Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Sedation of Pediatric Patients in the Emergency Department

Safer Pediatric Sedations: Simulation Checklists to Improve Knowledge, Attitudes, and Skills in Emergency Medicine Residents

Background Pediatric sedation is a low-frequency, high-stakes procedure. This study aimed to train emergency medicine (EM) residents in pediatric procedural sedation through a sedation checklist, enhancing patient safety. Methods EM residents completed a pre-test and a survey on their knowledge and experiences with sedation protocols. Residents were subdivided into four groups: two control groups underwent a pediatric sedation simulation without the aid of a procedural checklist, while two intervention groups were given the procedural checklist to guide their management of the procedure. Following the simulations, a simulation faculty member reviewed sedation management and safety with residents for all groups and answered questions. An improvement analysis was performed via a post-intervention examination among all residents. Results Residents in the intervention group demonstrated an improvement in obtaining more critical actions during the simulation (intervention group critical actions 14, 13 vs non-intervention critical actions 10, 12) and confidence with the procedure (via a Likert scale survey across multiple arenas of pediatric sedation), with only moderately increased scores on the post-test examination (pre-simulation score of 6.28±2.14; post-simulation score of 6.75±1.88). Conclusion The data suggest that a checklist, combined with dedicated training through simulation, improves knowledge, confidence, and skill with regard to pediatric sedations. Further study is required to examine the longitudinal impact of our program on resident performance and patient outcomes.

Inhalation anesthesia without any intravenous management for pediatric proton beam therapy

INTRODUCTION

Proton beam therapy is an oncological treatment, argued to be an appropriate tumor irradiation technique for childhood solid tumors. Due to its duration and the need for immobility, many children require anesthesia for proton therapy sessions. As not many centers in the world provide this therapy, there is little published research about pediatric anesthesia for these cases, and the available data suggest a preference for intravenous anesthesia or combined intravenous and inhalation anesthesia. We conducted this study with the aim of describing and analyzing the inhalation anesthetic management of children undergoing proton therapy at our medical center, comparing our results with studies that have followed different anesthetic protocols.

METHODS

We reviewed two major databases (Web of Science and Scopus) to find papers that had addressed, to date, anesthesia for pediatric proton therapy. To describe our anesthetic management, we included all pediatric patients treated with proton therapy under anesthesia in our center between June 2020 and August 2021. The characteristics of the patients, their diagnoses, treatments, airway management, drugs administered, duration of induction, and recovery from anesthesia, and adverse effects where all recorded. All anesthesiologists followed a strict anesthetic protocol based only on inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane delivered via laryngeal mask airway.

RESULTS

Of the total of 1082 papers found in Web of Science and Scopus on pediatric proton therapy, 11 have addressed its anesthetic management, using intravenous or combined intravenous and inhalation anesthesia. Between June 2020 and August 2021, 31 children were anesthetized in our center to receive proton therapy under inhalational anesthesia (total number of sessions: 873). The mean anesthesia induction time was 4.1 min (SD = 0.7, 95% CI [3.9, 4.4]). The mean anesthesia recovery time was 13.8 min (SD = 4.1, 95% CI [12.3, 15.3]). The percentage of non-serious adverse effects was 0.7% (Clopper-Pearson 95% CI [0.3, 1.5]). The percentage of serious adverse effects was 0.1% (Clopper-Pearson 95% CI [0, 0.6]), without statistically significant difference with other published works with different anesthetic approaches.

CONCLUSION

Inhalation anesthesia without any intravenous management for pediatric proton therapy is, in our experience, an effective technique with a complication rate similar to other anesthetic approaches.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine With Intravenous Midazolam: A Safe and Effective Alternative in the Paediatric MRI Sedation

Background and aims MRI sedation in paediatrics includes challenges like respiratory depression, maintaining haemodynamic stability and use of neuroprotective drugs, since MRI is performed in remote places outside the operating room with a lack of support staff and nonavailability of choice of medications and equipments. The primary aim was to use a combination of the drugs to encounter the above challenges and look for its efficacy. The secondary aim of the study was to determine the rate of successful completion of MRI in children using a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intravenous midazolam - without the need for rescue sedatives. Methods This is an observational study involving 60 children in the age group between two months and six years undergoing an MRI. Children belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 1 and 2 were given intranasal dexmedetomidine 3µg/kg, time to onset of sedation was noted and injection of midazolam 0.1 mg/kg was given intravenously. MRI was started once the child was asleep. Children who woke up during the MRI were supplemented with inj. propofol 0.5-1mg/kg and were documented. Results The median time duration for MRI was 38.7 min and the onset of sedation after intranasal dexmedetomidine was 18.7 min. The scan was successfully completed with a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intravenous midazolam in 86.7% and only 13.3% of the children woke up either at the start or in between the scan and required the addition of propofol. Conclusion Drugs used for sedation during MRI should not cause respiratory depression and be safe for the developing brain. The above study has shown that a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intravenous midazolam is effective and safe in performing MRIs in paediatrics.

Safety and efficacy of pediatric sedation protocol for diagnostic examination in a pediatric emergency room: A retrospective study

Pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic tests in the pediatric emergency room are frequently sedated. Although efforts are made to prevent adverse events, no sedation protocol has specified the optimal regimen, dosage, and interval of medication to prevent adverse events. This study analyzed the safety and efficacy of sequential pediatric sedation protocols for pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic tests in the pediatric emergency room of a single tertiary medical center. The medical records of patients aged < 18 years who visited the pediatric emergency room of Seoul Asan Medical Center between January and December 2019 for diagnostic testing were retrospectively reviewed. Sedation protocols consisted of 50 mg/kg and 25 mg/kg chloral hydrate, 0.1 mg/kg and 0.1 mg/kg midazolam, and 1 mg/kg and 0.5 to 1 mg/kg ketamine, administered sequentially at intervals of 30, 20, 10, 10, and 10 minutes, respectively. Patients were assessed prior to sedation, and adverse events were investigated. Of the 289 included patients, 20 (6.9%) experienced adverse events, none serious, and nine (3.1%) failed to reach the depth of sedation required to complete the test. The regimen (P = .622) and dosage (P = .777) of the sedatives were unrelated to the occurrence of adverse events when sedation was performed according to protocol. The sedation protocol used in these patients, consisting of sequential administration of minimum dosages, achieved a sufficient depth of sedation with relatively few adverse events, indicating that this protocol can be used safely and effectively for painless sedation in pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic testing.

A Survey on Procedural Sedation and Analgesia for Pediatric Facial Laceration Repair in Korea

Background  Most children with facial lacerations require sedation for primary sutures. However, sedation guidelines for invasive treatment are lacking. This study evaluated the current status of the sedation methods used for pediatric facial laceration repair in Korea. Methods  We surveyed one resident in each included plastic surgery training hospital using face-to-face interviews or e-mail correspondence. The health care center types (secondary or tertiary hospitals), sedation drug types, usage, and dosage, procedure sequence, monitoring methods, drug effects, adverse events, and operator and guardian satisfaction were investigated. Results  We included 45/67 hospitals (67%) that used a single drug, ketamine in 31 hospitals and chloral hydrate in 14 hospitals. All health care center used similar sedatives. The most used drug administered was 5 mg/kg intramuscular ketamine (10 hospitals; 32%). The most common chloral hydrate administration approach was oral 50 mg/kg (seven hospitals; 50%). Twenty-two hospitals (71%) using ketamine followed this sequence: administration of sedatives, local anesthesia, primary repair, and imaging work-up. The most common sequence used for chloral hydrate (eight hospitals; 57%) was local anesthesia, administration of sedatives, imaging work-up, and primary repair. All hospitals that used ketamine and seven (50%) of those using chloral hydrate monitored oxygen saturation. Median operator satisfaction differed significantly between ketamine and chloral hydrate (4.0 [interquartile range, 4.0-4.0] vs. 3.0 [interquartile range, 3.0-4.0]; p <0.001). Conclusion  The hospitals used various procedural sedation methods for children with facial lacerations. Guidelines that consider the patient's condition and drug characteristics are needed for safe and effective sedation.

Melatonin for non-operating room sedation in paediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The literature on melatonin as a sedative agent in children is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of studies assessing the efficacy and safety of melatonin for non-operating room sedation in children.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health were searched until 9 April 2020 for studies using melatonin and reporting one of the prespecified outcomes of this review. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility, risk of bias and extracted the data. Studies with a similar study design, comparator and procedure were pooled using the fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

25 studies (clinical trials=3, observational studies=9, descriptive studies=13) were included. Melatonin was used for electroencephalogram (EEG) (n=12), brainstem evoked response audiometry (n=8) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n=5). No significant differences were noted on meta-analysis of EEG studies comparing melatonin with sleep deprivation (SD) (relative risk (RR) 1.06 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.12)), melatonin with chloral hydrate (RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.05)) and melatonin alone with melatonin and SD combined (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.10)) for successful procedure completion. However, significantly higher sedation failure was noted in melatonin alone compared with melatonin and SD combined (RR 1.55 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.33)) for EEG. Additionally, meta-analysis showed lower sleep latency for melatonin compared with SD (mean difference -10.21 (95% CI -11.53 to -8.89) for EEG. No major adverse events were reported with melatonin.

CONCLUSION

Although several studies were identified, and no serious safety concerns were noted, the evidence was not of high quality to establish melatonin's efficacy for non-operating room sedation in children.

Fifteen Years' Experience With Safe and Effective Procedural Sedation in Infants and Children in a General Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate procedural sedation (PS) in infants/children, performed by emergency physicians in a general (nonpediatric) emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Procedural sedation prospectively recorded on a standardized form over 15 years. Demographics, sedatives, and analgesia associations with adverse events were explored with logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Of 3274 consecutive PS, 1177 were pediatric: 2 months to 21 years, mean age (±SD) 8.7 ± 5.2 years, 63% boys, 717 White, 435 Black, 25 other. Eight hundred and seventy were American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 1, 256 ASA 2, 39 ASA 3, 11 ASA 4, 1 ASA 5. Procedural sedation indications are as follows: fracture reduction (n = 649), dislocation reduction (n = 114), suturing/wound care (n = 244), lumbar puncture (n = 49), incision and drainage (n = 37), foreign body removal (n = 28), other (n = 56). Sedatives were ketamine (n = 762), propofol ( = 354), benzodiazepines (n = 157), etomidate (n = 39), barbiturates (n = 39). There were 47.4% that received an intravenous opioid. Success rate was 100%. Side effects included nausea/vomiting, itching/rash, emergence reaction, myoclonus, paradoxical reaction, cough, hiccups. Complications were oxygen desaturation less than 90%, bradypnea respiratory rate less than 8, apnea, tachypnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia. Normal range of vital signs was age-dependent. Seventy-four PS (6.3%) resulted in a side effect and 8 PS (3.2%) a complication. No one died, required hospital admission, intubation, or any invasive procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events in infants/children undergoing PS in a general ED are low and comparable to a pediatric ED at a children's hospital. Pediatric PS can be done safely and effectively in a general ED by nonpediatric EM physicians for a wide array of procedures.

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.

Pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: surveying the current European practice

Procedural sedation and analgesia outside the operating theater have become standard care in managing pain and anxiety in children undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The objectives of this study are to describe the current pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia practice patterns in European emergency departments, to perform a needs assessment-like analysis, and to identify barriers to implementation. A survey study of European emergency departments treating children was conducted. Through a lead research coordinator identified through the Research in European Pediatric Emergency Medicine (REPEM) network for each of the participating countries, a 30-question questionnaire was sent, targeting senior physicians at each site. Descriptive statistics were performed. One hundred and seventy-one sites participated, treating approximately 5 million children/year and representing 19 countries, with a response rate of 89%. Of the procedural sedation and analgesia medications, midazolam (100%) and ketamine (91%) were available to most children, whereas propofol (67%), nitrous oxide (56%), intranasal fentanyl (47%), and chloral hydrate (42%) were less frequent. Children were sedated by general pediatricians in 82% of cases. Safety and monitoring guidelines were common (74%), but pre-procedural checklists (51%) and capnography (46%) less available. In 37% of the sites, the entire staff performing procedural sedation and analgesia were certified in pediatric advanced life support. Pediatric emergency medicine was a board-certified specialty in 3/19 countries. Physician (73%) and nursing (72%) shortages and lack of physical space (69%) were commonly reported as barriers to procedural sedation and analgesia. Nurse-directed triage protocols were in place in 52% of the sites, mostly for paracetamol (99%) and ibuprofen (91%). Tissue adhesive for laceration repair was available to 91% of children, while topical anesthetics for intravenous catheterization was available to 55%. Access to child life specialists (13%) and hypnosis (12%) was rare.Conclusion: Procedural sedation and analgesia are prevalent in European emergency departments, but some sedation agents and topical anesthetics are not widely available. Guidelines are common but further safety nets, nurse-directed triage analgesia, and nonpharmacologic support to procedural sedation and analgesia are lacking. Barriers to implementation include availability of sedation agents, staff shortage, and lack of space. What is Known: • Effective and prompt analgesia, anxiolysis, and sedation (PSA) outside the operating theatre have become standard in managing pain and anxiety in children undergoing painful or anxiogenic diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. • We searched PubMed up to September 15, 2020, without any date limits or language restrictions, using different combinations of the MeSH terms "pediatrics," "hypnotics and sedatives," "conscious sedation," and "ambulatory surgical procedures" and the non-MeSH term "procedural sedation" and found no reports describing the current practice of pediatric PSA in Europe. What is New: • This study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to shed light on the pediatric PSA practice in European EDs and uncovers important gaps in several domains, notably availability of sedation medications and topical anesthetics, safety aspects such as PSA provider training, availability of nonpharmacologic support to PSA, and high impact interventions such as nurse-directed triage analgesia. • Other identified barriers to PSA implementation include staff shortage, control of sedation medications by specialists outside the emergency department, and lack of space.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with chloral hydrate as sedatives for pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (Dex) and chloral hydrate (CH) are the most frequently used sedative agents in pediatric patients. We aimed to systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of Dex and CH for sedation in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and 3 clinical trial registry platforms were searched for articles published prior to October 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of Dex versus CH for sedation in children were examined by 2 reviewers. The extracted information included the success rate of sedation, sedation latency, sedation duration, sedation recovery time, and adverse events. Moreover, the extracted data included 5 subgroups: the effects of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 μg/kg doses of Dex were compared with the effect of CH on the success rate of sedation. We also formed separate subgroups for different types of adverse events (incidence of vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, etc). The outcomes were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software and are expressed as relative risks (RR) or the mean difference (MD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I-squared (I) statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs involving 2128 children with Dex versus CH for sedation were included in the meta-analysis. The dose range of Dex ranged from 1 to 3 μg/kg. Compared with CH, the Dex group had a significantly higher success rate of sedation (RR = 1.14, 95% CI [1.05, 1.25], I = 79%, P = .003). Additionally, subgroup analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the success rate of sedation between the CH group and the 1, 1.5, 2.5, and 3 μg/kg Dex groups; only the 2 μg/kg Dex group had a significantly higher success rate than the CH group (RR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.03, 1.29], I = 80%, P = .02). There was no significant difference in the number of subjects who required 2 doses or the duration of sedation between the CH and Dex groups. Furthermore, compared with the Dex group, the CH group had a significantly longer sedation latency (MD = -3.54, 95% CI [-5.94, -1.15], I = 95%, P = .004), sedation recovery time (MD = -30.08, 95% CI [-46.77, -13.39], I = 99%, P = .0004), and total time from sedative administration to discharge (MD = -12.73, 95% CI [-15.48, -9.97], I = 0%, P < .05), as well as a higher number of adverse events in total (RR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.11, 0.61], I = 89%, P = .002). Moreover, the subgroup analysis of adverse events revealed that CH was associated with higher risks of vomiting (RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.03, 0.17], I = 0%, P < .0001), crying or resisting (RR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07, 0.71], I = 60%, P = .01), and cough (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.05, 0.44], I = 0%, P = .0006); there was no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, supplemental oxygen, or respiratory events between CH and Dex. However, Dex was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 4.08, 95% CI [1.63, 10.21], I = 0%, P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Dex is an appropriate effective alternative to CH for sedation in pediatrics. However, considering the possibility of bradycardia, Dex should be used with caution.

Drug selection for sedation and general anesthesia in children undergoing ambulatory magnetic resonance imaging

The demand for drug-induced sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans have substantially increased in response to increases in MRI utilization and growing interest in anxiety in children. Understanding the pharmacologic options for deep sedation and general anesthesia in an MRI environment is essential to achieve immobility for the successful completion of the procedure and ensure rapid and safe discharge of children undergoing ambulatory MRI. For painless diagnostic MRI, a single sedative/anesthetic agent without analgesia is safer than a combination of multiple sedatives. The traditional drugs, such as chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, midazolam, and ketamine, are still used due to the ease of administration despite low sedation success rate, prolonged recovery, and significant adverse events. Currently, dexmedetomidine, with respiratory drive preservation, and propofol, with high effectiveness and rapid recovery, are preferred for children undergoing ambulatory MRI. General anesthesia using propofol or sevoflurane can also provide predictable rapid time to readiness and scan times in infant or children with comorbidities. The selection of appropriate drugs as well as sufficient monitoring equipment are vital for effective and safe sedation and anesthesia for ambulatory pediatric MRI.

Pediatric Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Setting

Background

Pediatric emergency department (ED) visits are common. Many are due to injury, which require procedural treatments with sedation. There are many well researched independent predictors of adverse events for pediatric procedural sedation. The duration of sedation as a predictor of adverse events has not been well studied. This study aims to determine the complication rate and severity of procedural sedation as well as determine if the duration of sedation is correlated with an increased risk of complications.

Methods

After Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective study was performed on all patients seen at Helen Devos Children's ED who received sedation from August 1, 2011, to August 15, 2016. Study variables included age, weight, type of procedure, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status class, Mallampati score, comorbidities, sedation medication, sedation time, and complication. A logistic regression was performed assessing risk factors for complications. Statistical significance was assessed at P < 0.05.

Results

There were 1,814 patients included in the study. Median sedation time was 20 minutes. There were 70 (3.9%) total complications. Controlling for age, weight, comorbidities, ASA class, Mallampati score, and total sedation medication, sedation time was a significant predictor of a complication (odds ratio: 1.021; 95% CI, 1.004-1.039).

Conclusions

Pediatric patients can safely undergo procedural sedation in the ED. This study demonstrates a high safety profile for long procedural sedations with slight increases in risk as sedation time increases. There is no identifiable time where the duration of sedation significantly increases the risk of complication.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate for diagnostic procedures sedation in infants and toddlers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal dexmedetomidine is a relatively new way to sedate young children undergoing nonpainful diagnostic procedures. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine in young children with those of oral chloral hydrate, which has been a commonly used method for decades.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for all randomized controlled trials that compared intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral chloral hydrate in children undergoing diagnostic procedures. Data on success rate of sedation, onset time, recovery time, and adverse effects were extracted and respectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 720 patients met the inclusion criteria. Intranasal dexmedetomidine provided significant higher success rate of sedation (relative risk [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.24; P = .02; I = 74%) than oral chloral hydrate. Furthermore, it experienced significantly shorter onset time (weight mean difference [WMD], -1.79; 95% CI, -3.23 to -0.34; P = .02; I = 69%). Nevertheless, there were no statistically differences in recovery time (WMD, -10.53; 95% CI, -24.17 to 3.11; P = .13; I = 92%) and the proportion of patients back to normal activities (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.77-1.60; P = .57; I = 0%). Intranasal dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.22; P < .0001; I = 0%) than oral chloral hydrate. Although adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension and hypoxia were not synthetized due to lack of data, no clinical interventions except oxygen supplementation were required in any patients.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis revealed that intranasal dexmedetomidine is possibly a more effective and acceptable sedation method for infants and toddlers undergoing diagnostic procedures than oral chloral hydrate. Additionally, it shows similar safety profile and could be a potential alternative to oral chloral hydrate.

Safety and effectiveness of chloral hydrate in outpatient paediatric sedation for objective hearing tests

OBJECTIVES

Chloral hydrate is a sedative that has been used for many years in clinical practice and, under proper conditions, gives a deep and long enough sleep to allow performance of objective hearing tests in young children. The reluctance to use this substance stems from side effects reported over time that can vary, depending on dose, procedure settings and immediate life supporting intervention when needed. Our study adds to those that have appeared in recent years, showing that chloral hydrate is an effective and safe substance when is used in proper conditions.

METHODS

The study included 322 children who needed sedation for objective hearing tests, from April 2014 to March 2018. Parents were instructed to bring the child tired and fasted for at least 2 h before sedation. The sedative was administered by trained staff in the hospital, and the child was monitored until awaking.

RESULTS

In our study group, over half of the children were in the age 1-4 years group, and only 15% were older than 4 years. The dose of chloral hydrate ranged between 50 and 83 mg/kg body weight, with an average of 75 mg. Successful sedation occurred in 94.1% of children; 0.9% of children awoke during testing and required supplemental sedation or rescheduling of the testing. The most common side effects were vomiting, agitation, prolonged sleep, and failure to fall asleep.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing the side effects of chloral hydrate in our study with those from other studies, ours were similar to those described in the literature. In our study chloral hydrate was effective and had only limited adverse effects. The use of chloral hydrate under hospital conditions with proper monitoring could be a practical and safe solution for outpatients or those with short-term hospitalisation.

Sedation and analgesia in children with cerebral palsy: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Patients with cognitive impairment due to cerebral palsy experience pain more often than healthy peers and frequently require diagnostic and therapeutic painful procedures. Analgesia and procedural sedation outside the operating room are often required, but they may not adequately be provided because of the inability to accurately recognize and classify the state of pain and for the perceived higher risk of complications.

DATA SOURCES

We reviewed the available literature to highlight the specific risk factors and area of criticism, that should be further improved. We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Pubmed from 1987 to September 2018 using key words such as 'cerebral palsy and children and pain' or 'sedation and cerebral palsy and children'.

RESULTS

While different pain scales are useful in recognizing pain expressions, anxiety scales are not available. Moreover, studies on non-pharmacological techniques do not always have comparable results. Several risk factors, from anatomic abnormalities to liver and kidney functioning, should be kept in mind before proceeding with sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Large trials are needed to assess the impact of non-pharmacological techniques and to evaluate which pain control strategy (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) should be used in different settings.

Pediatric Readiness in the Emergency Department

This is a revision of the previous joint Policy Statement titled "Guidelines for Care of Children in the Emergency Department." Children have unique physical and psychosocial needs that are heightened in the setting of serious or life-threatening emergencies. The majority of children who are ill and injured are brought to community hospital emergency departments (EDs) by virtue of proximity. It is therefore imperative that all EDs have the appropriate resources (medications, equipment, policies, and education) and capable staff to provide effective emergency care for children. In this Policy Statement, we outline the resources necessary for EDs to stand ready to care for children of all ages. These recommendations are consistent with the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine) in its report "The Future of Emergency Care in the US Health System." Although resources within emergency and trauma care systems vary locally, regionally, and nationally, it is essential that ED staff, administrators, and medical directors seek to meet or exceed these recommendations to ensure that high-quality emergency care is available for all children. These updated recommendations are intended to serve as a resource for clinical and administrative leadership in EDs as they strive to improve their readiness for children of all ages.

Successful sedation of pediatric patients via chloral hydrate during diagnostic studies

Background and Objectives:

Patients’ movements often need to be restrained to obtain high-quality diagnostic images. Chloral hydrate is the primary agent for pediatric sedation prior to diagnostic studies in some countries. However, because of the agent’s long half-life, the need for augmentation must be minimized by ensuring the success of the initial dose. This study aimed to identify factors influencing sedation success rate and sedation duration.

Methods:

Pediatric patients’ age, sex, and dose according to body weight, type of clinic, duration of stay, and weight-for-age percentile were analyzed in univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

Results:

Of the total of 1590 patients, 1325 (82.7%) were successfully sedated. Predictors of successful sedation were a minimum dosage of 60 mg/kg and a younger age. Early sedation (mean − 1 standard deviation, <18 min) occurred in 10.9% of the pediatric patients who were successfully sedated. For this value, visits to emergency center B (adjusted odds ratio, 2.673; 95% confidence interval, 1.660–4.305) and visits during daytime hours appeared to be influencing factors.

Conclusion:

For safe and successful pediatric sedation, the child’s age and appropriate dose must be thoroughly reviewed, and a quiet and secluded environment must be ensured. Furthermore, taking into account that the patient’s age and developmental stage can affect induction time, care should be taken to avoid unnecessary augmentation

Variation in Pediatric Procedural Sedations Across Children's Hospital Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVES

Describe the trends in pediatric sedation use over time and determine variation in use of procedural sedation across children's hospital emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

We analyzed ED data from 35 hospitals within the Pediatric Health Information System for patients <19 years old who received sedation medications and were discharged from 2009 to 2014. Patients with chronic comorbidities or undergoing intubation were excluded. We determined frequency and trends in use of sedation and compared these between EDs. Descriptive statistics with appropriate weighting were used.

RESULTS

Of the 1 448 011 patients potentially requiring sedation who presented to the ED, 99 951 (7.9%) underwent procedural sedation. Medication usage in 2014 included ketamine (73.7%), fentanyl and midazolam (15.9%), ketofol (7.3%), and propofol (2.7%). Use of fentanyl and midazolam increased, whereas use of ketamine, pentobarbital, etomidate, chloral hydrate, and methohexital decreased over time. Significant variation exists in the use of sedation across hospitals; in 2014, the sedation rate ranged 0.2% to 32.0%, with a median of 8.0%. The diagnosis with the largest variation in procedural sedation use was dislocation, with sedation rates ranging from 2% to 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability across pediatric EDs in the use of procedural sedation, suggesting sedations may be performed too often or too little in some hospitals.

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.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine for Procedural Sedation in Children, a Suitable Alternative to Chloral Hydrate

Sedation is often required for children undergoing diagnostic procedures. Chloral hydrate has been one of the sedative drugs most used in children over the last 3 decades, with supporting evidence for its efficacy and safety. Recently, chloral hydrate was banned in Italy and France, in consideration of evidence of its carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative with unique properties that has been increasingly used for procedural sedation in children. Several studies demonstrated its efficacy and safety for sedation in non-painful diagnostic procedures. Dexmedetomidine's impact on respiratory drive and airway patency and tone is much less when compared to the majority of other sedative agents. Administration via the intranasal route allows satisfactory procedural success rates. Studies that specifically compared intranasal dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate for children undergoing non-painful procedures showed that dexmedetomidine was as effective as and safer than chloral hydrate. For these reasons, we suggest that intranasal dexmedetomidine could be a suitable alternative to chloral hydrate.

Comparison of two analgesia protocols for the treatment of pediatric orthopedic emergencies

SummaryObjective:to compare the efficacy of two analgesia protocols (ketamine versus morphine) associated with midazolam for the reduction of dislocations or closed fractures in children.Methods:randomized clinical trial comparing morphine (0.1mg/kg; max 5mg) and ketamine (2.0mg/kg, max 70mg) associated with midazolam (0.2mg/kg; max 10mg) in the reduction of dislocations or closed fractures in children treated at the pediatrics emergency room (October 2010 and September 2011). The groups were compared in terms of the times to perform the procedures, analgesia, parent satisfaction and orthopedic team.Results:13 patients were allocated to ketamine and 12 to morphine, without differences in relation to age, weight, gender, type of injury, and pain scale before the intervention. There was no failure in any of the groups, no differences in time to start the intervention and overall procedure time. The average hospital stay time was similar (ketamine = 10.8+5.1h versus morphine = 12.3+4.4hs; p=0.447). The median pain (faces pain scale) scores after the procedure was 2 in both groups. Amnesia was noted in 92.3% (ketamine) and 83.3% (morphine) (p=0.904). Parents said they were very satisfied in relation to the analgesic intervention (84.6% in the ketamine group and 66.6% in the morphine group; p=0.296). The satisfaction of the orthopedist regarding the intervention was 92.3% in the ketamine group and 75% in the morphine group (p=0.222).Conclusion:by producing results similar to morphine, ketamine can be considered as an excellent option in pain management and helps in the reduction of dislocations and closed fractures in pediatric emergency rooms.

A qualitative evaluation of capnography use in paediatric sedation: perceptions, practice and barriers

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

We explored perceptions about capnography for procedural sedation and barriers to use in a paediatric emergency department.

BACKGROUND

Capnography is a sensitive monitor of ventilation and is increasingly being studied in procedural sedation. While benefits have been found, it has not gained wide acceptance for monitoring of children during sedation.

DESIGN

A qualitative exploratory study was performed.

METHODS

Using a grounded theory approach, physicians and nurses from the paediatric emergency department participated in one-on-one interviews about their experiences with and opinions of capnography. An iterative process of data collection and analysis was used to inductively generate theories and themes until theoretical saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Five physicians and 12 nurses were interviewed. Themes included: Experiences: Participants felt that procedural sedation is safe and adverse events are rare. Normal capnography readings reassured providers about the adequacy of ventilation. Knowledge: Despite experience with capnography, knowledge and comfort varied. Most participants requested additional education and training. Diffusion of Use: While participants expressed positive opinions about capnography, use for sedation was infrequent. Many participants felt that capnography use increased in other paediatric populations, such as patients with altered mental status, ingestions or head trauma. Barriers: Identified barriers to use included a lack of comfort with or knowledge about equipment, lack of availability of the monitor and cannulas, lack of inclusion of these supplies on a checklist for procedural sedation preparedness, and lack of a policy for use of capnography during sedation.

CONCLUSION

Capnography use during sedation in the paediatric emergency department is limited despite positive experiences and opinions about this device. Addressing modifiable barriers such as instrument availability, continuing education, and inclusion on a checklist may increase use of capnography during sedation.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Despite the perceived benefits, a broad implementation plan is required to introduce capnography successfully to the paediatric emergency department.

Pediatric chloral hydrate poisonings and death following outpatient procedural sedation

INTRODUCTION

Chloral hydrate has been used medicinally since the 1800 s as a sedative hypnotic, most commonly for procedural sedation. As it is administered orally and available in a liquid formulation, it is used almost exclusively in pediatric patients despite many safer and more effective alternative agents being available.

CASE SERIES

We present three cases of pediatric chloral hydrate poisoning, all occurring following procedural sedation in outpatient clinic settings and presenting to the emergency department. The ages ranged from 15 months to 4 years of age and all required resuscitation. Unfortunately, the 4-year-old died.

CONCLUSION

Choral hydrate is associated with significant adverse effects, including death, and safer alternatives for pediatric procedural sedation should be sought and utilized. There are a number of more effective sedative agents with more predictable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles than chloral hydrate including parenteral and oral agents. The practice of pre-procedure sedation should be performed only in a supervised setting where cardiorespiratory monitoring can occur in all cases.

Pediatric sedation

Pediatric sedation is an evolving field performed by an extensive list of specialties. Well-defined sedation systems within pediatric facilities are paramount to providing consistent, safe sedation. Pediatric sedation providers should be trained in the principles and practice of sedation, which include patient selection, pre-sedation assessment to determine risks during sedation, selection of optimal sedation medication, monitoring requirements, and post-sedation care. Training, credentialing, and continuing sedation education must be incorporated into sedation systems to verify and monitor the practice of safe sedation. Pediatric hospitalists represent a group of providers with extensive pediatric knowledge and skills who can safely provide pediatric sedation.

Optimal initial dose of chloral hydrate in management of pediatric facial laceration

Background

Chloral hydrate (CH) is the primary agent most commonly used for pediatric sedation prior to diagnostic, therapeutic procedures. In the management of pediatric facial laceration, the initial dose of CH has to balance the need for adequate sedation against the need to minimize sedative complications.

Methods

A retrospective review of medical records of 834 children who visited our emergency room for facial lacerations from August 2010 to September 2012 was conducted. They were divided into six groups on the basis of the initial dose of CH administered. Further, each group was compared with the standard group (70 to ≤80 mg/kg) with respect to sedation success, augmentation dose, failed sedation, time to procedure, and time of stay.

Results

With respect to the complication rate, only group 1 (range, 40 to ≤50 mg/kg) showed a significantly lower complication rate. In the case of all the other variables considered, there were no significant differences among any of the groups.

Conclusions

An initial CH dose of 48±2 mg/kg does not negatively affect the success rate of sedation or the need for additional sedative during the primary closure of facial lacerations in pediatric patients. Further, lower doses reduce the incidences of adverse effects and do not delay procedure readiness. Therefore, 48±2 mg/kg of CH can be considered the optimal initial dose for pediatric sedation.

Impact of provider specialty on pediatric procedural sedation complication rates

OBJECTIVE

To determine if pediatric procedural sedation-provider medical specialty affects major complication rates when sedation-providers are part of an organized sedation service.

METHODS

The 38 self-selected members of the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium prospectively collected data under institutional review board approval. Demographic data, primary and coexisting illness, procedure, medications used, outcomes, airway interventions, provider specialty, and adverse events were reported on a self-audited, Web-based data collection tool. Major complications were defined as aspiration, death, cardiac arrest, unplanned hospital admission or level-of-care increase, or emergency anesthesia consultation. Event rates per 10 000 sedations, 95% confidence intervals, and odds ratios were calculated using anesthesiologists as the reference group and were then adjusted for age, emergency status, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status > 2, nil per os for solids, propofol use, and clustering by site.

RESULTS

Between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2008, 131 751 pediatric procedural sedation cases were recorded; there were 122 major complications and no deaths. Major complication rates and 95% confidence intervals per 10 000 sedations were as follows: anesthesiologists, 7.6 (4.6-12.8); emergency medicine, 7.8 (5.5-11.2); intensivist, 9.6 (7.3-12.6); pediatrician, 12.4 (6.9-20.4); and other, 10.2 (5.1-18.3). There was no statistical difference (P > .05) among provider's complication rates before or after adjustment for potential confounding variables.

CONCLUSIONS

In our sedation services consortium, pediatric procedural sedation performed outside the operating room is unlikely to yield serious adverse outcomes. Within this framework, no differences were evident in either the adjusted or unadjusted rates of major complications among different pediatric specialists.

Sedation provider practice variation: a survey analysis of pediatric emergency subspecialists and fellows

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric emergency physicians use various techniques and medications when performing procedural sedation and analgesia. The goals of our study were to assess US pediatric emergency medicine subspecialists and fellows (PEMSSFs) for individual practice variation and to evaluate (1) the use of supplemental oxygen and capnography monitoring and (2) adverse sedation events (ADSEs).

METHODS

A Web-based tool was used to survey and analyze data collected from a selected group of PEMSSFs, regarding their responses to 5 common sedation case scenarios, use of supplemental oxygen and capnography monitoring, and ADSEs. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between medication strategy and various levels of professional experience.

RESULTS

Two hundred one surveys were received. One hundred ninety-five of these were eligible for the study: 140 from specialists and 55 from fellows. Respondents used multiple combinations of pharmaceutical agents to the scenarios presented. For some scenarios, statistical association was found between medication selection strategy and longer professional experience. Sixty percent of respondents do not routinely provide oxygen supplementation. Despite current guidelines supporting the routine use of capnography monitoring, 45% of respondents never use it. Adverse sedation event was reported in 17 cases; all patients were discharged with no further complications. A statistical association was found between years of practitioner experience and the likelihood of reporting an ADSE (P < 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

This group of PEMSSFs reported a wide spectrum of medication sedation strategies, dichotomous approaches to the use of oxygen supplementation and capnography monitoring, and a low rate of ADSEs.

Rehabilitation in spine and spinal cord trauma

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To define the optimal time for initiation of rehabilitation and review the most clinically relevant outcome measures of upper and lower limb motor function of the rehabilitating spinal cord injured patient, using a systematic review and expert opinion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Comprehensive rehabilitation programs are required for patients after spinal cord injury (SCI) as early as feasible. In a dedicated SCI rehabilitation setting, effective treatment and proper monitoring of spontaneous and rehabilitation-based motor function improvements by means of appropriate, valid, reliable and internationally accepted clinical assessment tools is warranted.

METHODS

Focused questions on key topics in rehabilitation of the spinal cord injured patient were defined by a panel of spine trauma surgeons. A keyword literature search for pertinent articles was conducted using multiple databases. Suitable articles were screened and the quality of evidence was graded and tabulated. Based on the evidence and expert opinion, recommendations were composed and rated as strong or weak.

RESULTS

The outcome measures literature search yielded a total of 1251 abstracts. Out of these 86 articles were studied in detail. One high quality study was found with 3 articles referring to it. Furthermore, there were 19 moderate quality studies, 39 low quality studies, and 25 very low quality studies. The timing literature search yielded 508 abstracts of which 3 articles focused on the question and were all graded as low quality.

CONCLUSION

For general motor function, assessing the American Spinal Injury Association motor score and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III is strongly recommended. The American Spinal Injury Association motor score is also useful in assessing upper- and lower-extremity motor function. For ambulatory function, a timed walk test like the 10 m Walk test in combination with the Walking Index for SCI II is strongly recommended. Early rehabilitation, defined as within 30 days of injury, improves outcome and recovery for spinal cord trauma patients.

Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Children: Perspectives from Paediatric Emergency Physicians

Procedural sedation and analgesia in children is now widely practised in many emergency departments internationally. In this article, we address the general principles, indications, guidelines, medications, adverse events and future research in paediatric procedural sedation and analgesia in the Emergency Department.

Procedural sedation and analgesia is the use of sedative, analgesia and dissociative drugs to provide anxiolysis, analgesia, sedation and motor control during painful or unpleasant diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. It is a continuous spectrum from mild, moderate, deep sedation and then general anaesthesia. Dissociative sedation from ketamine is also commonly used.

Internationally, major clinical guidelines have been issued and revised since the 1980s. The guidelines should include the following components and documentation: pre-sedation assessment, intra-procedural monitoring and post-procedural monitoring and discharge criteria. The pre-sedation assessment involves assessing suitability of patient as candidate for sedation, any contraindications, fasting time, ensuring that the necessary equipment and drugs are available and the personnel providing the sedation are skilled in sedation and resuscitation.

The common medications for sedation in the emergency departments include ketamine, midazolam, fentanyl, morphine, oral chloral hydrate and nitrous oxide inhalation. Propofol and etomidate are used widely in some of the paediatric emergency departments internationally.

Procedural sedation has been documented to be safe and effective when performed by trained emergency physicians. The overall incidence of complications was 5.3% in a large prospective study, including airway and respiratory events (laryngospasm, apnoea, desaturations) and emesis. Aspirations are rare complications. Though the risks of adverse events are not high, emergency physicians need to have core competencies in sedation and resuscitation skills. The future of procedural sedation and analgesia will focus on enhancing training, safety and effectiveness.

The reimbursement gap: providing and paying for pediatric procedural sedation in the emergency department

A number of medical, ethical, and legal obligations compel physicians to provide procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) to pediatric patients requiring painful procedures in the emergency department (ED). Recognizing the additional demands that PSA places on ED physicians, the American Medical Association has approved Current Procedural Terminology codes for PSA in conjunction with ED procedures. However, some insurers have indicated reluctance or refusal to pay for PSA in the ED, despite these Current Procedural Terminology codes and the legal and ethical imperatives. This reimbursement gap between an obligation to provide care and an inability to obtain reimbursement from insurers places ED physicians who care for children in an awkward position. This article reviews physicians' legal and ethical obligations to provide PSA to pediatric patients in the ED, assesses health insurers' obligations to pay for this procedure, and examines insurers' policies and practices. We found significant variability among private and public insurers in their willingness to pay for PSA. Emergency department PSA charges at one tertiary care pediatric center are reimbursed at less than half the rate of other ED services. Although existing state laws and federal regulations arguably require that insurers provide reimbursement for pediatric PSA, certain legislative and regulatory initiatives could clarify insurers' payment obligations.

Joint policy statement--guidelines for care of children in the emergency department

Children who require emergency care have unique needs, especially when emergencies are serious or life threatening. The majority of ill and injured children are brought to community hospital emergency departments (EDs) by virtue of their geography within communities. Similarly, emergency medical services (EMS) agencies provide the bulk of out-of-hospital emergency care to children. It is imperative, therefore, that all hospital EDs have the appropriate resources (medications, equipment, policies, and education) and staff to provide effective emergency care for children. This statement outlines resources necessary to ensure that hospital EDs stand ready to care for children of all ages, from neonates to adolescents. These guidelines are consistent with the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine's report on the future of emergency care in the United States health system. Although resources within emergency and trauma care systems vary locally, regionally, and nationally, it is essential that hospital ED staff and administrators and EMS systems' administrators and medical directors seek to meet or exceed these guidelines in efforts to optimize the emergency care of children they serve. This statement has been endorsed by the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Physician Assistants, American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians, American College of Surgeons, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, Brain Injury Association of America, Child Health Corporation of America, Children's National Medical Center, Family Voices, National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, National Association of EMS Physicians, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, National Association of State EMS Officials, National Committee for Quality Assurance, National PTA, Safe Kids USA, Society of Trauma Nurses, The Joint Commission, American Pediatric Surgical Association, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Joint policy statement--guidelines for care of children in the emergency department

Children who require emergency care have unique needs, especially when emergencies are serious or life-threatening. The majority of ill and injured children are brought to community hospital emergency departments (EDs) by virtue of their geography within communities. Similarly, emergency medical services (EMS) agencies provide the bulk of out-of-hospital emergency care to children. It is imperative, therefore, that all hospital EDs have the appropriate resources (medications, equipment, policies, and education) and staff to provide effective emergency care for children. This statement outlines resources necessary to ensure that hospital EDs stand ready to care for children of all ages, from neonates to adolescents. These guidelines are consistent with the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine's report on the future of emergency care in the United States health system. Although resources within emergency and trauma care systems vary locally, regionally, and nationally, it is essential that hospital ED staff and administrators and EMS systems' administrators and medical directors seek to meet or exceed these guidelines in efforts to optimize the emergency care of children they serve. This statement has been endorsed by the Academic Pediatric Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Physician Assistants, American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians, American College of Surgeons, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, American Pediatric Surgical Association, Brain Injury Association of America, Child Health Corporation of America, Children's National Medical Center, Family Voices, National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, National Association of EMS Physicians, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, National Association of State EMS Officials, National Committee for Quality Assurance, National PTA, Safe Kids USA, Society of Trauma Nurses, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and The Joint Commission.

Is higher ASA class associated with an increased incidence of adverse events during procedural sedation in a pediatric emergency department?

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively investigate whether American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, as assigned by nonanesthesiologists, is associated with adverse events during procedural sedation in a pediatric emergency department.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database of children aged 0 to 21 years undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department of an urban, tertiary care, children's hospital was retrospectively reviewed. This database included clinical and demographic characteristics, including assigned ASA class. It also included information relative to the procedure, the sedation, and any complications related to the sedation. Complications were defined a priori as persistent oxygen desaturation to less than 93% on pulse oximetry requiring supplemental oxygen, bronchospasm, dizziness, apnea, seizure, hiccoughs, laryngospasm, stridor, arrhythmia, hypotension, rash, vomiting, aspiration, or a disinhibition/agitation/dysphoria emergence reaction. Main outcome measure was the incidence of complications relative to ASA class.

RESULTS

Procedural sedation was performed in the emergency department 1232 times during the study period; 30 sedations did not have either ASA class or occurrence of a complication recorded. Thus, 1202 sedations were included in the study. Nine hundred eighty-eight patients were classified as ASA class 1, whereas 214 were classified as ASA class 2 or greater. There were a total of 215 adverse events in the study population. Most of these were hypoxia (185 total) and were more likely to occur in patients with an ASA class 2 or greater (P = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events during procedural sedation are more common in patients with higher ASA class.