverse reactions.

Downloads

Published

2024-06-30

How to Cite

Comparison of alfentanil and fentanyl in painless colonoscopy in children. (2024). Medical Research, 6(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.6913/mrhk.060201