Experience with the use of propofol for radiologic imaging in infants younger than 6 months of age

Propofol-Related Infusion Syndrome: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Articles

Propofol-related infusion syndrome (PRIS) is a rare, yet life-threatening sequelae to prolonged administration of the anesthetic propofol in mechanically intubated patients. The condition is characterized by progressive multi-system organ failure and eventual mortality; of note, the predominant characteristics of PRIS involve but are not limited to cardiovascular impairment and collapse, metabolic and lactic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, hyperkalemia, and acute renal failure. While potent or extended doses of propofol have been found to be the primary precipitating factor of this condition, others such as age, critical illness, steroid therapy, and hyperlipidemia have been discovered to play a role as well. This bibliometric analysis was done to reflect the current relevance and understanding of PRIS in recent literature. The SCOPUS database was utilized to conduct a search for articles with keywords "propofol infusion syndrome" and "propofol syndrome" from February 24, 2001, until April 16, 2023, with parameters for article title, citation number, citation per year, author, institution, publishing journal, and country of origin. PRIS was first defined in 1990, just a year after its approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use as a sedative-hypnotic. Since then, interest in PRIS slowly rose up to 13 publications per year in 2013. Seven papers on the topic were published in Critical Care Medicine, six in Neurocritical Care, and four in Anesthesia. The most common institutions were Mayo Clinic, Northeastern University, and Tufts Medical Center. To our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric analysis to evaluate the most influential publications about PRIS. A majority of the research is case-based, possibly owing to the rarity of the condition. Our research suggests that confounding factors outside the precipitating dosage of propofol may be implicated in the onset and progression of PRIS. This study could therefore bring renewed interest to the topic and lead to additional research focused on fully understanding the pathophysiology of PRIS in order to promote the development of novel diagnostics and treatment.

Anticholinergics and serious adverse events in pediatric procedural sedation: A report of the pediatric sedation research consortiums

BACKGROUND

Pediatric sedation is a clinical activity with potential for serious but rare airway adverse events, particularly laryngospasm. Anticholinergic drugs, atropine and glycopyrrolate, are frequently used with the intention to improve sedation safety by virtue of their antisialagogue effects.

AIMS

The objective of this study is to describe the current practice of anticholinergic use in pediatric sedation and to compare the frequency of serious sedation-related adverse events in patients who received anticholinergics to those who did not.

METHODS

We examined prospectively collected data from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database. Patient characteristics, procedure type, sedation provider, sedatives, location of sedation, anticholinergic administered, adverse events, and airway interventions were reported. Propensity score matching and multivariable logistic regression were used to test whether any association exists between anticholinergic use and serious sedation-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Anticholinergics were administered in 7.1% (n = 18 707) of all cases (n = 263 883) reported between November 2011 and October 2017. When anticholinergics were used, atropine was used in 22% (n = 4111) and glycopyrrolate in 78.1% (n = 14 601) of sedations. Use of anticholinergics was more common in patients with well-described risk factors for airway adverse events: active/history of upper respiratory infection, history of reactive airway disease/asthma, and exposure to smoke. However, infants and ASA 3 patients were not associated with higher rate of anticholinergic use. Anticholinergic use was independently associated with an increase in the odds of serious adverse events, OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6-2.1), especially airway adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium study, we found the use of anticholinergic adjuvants independently associated with greater odds of serious adverse events, especially airway adverse events, after adjusting for well-known sedation risk factors using propensity score matching and multivariate analysis.

Using intranasal dexmedetomidine with buccal midazolam for magnetic resonance imaging sedation in children: A single-arm prospective interventional study

OBJECTIVE

Although numerous intravenous sedative regimens have been documented, the ideal non-parenteral sedation regimen for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been determined. This prospective, interventional study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of buccal midazolam in combination with intranasal dexmedetomidine in children undergoing MRI.

METHODS

Children between 1 month and 10 years old requiring sedation for MRI examination were recruited to receive buccal midazolam 0.2 mg⋅kg^-1 with intranasal dexmedetomidine 3 μg⋅kg^-1. The primary outcome was successful sedation following the administration of the initial sedation regimens and the completion of the MRI examination.

RESULTS

Sedation with dexmedetomidine-midazolam was administered to 530 children. The successful sedation rate was 95.3% (95% confidence interval: 93.5-97.1%) with the initial sedation regimens and 97.7% (95% confidence interval: 96.5-99%) with a rescue dose of 2 μg⋅kg^-1 intranasal dexmedetomidine. The median sedation onset time was 10 min, and a significant rising trend was observed in the onset time concerning age (R = 0.2491, P < 0.001). The wake-up and discharge times significantly correlated with the duration of the procedure (R = 0.323, P < 0.001 vs. R = 0.325, P < 0.001). No oxygen deficiency nor medication intervention due to cardiovascular instability was observed in any of the patients. History of a prior failed sedation was considered a statistically significant risk factor for failed sedation in the multivariate logistic regression model [odds ratio = 4.71 (95% confidence interval: 1.24-17.9), P = 0.023].

CONCLUSION

In MRI examinations, the addition of buccal midazolam to intranasal dexmedetomidine is associated with a high success rate and a good safety profile. This non-parenteral sedation regimen can be a feasible and convenient option for short-duration MRI in children between 1 month and 10 years.

Incidence of Adverse Effects of Propofol for Procedural Sedation/Anesthesia in the Pediatric Emergency Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To investigate the incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population for sedation or anesthesia.

METHODS

We performed Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases to research relevant literature. We did sensitivity analysis to assess the incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population for sedation or anesthesia.

RESULTS

In 132 studies, eight RCTs were included in this analysis. The result showed that adverse events (bradypnea, hypotension, hypertension, and apnea) were significantly improved in the pediatric emergency population in the propofol group, but it had no effect on the incidence of cough attacks, desaturation, agitation, stridor, and laryngospasm. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis showed that those who received propofol for had decreased adverse effects compared with the patients who received ketamine treatment (SMD = 0.44, 95%CI = [0.28, 0.67], I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.0002), which demonstrated that propofol could decrease the incidence of adverse effects compared with ketamine and ketofol.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated that propofol may decrease the incidence of bradypnea, hypotension, hypertension, and apnea, but it had no effect on the incidence of cough attacks, desaturation, agitation, stridor, and laryngospasm. Furthermore, more large RCTs are needed to assess incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population.

Evaluation of pediatric procedural sedation education in pediatric emergency medicine fellowships

ABSTRACT

Pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) is often performed outside of the operating room, and by various sub-specialty providers. There is no consistency in how pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows are trained in PPS. The objective of this study was to survey PEM program directors (PDs) and PEM fellows about their current sedation teaching practices via a direct survey. While many fellowship programs train PEM fellows in PPS, we hypothesize that there is no consistent method of developing and measuring this skill.A 12-question survey was sent to PEM PDs directly via email. A separate 17-question survey was sent to current PEM fellows via their program coordinators by email. Each survey had multiple choice, yes-no and select-all program questions. Responses were collected in an online (REDCap) database and summarized as frequencies and percentages.Based on identifiable email, 67 programs were contacted, with a PD response rate of 46 (59%). Sixty-two program coordinators were contacted based on identifiable email with 78 fellow responses. We noted that 11/46 PD respondents offer a formal PPS rotation. Thirty programs report using propofol in the emergency department and 93% of PD respondents (28/30) actively train fellows in the use of propofol. Approximately 62% of PEM fellow respondents (48/78) report sedating without any attending oversight. Twenty-eight percent of PEM fellow respondents report using simulation as a component of their sedation training.PPS is a critical skill. However, there is a lack of consistency in both education and evaluation of competency in this area. An organized PPS rotation would improve PPS case exposure and PPS skills.

Safety challenges related to the use of sedation and general anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging examinations

The use of sedation and general anesthesia has facilitated the significant growth of MRI use among children over the last years. While sedation and general anesthesia are considered to be relatively safe, their use poses potential risks in the short term and in the long term. This manuscript reviews the reasons why MRI examinations require sedation and general anesthesia more commonly in the pediatric population, summarizes the safety profile of sedation and general anesthesia, and discusses an amalgam of strategies that can be implemented and can ultimately lead to the optimization of sedation and general anesthesia care within pediatric radiology departments.

Procedural Sedation Outside the Operating Room and Potential Neurotoxicity: Analysis of an At-Risk Pediatric Population

OBJECTIVES

To determine the characteristics of children who met the risk criteria for potential neurotoxicity defined by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; 2016 warning) in a procedural sedation (PS) service.

STUDY DESIGN

A single-center retrospective review of all infants and children aged <3 years receiving PS outside the operating room from 2014 to 2016. Demographics, duration of, and the reason for PS were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2950 patients with 3653 sedation encounters were included. Median age was 19 (range, 11-26) months. Most PS (86.4%) were for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The median number of sedation procedures per patient was 1 (25th-75th: 1-7), and median duration of sedation was 72 minutes (25th-75th: 55-98 minutes). Forty patients (1.4%) required prolonged sedations >3 hours, in a single encounter (median, [25th-75th] of 196 minutes [185-214 minutes]), and 298 patients (10.1%) had multiple sedation exposures during the study period. Overall, 327 patients, 11.1% (95% confidence interval, 10.0%-12.3%) required repeated and/or prolonged sedation. The most common reasons for repeated or prolonged sedation were MRI of the brain and neurologic concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple and prolonged PS commonly occurs outside the operating room in this young and potentially vulnerable population. Although certain imaging cannot be avoided, other cases may have the potential to be delayed until the child is >3 years old or to have alternate imaging that may not require prolonged PS. Family and provider awareness of the FDA warnings regarding potential neurotoxicity of sedation in all settings, both inside and outside the operating room, is critical.

Outpatient Procedural Sedation of Patients With Autism Spectrum Disorders for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain Using Propofol

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the number of personnel, time to induce and complete sedation using propofol for outpatient magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, and the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared with children without ASD.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were the same between both groups. Overall sedation success was 99%. Although most children were sedated with ≤3 providers, 10% with ASD needed ≥4 providers (P = .005). The duration of sedation was less for the ASD group compared with the non-ASD group (49 minutes vs 56 minutes, P = .005). There was no difference in SAE frequency between groups (ASD 14% vs non-ASD 16%, P = .57).

CONCLUSION

Children with ASD can be sedated for brain MRI using propofol with no increased frequency of SAEs compared with children without ASD. Sedation teams should anticipate that 10% of children with ASD may need additional personnel before propofol induction.