Chloral hydrate, chloral hydrate--promethazine and chloral hydrate -hydroxyzine efficacy in electroencephalography sedation

Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine alone and dexmedetomidine-chloral hydrate combination sedation for electroencephalography in children: A large retrospective cohort study and propensity score-matched analysis

Aim

To compare the safety and efficacy of intranasal high-dose dexmedetomidine (DEX) versus a combination of intranasal low-dose dexmedetomidine and oral chloral hydrate (DEX-CH) sedation during electroencephalography (EEG) in children.

Methods

Unadjusted analysis, 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to compare the sedation success rate, adverse effects, onset time, and recovery time of these two sedation methods for 6967 children who underwent EEG.

Results

A total of 6967 children were enrolled in this study, of whom 846 (12.1 %) underwent DEX intranasal sedation while 6121 (87.9 %) received DEX-CH sedation. No significant differences were observed in the sedation success rate with the first dose between the two groups [824 (97.4 %) for DEX vs. 5971 (97.6 %) for DEX-CH; RR 0.99; 95 % CI, 0.98-1.01; P = 0.79]. Similarly, there were no notable disparities in the incidence of adverse events [16 (1.9 %) for DEX vs. 101 (1.7 %) for DEX-CH; RR 1.15; 95 % CI, 0.68-1.93; P = 0.32]. However, intranasal DEX sedation compared with DEX-CH sedation was associated with lower vomiting [0 vs. 95(1.6 %); RR 0.04; 95 % CI, 0.02-0.6; P = 0.02] or more bradycardia [13(1.5 %) vs. 2(0.03 %); RR 47.03; 95 % CI, 10.63-208.04; P < 0.001]. Multivariate analysis using PSM and IPTW analysis yielded similar results.

Conclusion

Both methods for EEG had high sedation success rate and low incidence of adverse events. High-dose intranasal DEX was more likely to induce bradycardia and had a shorter recovery time than the DEX-CH sedation, which was more likely to induce vomiting.

The effect of age on outpatient pediatric procedural sedation with intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam

Procedural sedation for diagnostic examination is a common practice in children. The study aims to analyze the sedative effect and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam in outpatient pediatric procedural sedation across different age groups and to assess the incidence of sedation failure. From February 2021 to September 2021, children who underwent procedural sedation were retrospectively enrolled. The children were divided into 4 groups based on age: the infant group (0 to 1 year old), toddler group (1 to 3 years old), preschool group (3 to 6 years old), and school-age group (6 to 12 years old). Two-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam were used for sedation. The sedation success rate after rescue, sedation success rate, onset time of sedation, and the sedation time were recorded. The incidence of adverse events and the risk factors for sedation failure were also analyzed. A total of 4758 patients were identified. After exclusion, 3149 patients were ultimately enrolled. The combination of 2-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam resulted in a total success rate of 99.7% and a sedation success rate of 91.4%. The sedation success rate varied among the four groups: 90.2% in the infant group, 93.1% in the toddler group, 92.7% in the preschool group, and 78.4% in the school-age group. The sedation success rate was significantly lower in the school-age group compared to the other three groups (P < 0.001). The onset time of sedation was shorter in infant (22 min, IQR: 18-28 min, P < 0.001) and longer in the school-age group (30 min, IQR: 25-35 min, P < 0.05). Additionally, the infants had a longer sedation time (110 min, IQR: 90-135 min, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of delayed recovery (27.5%, all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was low (4.70%), which bradycardia (2.03%) being the most common. Age (0-1 year and > 6 years), weight, ASA class II, and history of failed sedation were identified as risk factors of sedation failure.   Conclusion: Intranasal administration of 2-mcg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with oral administration of 0.5-mg/kg midazolam was found to be efficient and safety for pediatric procedural sedation. Different age groups of children exhibited distinct sedation characteristics, and age was identified as a risk factor affecting the efficacy of sedation. What is Known: • Procedural sedation for diagnostic examination is a common practice in children. • The combination of dexmedetomidine with midazolam can improve sedative effects. What is New: • The success rate of sedation using a combination of 2-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam was significantly lower in school-age children as compared to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. • The onset time of sedation increased with age, and the sedation time was found to be longer in infant patients.

Routine and sleep EEG: Minimum recording standards of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology and the International League Against Epilepsy

This article provides recommendations on the minimum standards for recording routine ("standard") and sleep electroencephalography (EEG). The joint working group of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) and the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed the standards according to the methodology suggested for epilepsy-related clinical practice guidelines by the Epilepsy Guidelines Working Group. We reviewed the published evidence using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The quality of evidence for sleep induction methods was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. A tool for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in technical and methodological studies. Where high-quality published evidence was lacking, we used modified Delphi technique to reach expert consensus. The GRADE system was used to formulate the recommendations. The quality of evidence was low or moderate. We formulated 16 consensus-based recommendations for minimum standards for recording routine and sleep EEG. The recommendations comprise the following aspects: indications, technical standards, recording duration, sleep induction, and provocative methods.

Routine and sleep EEG: Minimum recording standards of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology and the International League Against Epilepsy

This article provides recommendations on the minimum standards for recording routine ("standard") and sleep electroencephalography (EEG). The joint working group of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) and the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed the standards according to the methodology suggested for epilepsy-related clinical practice guidelines by the Epilepsy Guidelines Working Group. We reviewed the published evidence using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The quality of evidence for sleep induction methods was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. A tool for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in technical and methodological studies. Where high-quality published evidence was lacking, we used modified Delphi technique to reach expert consensus. The GRADE system was used to formulate the recommendations. The quality of evidence was low or moderate. We formulated 16 consensus-based recommendations for minimum standards for recording routine and sleep EEG. The recommendations comprise the following aspects: indications, technical standards, recording duration, sleep induction, and provocative methods.

Effectiveness of Chloral Hydrate on Brain MRI in Children with Developmental Delay/Intellectual Disability Comparing with Normal Intelligence: Single Tertiary Center Experience

Neurodiagnostic investigation requirements are expanding for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in children, especially in those with developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID). Thus, determination of optimal sedatives to achieve successful sedation and immobility without further neurological compromise is important in children with DD/ID. The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness and adverse reactions of chloral hydrate (CH) for brain magnetic resonance imaging (B-MRI) in children with DD/ID compared to those with normal intelligence (NI). We performed a retrospective chart review of children aged from 1 day to 12 years who required elective sedation using CH for B-MRI. About 730 cases (415 with DD/ID and 315 with NI) of CH sedation were conducted for B-MRI. Children with DD/ID showed a higher failure rate (22%) than did those with NI (6%); additional CH and prolonged sedation time were required. There was no difference in incidence of adverse reactions between DD/ID and NI groups (p = 0.338). Older or heavier children with DD/ID (p = 0.036 and p = 0.013, respectively), as well as those diagnosed with epilepsy or neuropsychiatric disorders showed higher risk of sedation failure (p < 0.001 for each). In conclusion, CH was a suboptimal sedative drug for children with DD/ID compared with those with NI. Other alternative or supplementary sedatives should be taken into consideration especially for those vulnerable groups.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children

BACKGROUND

Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to July 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2017), Embase (1980 to July 2017), and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (via CENTRAL) using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo for children undergoing non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2390 children. The studies were all conducted in hospitals that provided neurodiagnostic services. Most studies assessed the proportion of sedation failure during the neurodiagnostic procedure, time for adequate sedation, and potential adverse effects associated with the sedative agent.The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed, as reflected by a wide variation in their 'Risk of bias' profiles. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 13 studies had high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in single small studies.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had lower sedation failure when compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a higher risk of sedation failure after one dose compared to those who received intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study, low-quality evidence), but after two doses there was no evidence of a significant difference between the two groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study, very low-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared to have more sedation failure when compared with music therapy, but the quality of evidence was very low for this outcome (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study). Sedation failure rates were similar between oral chloral hydrate, oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to achieve adequate sedation when compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), and rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study, low-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence).No data were available to assess the proportion of children with successful completion of neurodiagnostic procedure without interruption by the child awakening. Most trials did not assess adequate sedation as measured by specific validated scales, except in the comparison of chloral hydrate versus intranasal midazolam and oral promethazine.Compared to dexmedetomidine, chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 12.04 95% CI 1.58 to 91.96). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate (including behavioural change, oxygen desaturation) although there was an increased risk of adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was very variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine for children undergoing paediatric neurodiagnostic procedures. The sedation failure was similar for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. When compared with intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy, oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate. However, it must be noted that the evidence for the outcomes for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy was of very low to low quality, therefore the corresponding findings should be interpreted with caution.Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially the risk of major adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation.

Efficacy of the Sequential Administration of Melatonin, Hydroxyzine, and Chloral Hydrate for Recording Sleep EEGs in Children

Sedation of children for electroencephalography (EEG) recordings is often required. Chloral hydrate (CH) requires medical clearance and continuous monitoring. To try to reduce personnel and time resources associated with CH administration, a new sedation policy was formulated. This study included all children who underwent an EEG during a consecutive 3-month period following the implementation of the new sedation policy, which consists of the sequential administration of melatonin, hydroxyzine (if needed), and CH (if needed). The comparator group included all children with a recorded EEG during a consecutive 3-month period when the sedation policy consisted of the sole administration of CH. A total of 803 children with a mean age of 7.9 years (SD = 5.1, range = 0.5-17.7 years) were included. Sleep EEG recordings were obtained in 364 of 385 children (94.6%) using the old sedation policy and in 409 of 418 children (97.9%) using the new one. With the new sedation policy, the percentage of children requiring CH dropped from 37.1% to 6.7% (P < .001). Time to sleep onset and duration of sleep were not significantly different between the 2 policies. The new sedation policy was very well tolerated. The new sedation policy is very safe, is highly efficacious in obtaining sleep EEG recordings, and will result in substantial saving of time and personnel resources.