Premedication during micturating cystourethrogram to achieve sedation and anxiolysis

Midazolam for sedation before procedures in adults and children: a systematic review update

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2016, which aimed to determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure in adults and children.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to May 2020 together with reference checking to identify additional studies. We imposed no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials of midazolam in comparison with placebo or other medications used for sedation were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study.

RESULTS

Eight new trials were included in this update, which resulted in changed conclusions for the intravenous midazolam versus placebo, oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate and oral midazolam versus placebo comparisons. Effect estimates for all outcomes within the intravenous midazolam versus placebo (7 trials; 633 adults and 32 children) are uncertain due to concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Midazolam resulted in a higher level of sedation than placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.69 to 1.41; 1 study; 100 adults). There was no difference in anxiety (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.99; I² = 75%; 2 studies; 123 adults). Risk of difficulty performing procedures was lower in the midazolam group (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; I² = 45%; 3 studies; 191 adults and 32 children). There was no difference in discomfort (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 190 adults). Five trials with 336 children were included in the oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate comparison. Midazolam was less likely to result in moderate sedation (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82; I² = 64%; 2 studies, 228 participants). This effect estimate is highly uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. There was no difference in ratings of anxiety (SMD - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.75 to 0.23; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 68 participants). Midazolam increased risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 268 participants). This effect estimate is uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias. There were four trials with 359 adults and 77 children included in the oral midazolam versus placebo comparison. Midazolam reduced ratings of anxiety (SMD - 1.01; 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.16; I² = 92%; 4 studies; 436 participants). It is unclear if midazolam has an effect on difficulty performing procedures. Meta-analysis was not performed because there was only one incomplete procedure in the midazolam group in one of the trials. Midazolam reduced pain in one study with 99 adults (MD - 2; 95% CI - 2.5 to - 1.6; moderate quality). The effect estimate is uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The additional evidence arising from inclusion of new studies in this updated review has not produced sufficient high-quality evidence to determine whether midazolam produces more effective sedation than other medications or placebo in any specific population included in this review. For adults, there was low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam did not reduce the risk of anxiety or discomfort/pain in comparison to placebo, but the sedation level was higher. By combining results from adults and children, there was low-quality evidence of a large reduction in the risk of procedures being difficult to perform with midazolam in comparison to placebo. The effect estimates for this comparison are uncertain because there was concern about risk of bias and imprecision. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less-effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures. Ratings of anxiety were not different between oral midazolam and chloral hydrate. The extent to which giving oral midazolam to adults or children decreases anxiety during procedures compared with placebo is uncertain due to concerns about risk of bias and imprecision. There was moderate-quality evidence from one study that oral midazolam reduced the severity of discomfort/pain for adults during a brief diagnostic procedure in comparison with placebo.

Pediatric voiding cystourethrography: An essential examination for urologists but a terrible experience for children

Voiding cystourethrography is the most important fluoroscopic examination in pediatric urology for the investigation of lower urogenital tract diseases, such as vesicoureteral reflux or urethral stricture. However, this invasive procedure imposes a significant burden on children and their parents, and recently there has been a paradigm shift in the diagnosis and treatment of vesicoureteral reflux. In the 2011 revision, the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines on urinary tract infection recommended abandoning routine voiding cystourethrography after the first febrile urinary tract infection. In 2014, the randomized intervention for children with vesicoureteral reflux study recommended discontinuation of routine continuous antibiotic prophylaxis for vesicoureteral reflux. The time is now ripe to radically reconsider indications for voiding cystourethrography and the procedure itself.

Use of sedative drugs at reducing the side effects of voiding cystourethrography in children

BACKGROUND

Imaging of the kidneys and urinary tract has a significant and critical role for diagnosis of genitourinary system diseases. Although technological progress goes toward less invasive approaches, some of the current methods are still invasive and annoying. Voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) is the best and most accurate method for diagnosis and grading of vesicoureteral reflux. VCUG is a distressful procedure that gives serious anxiety and pain in a large proportion of children and fear for parents; therefore, using effective sedative drugs with the least side effects is necessary and should be considered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this review article, importance and efficacy of different drugs before catheterization VCUG be compared in the base of literature survey on EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane source.

RESULTS

We found that the treatment should be based on nonpharmacological and pharmacological methods; nonpharmacological treatment includes the psychological preparation before procedures as a safety precaution with little or no risk modality, as well as reassuring support. The presence of parents during painful procedures cannot alleviate children distress. Pharmacological methods include oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal use (0.2 mg/kg) that had been used 10 min before the procedure can effect on anterograde amnesia and sedation without considerable effect on accuracy and grade of reflux. Nitric oxide has a shorter recovery time versus midazolam but has a potential risk for deep sedation and may interfere with the child's voiding phase.

CONCLUSION

In summary, oral midazolam of 0.5-0.6 mg/kg or 0.2 mg/kg intranasal is acceptable drug that can be used before VCUG.

Utility of sedation for young children undergoing dimercaptosuccinic acid renal scans

BACKGROUND

No studies have examined whether use of sedation during a Tc-99 m dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) renal scan reduces patient discomfort.

OBJECTIVE

To compare discomfort level during a DMSA scan to the discomfort level during other frequently performed uroradiologic tests, and to determine whether use of sedation during a DMSA scan modifies the level of discomfort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined the discomfort level in 798 children enrolled in the Randomized Intervention for children with Vesicoureteral Reflux (RIVUR) and Careful Urinary Tract Infection Evaluation (CUTIE) studies by asking parents to rate their child's discomfort level with each procedure on a scale from 0 to 10. We compared discomfort during the DMSA scan and the DMSA image quality between centers in which sedation was used >90% of the time (sedation centers), centers in which sedation was used <10% of the time (non-sedation centers), and centers in which sedation was used on a case-by-case basis (selective centers).

RESULTS

Mean discomfort level was highest for voiding cystourethrogram (6.4), followed by DMSA (4.0), followed by ultrasound (2.4; P<0.0001). Mean discomfort level during the DMSA scan was significantly higher at non-sedation centers than at selective centers (P<0.001). No difference was apparent in discomfort level during the DMSA scan between sedation centers and selective centers (P=0.12), or between the sedation centers and non-sedation centers (P=0.80). There were no differences in the proportion with uninterpretable DMSA scans according to sedation use.

CONCLUSION

Selective use of sedation in children 12-36 months of age can reduce the discomfort level experienced during a DMSA scan.

Evaluation of the effects of sedation administered via three different routes on the procedure, child and parent satisfaction during cystometry

Purpose

In this study, we retrospectively investigated case reports with and without midazolam administration via oral, intranasal and rectal before cystometry procedure. We aimed to compare the data to evaluate the effects of sedation before cystometry on the pediatric patients and parents’ satisfaction.

Methods

A total of 124 ASA I-II pediatric cases aged 5–14 years were retrospectively investigated from the hospital records. One of the three administration routes was chosen; oral midazolam at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg and nasal or rectal midazolam at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg (maximum 15 mg). Heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, the Wisconsin Hospital of Children Sedation Scale (CHWSS) score and the Groningen Distress Rating Scale (GDRS) score were recorded. Cystometry measurement values, diagnoses of the cases and procedure durations were recorded from the urodynamic laboratory records.

Results

80 female, 44 male cases were evaluated. The CHWSS score at the 10th and 20th minutes after the drug administeration was higher in the oral group than the others (p = 0.001). The duration between the administration of the drug and the start of the procedure was shorter in the nasal group (p = 0.01). Parents satisfaction for sedation was 77 % when comparison of the cystometry with and without sedation. Comparison of the cystometry results with or without sedation no significant difference was found between all parameters (p > 0.01).

Conclusion

We believe that sedation with midazolam administered through all three routes is a safe, effective and convenient option during cystometry, especially in the young age group.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

Non-Intravenous Sedatives and Analgesics for Procedural Sedation for Imaging Procedures in Pediatric Patients

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to describe the method of delivery, dosage regimens, and outcomes of sedatives administered by extravascular route for imaging procedures in children.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using keywords "child", "midazolam", "ketamine", dexmedetomidine", "fentanyl", "nitrous oxide", and "imaging." Articles evaluating the use of extravascular sedation in children for imaging procedures published in English between 1946 and March 2015 were included. Two authors independently screened each article for inclusion. Reports were excluded if they did not contain sufficient details on dosage regimens and outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty reports representing 1,412 patients ranging in age from 0.33 to 19 years of age were included for analysis. Due to discrepancies in doses and types of analyses, statistical analyses were not performed. Oral midazolam was the most common agent evaluated; other agents included intranasal (IN) ketamine, IN midazolam, IN fentanyl, IN and transmucosal dexmedetomidine, and N2O. Most agents were considered efficacious compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Most agents showed efficacy for sedation during imaging when delivered through an extra-vascular route. Selection of agents should be based on onset time, duration, patient acceptability, recovery time, and adverse events. More robust studies are necessary to determine the optimal agent and route to utilize for imaging procedures when sedation is needed.

Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make a definitive, objective diagnosis. The aim is to help select the treatment most likely to be successful. The investigations are invasive and time consuming.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, led to more effective clinical care of people with urinary incontinence and better clinical outcomes.The intention was to test the following hypotheses in predefined subgroups of people with incontinence:(i) urodynamic investigations improve the clinical outcomes;(ii) urodynamic investigations alter clinical decision making;(iii) one type of urodynamic test is better than another in improving the outcomes of management of incontinence or influencing clinical decisions, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 19 February 2013), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in groups of people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamic test against another were included. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials involving around 1100 people were included but data were only available for 1036 women in seven trials, of whom 526 received urodynamics. There was some evidence of risk of bias. The four deaths and 12 dropouts in the control arm of one trial were unexplained.There was significant evidence that the tests did change clinical decision making. Women in the urodynamic arms of three trials were more likely to have their management changed (proportion with change in management compared with the control arm 17% versus 3%, risk ratio (RR) 5.07, 95% CI 1.87 to 13.74), although there was statistical heterogeneity. There was evidence from two trials that women treated after urodynamic investigations were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.31). On the other hand, in five trials women undergoing treatment following urodynamic investigation were not more likely to undergo surgery (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12).There was no statistically significant difference however in the number of women with urinary incontinence if they received treatment guided by urodynamics (37%) compared with those whose treatment was based on history and clinical findings alone (36%) (for example, RR for the number with incontinence after the first year 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21). It was calculated that the number of women needed to treat was 100 women (95% CI 86 to 114 women) undergoing urodynamics to prevent one extra individual being incontinent at one year.One trial reported adverse effects and no significant difference was found (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While urodynamic tests did change clinical decision making, there was some evidence that this did not result in better outcomes in terms of a difference in urinary incontinence rates after treatment. There was no evidence about their use in men, children, or people with neurological diseases. Larger definitive trials are needed in which people are randomly allocated to management according to urodynamic findings or to management based on history and clinical examination to determine if performance of urodynamics results in higher continence rates after treatment.

Comparison of low-dose ketamine to midazolam for sedation during pediatric urodynamic study

INTRODUCTION

Aim 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 METHODS

ASA-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).

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam or low-dose ketamine provide satisfactory sedation during pediatric UDS without impacting urodynamic values.

A systematic review of interventions for reducing pain and distress in children undergoing voiding cystourethrography

Voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) is commonly performed to screen for vesicoureteric reflux or other urological anomalies but has a potential to provoke distress in infants and children. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions to reduce distress, pain or anxiety during VCUG. Eight trials (591 participants) met the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

Conscious sedation with midazolam effectively alleviates the distress of VCUG in children older than 1 year of age. Psychological preparation and warmed contrast medium may also be effective. Nitrous oxide 50% may be an alternative to midazolam, but further evidence is needed.

Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make a definitive objective diagnosis. The aim is to help to select the treatment most likely to be successful. The investigations are invasive and time consuming.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to discover if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, led to more effective clinical care of urinary incontinence and better clinical outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and CINAHL, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 24 May 2011), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in groups of people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamics against another. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven small trials involving around 400 people were included but data were only available for 385 women in five trials, of whom 197 received urodynamics. There was some evidence of risk of bias. The four deaths and 12 dropouts in the control arm of one trial were unexplained.There was some evidence that the tests did change clinical decision making. There was evidence from two trials that women treated after urodynamic investigations were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.31) but not, in three trials, surgery (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 7.75). Women in the urodynamic arms of two trials were more likely to have their management changed but this did not quite reach statistical significance (proportion with no change in management 76% versus 99%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10).However, there was not enough evidence to demonstrate whether or not this resulted in a clinical benefit. For example there was no statistically significant difference in the number of women with urinary incontinence if they received treatment guided by urodynamics (70%) versus those whose treatment was based on history and clinical findings alone (62%) (e.g. RR for number with incontinence after first year 1.23, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.55).No trials reported whether or not there were any adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While urodynamic tests may change clinical decision making, there was not enough evidence to suggest whether this would result in better clinical outcomes. There was no evidence abut their use in men, children or people with neurological diseases. Larger definitive trials are needed, in which people are randomly allocated to management according to urodynamic findings or to standard management based on history and clinical examination.

Evaluation of sevoflurane as an anesthetic agent for voiding cystourethrography in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Sevoflurane anesthetic has recently been administered by anesthesiologists during voiding cystourethrograms in a centre where radiologists are not permitted to deliver pediatric sedation.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether sevoflurane is a satisfactory anesthetic agent for voiding cystourethrography in children.

METHODS

Records of children undergoing voiding cystourethrogram while they were under sevoflurane were reviewed for anesthetic adverse effects and diagnostic quality of the cystourethrogram. The occurrence of on-table voiding and post-void residual bladder volume were documented and compared with an age- and sex-matched control group of children undergoing unsedated voiding cystourethrography. The caregivers were surveyed regarding the anesthetic experience.

RESULTS

A total of 91 children underwent sevoflurane voiding cystourethrography; there were no adverse cardiorespiratory events. Voiding was observed in 96%, with residual bladder volumes minimal in 38%, moderate in 32%, and large in 28% of anesthetized children, not significantly different from the control group. Vesicoureteral reflux was observed in 53% of examinations under sevoflurane. When children with a previous history of reflux or voiding cystourethrography were excluded in a comparison with age- and sex-matched controls, vesicoureteral reflux was observed in 38% of studies under sevoflurane and in 44% of studies in the control group, P = .69; 85% of caregivers of children with prior unsedated voiding cystourethrography found voiding cystourethrography with sevoflurane easier than without sevoflurane; 89% thought the anesthetic experience reduced their child's anxiety towards medical procedures.

CONCLUSION

No adverse events or effects on diagnostic quality of the pediatric voiding cystourethrogram were encountered when using sevoflurane. The majority of surveyed caregivers thought that anesthesia made voiding cystourethrography an easier experience for their child.

Intranasal fentanyl versus placebo for pain in children during catheterization for voiding cystourethrography

BACKGROUND

Voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) is a common procedure at pediatric tertiary care centres that can be painful as it involves a urinary catheter. Currently there are no widely utilized protocols for non-topical medications to decrease pain that children feel during catheterization.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if intranasal (IN) fentanyl is effective at decreasing pain that children feel during catheterization of VCUG when compared with sterile water.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a double-blind randomized controlled trial, using IN fentanyl (2 microg/kg) compared to placebo (sterile water,) in children 4-8 years of age scheduled for elective VCUG in one urban pediatric tertiary center.

RESULTS

Using the Face Pain Score-Revised, children receiving IN fentanyl scored 2.58 (1.93-3.25 95% CI) while those receiving sterile water scored 2.86 (2.20-3.51 95% CI) showing no statistically significant difference. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between our study and control groups, we believe that this may be due to technique (positioning, delivery device) and timing of administration of IN fentanyl as well as multi-factorial causes of distress during VCUG. Future studies investigating alternative delivery techniques of IN fentanyl for analgesia during VCUG may yield more promising results.

Anxiety in children undergoing VCUG: sedation or no sedation?

BACKGROUND

Voiding cystourethrograms are distressing for children and parents. Nonpharmacological methods reduce distress. Pharmacological interventions for VCUG focus on sedation as well as analgesia, anxiolysis, and amnesia. Sedation has cost, time, and safety issues. Which agents and route should we use? Are we sure that sedation does not influence the ability to diagnose vesicoureteric reflux?

METHODS

Literature search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. Review of comparative studies found.

RESULTS

Seven comparative studies including two randomised controlled trials were reviewed. Midazolam given orally (0.5-0.6 mg/kg) or intranasally (0.2 mg/kg) is effective with no apparent effect on voiding dynamics. Insufficient evidence to recommend other sedating agents was found. Deeper sedating agents may interfere with voiding dynamics.

CONCLUSION

Midazolam reduces the VCUG distress, causes amnesia, and does not appear to interfere with voiding dynamics. Midazolam combined with simple analgesia is an effective method to reduce distress to children undergoing VCUG.

Sedation with nitrous oxide compared with no sedation during catheterization for urologic imaging in children

BACKGROUND

Various strategies to mitigate children's distress during voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) have been described. Sedation with nitrous oxide is comparable to that with oral midazolam for VCUG, but a side-by-side comparison of nitrous oxide sedation and routine care is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The effects of sedation/analgesia using 70% nitrous oxide and routine care for VCUG and radionuclide cystography (RNC) were compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sample of 204 children 4-18 years of age scheduled for VCUG or RNC with sedation or routine care were enrolled in this prospective study. Nitrous oxide/oxygen (70%/30%) was administered during urethral catheterization to children in the sedated group. The outcomes recorded included observed distress using the Brief Behavioral Distress Score, self-reported pain, and time in department.

RESULTS

The study included 204 patients (99 nonsedated, 105 sedated) with a median age of 6.3 years (range 4.0-15.2 years). Distress and pain scores were greater in nonsedated than in sedated patients (P < 0.001). Time in department was longer in the sedated group (90 min vs. 30 min); however, time from entry to catheterization in a non-imaging area accounted for most of the difference. There was no difference in radiologic imaging time.

CONCLUSION

Sedation with nitrous oxide is effective in reducing distress and pain during catheterization for VCUG or RNC in children.

Catheterization of the bladder in infants and children

Catheterization of the urinary bladder is a common procedure that can be emotionally and physically traumatic for the child and family. The purpose of this review is to familiarize readers with the procedure and techniques that will minimize the physical and emotional discomfort, and complications.