Tracking and Reporting Outcomes Of Procedural Sedation (TROOPS): Standardized Quality Improvement and Research Tools from the International Committee for the Advancement of Procedural Sedation

Integrated pulmonary index during procedural sedation and analgesia: A cluster-randomized trial

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing the integrated pulmonary index for capnography implementation during sedation administered by nurses.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomized trial.

METHODS

Participants were enrolled from the interventional radiology department at an academic hospital in Canada. Nurses were randomized to either enable or disable the Integrated Pulmonary Index feature of the capnography monitor. Procedures were observed by a research assistant to collect information about alarm performance characteristics. The primary outcome was the number of seconds in an alert condition state without an intervention being applied.

RESULTS

The number of seconds in an alarm state without intervention was higher in the group that enabled the integrated pulmonary index compared to the group that disabled this feature, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Likewise, the difference between groups for the total alarm duration, total number of alarms and the total number of appropriate alarms was not statistically significant. The number of inappropriate alarms was higher in the group that enabled the Integrated Pulmonary Index, but this estimate was highly imprecise. There was no difference in the odds of an adverse event (measured by the Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation tool) occurring between groups. Desaturation events were uncommon and brief in both groups but the area under the SpO2 90% desaturation curve scores were lower for the group that enabled the integrated pulmonary index.

CONCLUSION

Enabling the integrated pulmonary index during nurse-administered procedural sedation did not reduce nurses' response times to alarms. Therefore, integrating multiple physiological parameters related to respiratory assessment into a single index did not lower the threshold for intervention by nurses.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

The time it takes to respond to capnography monitor alarms will not be reduced if the integrated pulmonary Iindex feature of capnography monitors is enabled during nurse-administered procedural sedation.

IMPACT

Results do not support the routine enabling of the integrated pulmonary index when nurses use capnography to monitor patients during procedural sedation as a strategy to reduce the time it takes to initiate responses to alarms.

REPORTING METHOD

CONSORT.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

There was no patient or public contribution.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT05068700).

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.

Preprocedural Oxygenation and Procedural Oxygenation During Pediatric Procedural Sedation: Patterns of Use and Association With Interventions

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Preprocedural oxygenation (pre-emptive oxygenation started during presedation and/or induction) and procedural oxygenation (pre-emptive oxygenation started during any phase of sedation) are easy-to-use strategies with potential to decrease adverse events. Here, we describe practice patterns of preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation. We hypothesized that patients who received preprocedural oxygenation or procedural oxygenation would have a lower risk of airway/breathing/circulation interventions during sedation compared with patients without procedural oxygenation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study of pediatric sedations from April 2020 to July 2023 using the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium multicenter database. The patient-level and sedation-level characteristics were described using frequencies and proportions, stratified by preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation status. We determined the site-level frequency of preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation use. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to calculate the risk difference for interventions associated with preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation.

RESULTS

This study included a total of 85,599 pediatric sedations; 43,242 (50.5%) patients received preprocedural oxygenation (used oxygen before sedation and/or at induction) and a total of 52,219 (61.0%) received procedural oxygenation pre-emptively at any time during the sedation. There was no statistical difference in overall interventions with either preprocedural oxygenation (risk difference -0.06%; 95% confidence interval -4.26% to 4.14%) or procedural oxygenation (risk difference -1.07%; 95% confidence interval -6.44% to 4.30%).

CONCLUSION

Pre-emptive preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation were not associated with a difference in the use of airway/breathing/circulation interventions in pediatric sedations.

Remimazolam Pilot for Office-Based Dental Sedation: Adverse Events, Awareness and Outcomes

In recent years, remimazolam has gained approval for use in adult procedural sedation in both the United Kingdom and the United States, potentially offering an alternative to conventional sedatives like propofol and midazolam for procedural sedation. However, there is a limited body of literature that systematically reviews the outcomes of a remimazolam-alfentanil combination protocol for routine office-based dental procedures. The primary objective of this pilot study was to assess the occurrence of significant adverse events associated with the use of a remimazolam-alfentanil sedation protocol for adult dental procedures. Secondary outcomes included evaluating physiological responses, sedation effectiveness, patient and clinician satisfaction and the incidence of intraprocedural awareness. Notably, no significant adverse events were reported among the 25 adult subjects who received remimazolam and alfentanil, and all dental procedures were successfully completed. Patients and clinicians expressed high levels of satisfaction, and patients did not report any distressing memories associated with the dental procedure. These findings suggest that in a limited cohort, the remimazolam-alfentanil regimen appears to be well tolerated and effective for office-based dental procedures in adult patients, with a low risk of adverse events, acceptable hemodynamic effects, rapid onset and recovery and minimal intraoperative awareness. This study provides valuable insights into the potential use of the remimazolam-alfentanil combination in dental sedation practice.

Propofol-remifentanil patient-controlled sedation for endoscopic procedures: a prospective service audit

PURPOSE

Following demand, we established a patient-controlled propofol-remifentanil sedation service for endoscopy overseen by an anesthesiologist. To assess the effectiveness of the intervention of this service and any complications, we prospectively audited the service. Our primary outcomes of interest were adequacy of sedation and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included any adverse events associated with the sedation.

METHODS

Patients were referred for failure of procedure under endoscopist-administered sedation, refusal of procedure without general anesthesia (GA), or planned complex procedure. We included all 670 procedures performed between 2017 and 2021. We used a mixture of 8.9 mg·mL-1 propofol and 5.4 µg·mL-1 remifentanil with a 1-mL bolus and 20-sec lockout. We assessed the adequacy of sedation using the Modified Gloucester Scale and categorized adverse events according to the Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation.

RESULTS

All 670 procedures were accomplished with adequate sedation without the need for ventilation or GA, and all patients were satisfied with the sedation. The complication rate was low, with no sentinel airway or respiratory events. Nineteen out of 670 patients (2.8%) had an incidence of airway obstruction (requiring a simple airway maneuver). The body mass index (BMI) was documented in 18/19 of these patients and the average BMI in this group was 35 kg·m-2. Seven of the 670 patients (1%) had self-terminating apnea, 3/670 patients (0.4%) vomited, no patients aspirated, and 17/665 patients (2.6%) required a vasopressor to maintain blood pressure within 20% of preprocedure values.

CONCLUSION

The results from our prospective service audit indicate that propofol-remifentanil patient-controlled sedation is a safe and reliable technique in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Assessing the safety of deep sedation in outpatient pediatric oral health care

BACKGROUND

Children are the patient subgroup with the lowest error tolerance regarding deep sedation (DS)-supported care. This study assessed the safety of DS-supported pediatric dental treatment carried out in an outpatient setting through retrospective review of patient charts.

METHODS

An automated script was developed to identify charts of pediatric patients who underwent DS-supported dental procedures from 2017 through 2019 at a dental clinic. Charts were assessed for the presence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs). A panel of experts performed a second review and confirmed or refuted the designation of AE (by the first reviewer). AEs were classified with the Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation system.

RESULTS

Of the 175 DS cases, 19 AEs were identified in 15 cases (8.60%). Using the Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation classification system, 7 (36.84%) events were related to the airway and breathing category, 9 (47.37%) were related to sedation quality (including a dizzy patient who fell at the checkout desk and sustained a head laceration), and 3 (15.79%) were classified as an allergy.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests an AE (whether relatively minor or of potentially major consequence) occurs in 1 of every 12 DS cases involving pediatric patients, performed at an outpatient dental clinic. Larger studies are needed, in addition to root cause analyses.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

As dentists increasingly pivot in the use of DS services from in-hospital to outpatient settings, patients expect comparable levels of safety. This work helps generate evidence to drive targeted efforts to improve the safety and reliability of pediatric outpatient sedation.

Developing rights-based standards for children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions: using a collaborative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder approach to build consensus

Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020-2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.    Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child. What is Known: • Children continue to experience short and long-term harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. • Professionals report uncertainty and tensions in applying evidence-based practice to children's procedural care. What is New: • This is the first study of its kind which has developed international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. • The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.

Remimazolam for Pediatric Procedural Sedation: Results of an Institutional Pilot Program

Remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative, was first approved in 2020 in Japan as a general anesthetic for adults. However, its utilization in pediatric settings remains unexplored and, to date, is confined to isolated case reports due to a lack of specific pediatric labeling. The primary objective of our study was to evaluate the safety profile of remimazolam when used for procedural sedation in children following dosages established in adult protocols. Additional parameters, including dosage per kg of body weight, duration of the procedure, efficacy (measured as successful completion of the procedure), the necessity for supplemental medications, and changes in physiological parameters, such as the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), were assessed. Our study encompassed 48 children with an average age of 7.0 years. The objective Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation tool indicated no adverse events. In our cohort, propofol and ketamine were used as adjunctive treatments in 8 and 39 patients, respectively, with successful completion of all procedures. Notable hemodynamic variability was observed, with 88.4% of patients experiencing a ≥20% change (increase or decrease) and 62.8% experiencing a ≥30% change in MAP. Additionally, a ≥20% change in HR was observed in 54.3% of patients, and a ≥30% change was observed in 34.8% of patients. Nevertheless, none of the patients required pharmacological intervention to manage these hemodynamic fluctuations. Our findings suggest that remimazolam, when supplemented with propofol or ketamine, could offer a safe and effective pathway for administering procedural sedation in pediatric populations.

Safety and efficacy of target controlled infusion administration of propofol and remifentanil for moderate sedation in non-hospital dental practice

Background

Fearful and anxious patients who find dental treatment intolerable without sedative and analgesic support may benefit from moderate sedation. Target controlled infusion (TCI) pumps are superior to bolus injection in maintaining low plasma and effect-site concentration variability, resulting in stable, steady-state drug concentrations. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of moderate sedation with remifentanil and propofol using TCI pumps in non-hospital dental settings.

Methods

A prospective chart review was conducted on 101 patients sedated with propofol and remifentanil using TCI pumps. The charts were completed at two oral surgeons and one general dentist's office over 6 months. Hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and over-sedation were considered adverse events and were collected using Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation (TROOPS). Furthermore, patient recovery time, sedation length, drug dose, and patient satisfaction questionnaires were used to measure sedation effectiveness.

Results

Of the 101 reviewed sedation charts, 54 were of men, and 47 were of women. The mean age of the patients was 40.5 ±18.7 years, and their mean BMI was 25.6 ± 4.4. The patients did not experience hypoxia, bradycardia, and hypotension during the 4694 min of sedation. The average minimum Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) and heartbeats were 75.1 mmHg and 60.4 bpm, respectively. 98% of patients agreed that the sedation technique met their needs in reducing their anxiety, and 99% agreed that they were satisfied with the sedation 24 hours later. The average sedation time was 46.9 ± 55.6 min, and the average recovery time was 12.4 ± 4.4 min. Remifentanil and propofol had mean initial effect-site concentration doses of 0.96 µ/ml and 1.0 ng/ml respectively. The overall total amount of drug administered was significantly higher in longer sedation procedures compared to shorter ones, while the infusion rate decreased as the procedural stimulus decreased.

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, no patients experienced adverse events during sedation, and all patients were kept at a moderate sedation level for a wide range of sedation times and differing procedures. The results showed that TCI pumps are safe and effective for administering propofol and remifentanil for moderate sedation in dentistry.

The Emerging Role of Virtual Reality as an Adjunct to Procedural Sedation and Anesthesia: A Narrative Review

Over the past 20 years, there has been a significant reduction in the incidence of adverse events associated with sedation outside of the operating room. Non-pharmacologic techniques are increasingly being used as peri-operative adjuncts to facilitate and promote anxiolysis, analgesia and sedation, and to reduce adverse events. This narrative review will briefly explore the emerging role of immersive reality in the peri-procedural care of surgical patients. Immersive virtual reality (VR) is intended to distract patients with the illusion of "being present" inside the computer-generated world, drawing attention away from their anxiety, pain, and discomfort. VR has been described for a variety of procedures that include colonoscopies, venipuncture, dental procedures, and burn wound care. As VR technology develops and the production costs decrease, the role and application of VR in clinical practice will expand. It is important for medical professionals to understand that VR is now available for prime-time use and to be aware of the growing body in the literature that supports VR.

Needle-free pharmacological sedation techniques in paediatric patients for imaging procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedation techniques and drugs are increasingly used in children undergoing imaging procedures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an overview of literature concerning sedation of children aged 0-8 yr for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures using needle-free pharmacological techniques.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies on the use of needle-free pharmacological sedation techniques for MRI procedures in children aged 0-8 yr. Studies using i.v. or i.m. medication or advanced airway devices were excluded. We performed a meta-analysis on sedation success rate. Secondary outcomes were onset time, duration, recovery, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included, with 22 380 participants. The pooled success rate for oral chloral hydrate was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.96); for oral chloral hydrate and intranasal dexmedetomidine 95% (95% CI: 0.92-0.97); for rectal, oral, or intranasal midazolam 36% (95% CI: 0.14-0.65); for oral pentobarbital 99% (95% CI: 0.90-1.00); for rectal thiopental 92% (95% CI: 0.85-0.96); for oral melatonin 75% (95% CI: 0.54-0.89); for intranasal dexmedetomidine 62% (95% CI: 0.38-0.82); for intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam 94% (95% CI: 0.78-0.99); and for inhaled sevoflurane 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a large variation in medication, dosage, and route of administration for needle-free sedation. Success rates for sedation techniques varied between 36% and 98%.

The involvement and autonomy of young children undergoing elective paediatric cardiac surgery: a qualitative study

Background

Standards generally reported in the literature about informing children and respecting their consent or refusal before elective heart surgery may differ from actual practice. This research aims to summarize the main themes in the literature about paediatric anaesthesia and compare these with research findings on how health professionals counsel young children before elective heart surgery, respect their consent or refusal, and maintain patient-centred care.

Methods

This qualitative research involved: literature reviews about children’s consent to surgery and major interventions; observations of wards, clinics and medical meetings in two paediatric cardiology departments, October 2019 to February 2020; audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with 45 hospital staff, including 5 anaesthetists, and related experts, November 2019 to April 2021; interviews with 16 families, with children aged 6- to 15-years and their parents shortly after elective heart surgery, and some months later (reported in other papers); thematic data analysis; and research reports on how different professions contribute to children’s informed decisions for heart surgery.

Results

The medical, ethics and English legal literature tend to assume legal minors cannot refuse major recommended treatment, and cannot consent until they are 12 years or older. Little is said about informing pre-competent children. If children resist, some anaesthetists rely on sedation and distraction, and avoid much informed discussion, aiming to reduce peri-operative anxiety. However, interviewees reported informing young children, and respecting their consent or refusal before elective surgery. They may delay elective surgery and provide further information and support, aiming to reduce fear and promote trust. Six years of age was commonly cited as the threshold for respecting consent to heart transplantation.

Conclusion

Differing views about younger children’s competence, anxiety and best interests support different reactions to children’s consent and refusal before elective heart surgery. This paper reports the zero-restraint policy followed for over a decade in at least one leading surgery centre. The related law and literature need to be updated, to take more account of evidence of actual practice.

High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial

Background

To our knowledge, there are few trials studying the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during deep sedation. Our hypothesis is that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) will prevent hypoxemia and desaturation as compared to low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC) during prolonged deep sedation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA).

Methods

A single-centre, randomised controlled trial with HFNC as the intervention and LFNC as the control group. A total of 94 adult patients per group undergoing elective radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation under deep sedation. will be included. The primary outcome is the lowest oxygen saturation (SpO2). Secondary outcomes are as follows: the duration of lowest SpO2, cross over from oxygen therapy in both directions, incidence of SpO2 below 90% > 60 seconds, adverse sedation events, adverse effects of HFNC, mean CO2, peak CO2 and patients experience with oxygen therapy. The study will take place during the 2-day admission period for RFCA. Patients can fill out their questionnaires in the first week after treatment.

Discussion

HFNC is increasingly used as a technique for oxygen delivery in procedural sedation and analgesia. We hypothesise that HFNC is superior to the standard treatment LFNC in patients under deep sedation with respect to the incidence of desaturation. To our knowledge, there are no adequately powered clinical trial studies on the effects of HFNC in prolonged deep sedation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04842253. Registered on 04 April 2021

Integrated Pulmonary Index during nurse-administered procedural sedation: Study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial

AIM

To determine if smart alarm-guided treatment of respiratory depression using the Integrated Pulmonary Index is an effective way to implement capnography during nurse-administered sedation.

DESIGN

Parallel cluster-randomized trial.

METHODS

Nurses will be randomized to use capnography with or without the Integrated Pulmonary Index enabled. Capnography alarm performance will be compared between nurses using capnography alone or with the Integrated Pulmonary Index enabled. The target sample size is 400 adult patients scheduled for elective procedures with nurse-administered sedation. The primary outcome is the number of seconds in an alert condition state without an intervention being applied. Secondary outcomes are alarm burden, number of appropriate alarms, number of inappropriate alarms, total duration of alert conditions, choice of alarm settings and adverse sedation events. This study has been funded since April 2021.

DISCUSSION

Implementing capnography into practice for respiratory monitoring during nurse-administered sedation is considered a high priority. The Integrated Pulmonary Index shows promise as a strategy to optimize the implementation of capnography for respiratory monitoring during nurse-administered sedation. If it is found in this study that using the Integrated Pulmonary Index improves the nursing management of physiologically abnormal states during nurse-administered sedation, it would provide the high-level evidence needed to support broader use of this 'smart alarm' strategy for respiratory monitoring in practice.

IMPACT

With advances in medical technology continuing to expand the indications for minimally invasive surgical techniques, the use of nurse-administered sedation during medical procedures is likely to expand in the future. The findings may be applied to other populations receiving nurse-administered sedation during medical procedures. Results from this study will help translate the usage of smart alarm-guided treatment of respiratory depression during procedural sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05068700.

Can ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block be an alternative option for forearm reduction in the emergency department? A prospective randomized study

Objective

Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular nerve block (IB) has become a well-established method in several outpatient procedures; however, its use in emergency departments (EDs) remains limited. The aim of this study was to compare procedural sedation and anlagesia (PSA) and IB in the pain management for patients who underwent forearm fracture reduction in the ED.

Methods

This prospective randomized study included 60 patients aged 18 to 65 years, who visited the ED with forearm fractures. They were randomly divided into two groups: Group PSA (n=30) and Group IB (n=30). The pain scores of patients were evaluated before and during the procedure with the visual analog scale. Complications and patient and operator satisfaction levels were recorded.

Results

There was no difference between the two groups in terms of demographic characteristics. The median (interquartile range) pain scores observed during the procedures were significantly higher in Group PSA than in Group IB (4 [4–6] vs. 2 [0–2], respectively; P<0.001). Patient and operator satisfaction levels were significantly higher in Group IB (P<0.001). Oxygen desaturation was statistically higher in Group PSA than in Group IB (40.00% vs. 3.33%, respectively; P=0.002).

Conclusion

IB was an effective alternative for reducing pain and increasing patient satisfaction in ED patients undergoing forearm fracture reduction.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine association allows shorter induction time for pediatric sedation compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam

BACKGROUND

Non-painful diagnostic procedures require an inactive state for a prolonged time, so that sedation is often needed in younger children to perform the procedures. Our standard of care in this setting consists of the association between oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 mcg/kg). One of the limits of this approach is that the onset of action is quite delayed (up to 55 min) and poorly predictable. We chose to compare this association with intranasal-ketamine and intranasal-dexmedetomidine.

METHODS

This is a "pre-post" study. The study population included the first forty children receiving sedation with the "new" combination intranasal ketamine (3 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 mcg/kg) compared to a historical cohort including the last forty children receiving sedation with our standard of care combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine (4mcg/kg) and oral midazolam (0,5 mg/kg).

RESULTS

The association intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine allowed for a significantly shorter sedation induction time than the combination intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam (13,5 min versus 35 min). Both group's cumulative data showed a correlation between age and sedation effectiveness, with younger children presenting a higher success rate and shorter induction time (p 0,001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the ketamine and dexmedetomidine intranasal association may have a shorter onset of action when compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam.

Patient-maintained versus anaesthetist-controlled propofol sedation during elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty performed under spinal anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-maintained propofol TCI sedation (PMPS) allows patients to titrate their own target-controlled infusion (TCI) delivery of propofol sedation using a handheld button. The aim of this RCT was to compare PMPS with anaesthetist-controlled propofol TCI sedation (ACPS) in patients undergoing elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

METHODS

In this single-centre open-label investigator-led study, adult patients were randomly assigned to either PMPS or ACPS during their surgery. Both sedation regimes used Schnider effect-site TCI modelling. The primary outcome measure was infusion rate adjusted for weight (expressed as mg kg-1 h-1). Secondary outcomes measures included depth of sedation, occurrence of sedation-related adverse events and time to medical readiness for discharge from the postanaesthsia care unit (PACU).

RESULTS

Eighty patients (48 female) were randomised. Subjects using PMPS used 39.3% less propofol during the sedation period compared with subjects in group ACPS (1.56 [0.57] vs 2.57 [1.33] mg kg-1 h-1; P<0.001), experienced fewer discrete episodes of deep sedation (0 vs 6; P=0.0256), fewer airway/breathing adverse events (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.94 [1.31-6.64]; P=0.009) and were ready for discharge from PACU more quickly (8.94 [5.5] vs 13.51 [7.2] min; P=0.0027).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-maintained propofol sedation during lower-limb arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia results in reduced drug exposure and fewer episodes of sedation-related adverse events compared with anaesthetist-controlled propofol TCI sedation. To facilitate further investigation of this procedural sedation technique, PMPS-capable TCI infusion devices should be submitted for regulatory approval for clinical use.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN29129799.

High flow nasal oxygen, procedural sedation, and clinical governance

Procedural sedation for therapeutic and diagnostic procedures can now be achieved through deep sedation techniques that guarantee procedural success. Deep sedation techniques are delivered in a variety of non-theatre environments where the usual levels of anaesthetic equipment are not practical or economical. Hypoxic events are particularly frequent, and challenge sedation providers. Traditional low flow nasal or facial oxygen therapy techniques are often insufficient to maintain acceptable oxygen levels and prevent peri-procedural hypoxia. High flow nasal oxygen delivers warm humidified oxygen up to 70l/min, at oxygen concentrations between 21 - 100%, and reduces the incidence of hypoxic events. The provision of deep sedation is a complex process, fraught with risk, which can challenge even the skilled anaesthetist. Therefore, regulatory authorities previously stipulated that anaesthesia personnel be present during deep sedation. Changing attitudes by regulatory authorities and practical challenges providing anaesthesia specialists have led to the acknowledgement that appropriately trained non-anaesthetic staff can safely provide deep sedation. Deep sedation services are increasingly applied to subjects with complex comorbidities, sometimes excluded for safety reasons from surgery under general anaesthesia. The development of deep sedation services, delivered by non-anaesthesia personnel, to patients with complex co-morbidities requires that services implement appropriate clinical governance tools to prevent deep sedation being the wild west of anaesthesia services. Therefore, whilst high flow nasal oxygen may reduce the incidence of peri-procedural hypoxia, the introduction of clinical governance tools and the systematic introduction of initiatives to improve quality, will maintain the safety of deep sedation services.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on alfentanil consumption during procedural sedation for colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used during colonoscopy to facilitate the procedure and relieve patient’s discomfort. The foremost risk of PSA is respiratory depression. Lidocaine could be a promising additional analgesic in IBD patients to minimise side effects of PSA. Objective: Our primary objective was to investigate whether i.v. lidocaine reduces the amount of alfentanil used during PSA in IBD patients. Additionally, we investigated whether lidocaine reduces cardiorespiratory incidents and the amount of propofol required during the procedure. Design: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. Setting: Single-center study from November 2016 to December 2018. Methods: Seventy-six patients with IBD, ASA 1 or 2, between 18 and 65 years, scheduled for colonoscopy with PSA were included. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy, emergency colonoscopy, allergies for study medication, rhythm disorders, cardiomyopathy, BMI < 18 kg m -2 , BMI > 35 kg m -2 , obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and uncontrolled hypertension. Patients received lidocaine 1.5 mg kg -1 followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg kg -1 h -1 (intervention group, n=38) or 0.9% saline in equivalent volumes (control group, n=38) during colonoscopy. Main outcome measures: Amount of alfentanil and propofol used during the interventional procedure. Cardiorespiratory events as defined in methods during the colonoscopy. Results: There was a not statistically significant reduction in the use of alfentanil [327 µg (95%CI=-31-505, p=0.082)] and propofol [39 mg (95%CI=-5-83, p=0.083)] in the lidocaine group compared with the control group. Ten patients (26%) in the control group and 8 patients in the lidocaine group (21%) experienced a period of hypoxia (p=0.788). In both groups, no periods of hypotension were noted. Conclusion: Our investigation has shown a trend for reduced alfentanil and propofol consumption in patients receiving lidocaine during colonoscopy under sedation. The differences were not statistically significant. Lidocaine did not reduce the incidence of cardiorespiratory events.

Rapid Agitation Control With Ketamine in the Emergency Department: A Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that the use of intramuscular ketamine would result in a clinically relevant shorter time to target sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing the rapidity of onset, level of sedation, and adverse effect profile of ketamine compared to a combination of midazolam and haloperidol for behavioral control of emergency department patients with severe psychomotor agitation. We included patients with severe psychomotor agitation measured by a Richmond Agitation Score (RASS) ≥+3. Patients in the ketamine group were treated with a 5 mg/kg intramuscular injection. Patients in the midazolam and haloperidol group were treated with a single intramuscular injection of 5 mg midazolam and 5 mg haloperidol. The primary outcome was the time, in minutes, from study medication administration to adequate sedation, defined as RASS ≤-1. Secondary outcomes included the need for rescue medications and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Between June 30, 2018, and March 13, 2020, we screened 308 patients and enrolled 80. The median time to sedation was 14.7 minutes for midazolam and haloperidol versus 5.8 minutes for ketamine (difference 8.8 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 14.5]). Adjusted Cox proportional model analysis favored the ketamine arm (hazard ratio 2.43, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.12). Five (12.5%) patients in the ketamine arm and 2 (5.0%) patients in the midazolam and haloperidol arm experienced serious adverse events (difference 7.5% [95% CI -4.8% to 19.8%]).

CONCLUSION

In ED patients with severe agitation, intramuscular ketamine provided significantly shorter time to adequate sedation than a combination of intramuscular midazolam and haloperidol.

High flow nasal oxygen during procedural sedation for cardiac implantable electronic device procedures: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

High flow nasal oxygen may better support the vulnerable respiratory state of patients during procedural sedation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of high flow nasal oxygen in comparison to facemask oxygen on ventilation during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures performed with procedural sedation.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

The study was conducted at one academic hospital in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults undergoing elective cardiac implantable electronic device procedures with sedation administered by an anaesthesia assistant, supervised by an anaesthesiologist from August 2019 to March 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to facemask (≥ 8 l · min-1) or high flow nasal oxygen (50 l · min-1 and a 50 : 50 oxygen to air ratio).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was peak transcutaneous carbon dioxide. Outcomes were analysed using Bayesian statistics.

RESULTS

The 129 participants who were randomised and received sedation were included. The difference in peak transcutaneous carbon dioxide was 0.0 kPa (95% CI -0.17 to 0.18). Minor adverse sedation events were 6.4 times more likely to occur in the high flow nasal oxygen group. This estimate is imprecise (95% CI 1.34 to 42.99). The odds ratio for oxygen desaturation for the high flow nasal oxygen group compared with the facemask group was 1.2 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.75). The difference in satisfaction with sedation scores between groups was 0.0 (95% CI -0.33 to 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Ventilation, as measured by TcCO2, is highly unlikely to differ by a clinically important amount between high flow nasal oxygen at 50 l min-1 or facemask oxygen at 8 l min-1. Further research with a larger sample size would be required to determine the optimal oxygen:air ratio when using high flow nasal oxygen during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures performed with sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03858257.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Compared to a Combination of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine with Ketamine for Sedation of Children Requiring Dental Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Outpatient pediatric sedation is challenging. This study aimed to test intranasal dexmedetomidine efficacy as a single drug or combined with ketamine (DK) to sedate children undergoing dental treatment. Children < 7 years were randomized into dexmedetomidine 2 mcg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg (DK) or dexmedetomidine 2.5 mcg/kg (D) groups. Videos from the dental sedation allowed the systematic assessment of children's behavior (primary outcome) according to the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS). Secondary outcomes were parental and dentist satisfaction, adverse events, and recovery time. The data were analyzed descriptively and through regression models. Participants were 88 children (44 per group; 50 boys). The duration of quiet behavior (OSUBRS) was higher than 50% (DK mean 58.4 [standard deviation 38.1]; D 55.2 [39.1]; p = 0.225). Parents (DK 78.0 [32.2]; D 72.7 [35.1]; p = 0.203) and dentists (KD 62.7 [41.0]; D 62.8 [40.1]; p = 0.339) were overall satisfied. Adverse events occurred in 16 cases (DK n = 10, 62.5%; D n= 6, 37.5%; p = 0.104) and were minor. The median recovery time in the DK group was 1.3 times greater than in group D (p < 0.05). Intranasal sedation with dexmedetomidine alone is equally efficacious and satisfactory for pediatric sedation with fewer adverse events and faster recovery than the DK combination.

Sedation versus protective stabilization for dental treatment of children with caries and challenging behavior at the dentist (CHOOSE): a study protocol for a non-randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of moderate sedation in pediatric dentistry, compared to protective stabilization, which remains routinely used in Brazil despite moral questions. This prospective non-randomized clinical trial's objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of moderate sedation, compared to the protective stabilization, in the dental care of children with dental behavior management problems.

METHODS

Participants will be 152 children under seven years of age with early childhood caries (ECC) who need specialized dental treatment due to a history of challenging behavior during dental care. The interventions to be compared are moderate sedation with oral administration of ketamine and midazolam and protective stabilization. The primary endpoint will be the child's behavior during treatment assessed using the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS). The secondary outcomes are (A) child's - behavior according to the visual analogue scale, anxiety, pain, and physiological stress; (B) parent's - satisfaction and anxiety; (C) family and child - impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL); (D) dentist's - satisfaction and stress; (E) procedure - adverse events of the intervention and dental treatment longevity. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).

DISCUSSION

Considering the primary outcome, this study hypothesis is that sedated children have better behavior during dental treatment than children whose behavior was managed by protective stabilization without sedation. Additionally, at the end of 12 months, we expect to identify participants' reported outcomes and objective measures related to dental behavior in early childhood. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT04119180 on October 8th, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04119180.

Procedural sedation in Belgium : guideline for safe patient care

Guideline produced by the Society for Anesthesia and Resuscitation of Belgium Working Group on Procedural Sedation (SARB-WG-PS).

Regulatory Challenges to Emergency Medicine Procedural Sedation

As currently written, national regulatory guidance on procedural sedation has elements that are contradictory, confusing, and out of date. As a result, hospital procedural sedation policies are often widely inconsistent between institutions despite similar settings and resources, putting emergency department (ED) patients at risk by denying them uniform access to safe, effective, and appropriate procedural sedation care. Many hospitals have chosen to take overly conservative stances with respect to regulatory compliance to minimize their perceived risk. Herein, we review and critique standards and policies from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, The Joint Commission, state nursing boards, the Food and Drug Administration, and others with respect to their effect on ED procedural sedation. Where appropriate, we recommend modifications of and enhancements to their guidance that would improve the access of ED patients to modern, safe, and effective procedural sedation care.

Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Image Quality in Motion Disorder Patients Scheduled for Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery

BACKGROUND

To obtain magnetic resonance (MR) images of good quality for accurate target localization in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery, sedation or anesthesia may be used, although their usefulness has not been proven.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether sedation or general anesthesia (GA) improve the quality of MR imaging (MRI).

METHODS

The records of DBS procedures for Parkinson's disease (PD), dystonia, and essential tremor in our tertiary neurosurgical unit between January 2011 and June 2016 were reviewed. Adult patients with preoperative MR images were included. Patient records concerning MRI, surgery, adverse events, and clinical outcome were retrospectively scrutinized and analyzed. MR image quality was assessed by two independent radiologists.

RESULTS

A total of 215 preoperative MR images for 177 DBS procedures were analyzed. The MRI sequences performed under GA were superior to those performed without anesthesia or under sedation (p < 0.01). Virtually all images captured under GA were of good quality, while the proportions among those captured with sedation or without anesthesia were <65%. Good image quality was not associated with better clinical outcome (>50% improvement in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale III score) among patients with PD.

CONCLUSION

GA was associated with better MRI sequences than intravenous sedation or no anesthesia.

Patient-maintained propofol sedation for adult patients undergoing surgical or medical procedures: a scoping review of current evidence and technology

Patient-maintained propofol sedation (PMPS) is the delivery of procedural propofol sedation by target-controlled infusion with the patient exerting an element of control over their target-site propofol concentration. This scoping review aims to establish the extent and nature of current knowledge regarding PMPS from both a clinical and technological perspective, thereby identifying knowledge gaps to guide future research. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and OpenGrey databases, identifying 17 clinical studies for analysis. PMPS is described in the context of healthy volunteers and in orthopaedic, general surgical, dental, and endoscopic clinical settings. All studies used modifications to existing commercially-available infusion devices to achieve prototype systems capable of PMPS. The current literature precludes rigorous generalisable conclusions regarding the safety or comparative clinical effectiveness of PMPS, however cautious acknowledgement of efficacy in specific clinical settings is appropriate. Based on the existing literature, together with new standardised outcome reporting recommendations for sedation research and frameworks designed to assess novel health technologies research, we have made recommendations for future pharmacological, clinical, behavioural, and health economic research on PMPS. We conclude that high-quality experimental clinical trials with relevant comparator groups assessing the impact of PMPS on standardised patient-orientated outcome measures are urgently required.

The development of a Consensus Conference on Pediatric Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department in Italy: from here where to?

BACKGROUND

In Italy, as in many European countries, Pediatric Emergency Medicine is not formally recognized as a pediatric subspecialty, hindering nation-wide adoption of standards of care, especially in the field of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the Emergency Department (ED). For this reason PSA in Italy is mostly neglected or performed very heterogeneously and by different providers, with no reference standard. We aimed to describe the procedures and results of the first multidisciplinary and multi-professional Consensus Conference in Italy on safe and effective pediatric PSA in Italian EDs.

METHODS

The preparation, organization and conduct of the Consensus Conference, held in Florence in 2017, followed the recommended National methodological standards. Professionals from different specialties across the country were invited to participate.

RESULTS

Overall 86 recommendations covering 8 themes (pre-sedation evaluation, pharmacologic agents, monitoring, equipment and discharge checklists, training, non-pharmacologic techniques, the adult ED setting, impact on hospitalizations) were developed, taking into account the Italian training system and healthcare organization characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The results of the first multidisciplinary and multi-professional Consensus Conference in Italy are meant to provide up-to-date national guidance to improve the standard of care of children undergoing painful and stressful procedures in the ED. The recommendations will be periodically updated as new relevant evidence is published.

Guidelines for the safe use of procedural sedation and analgesia for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in adults: 2020–2025

Writing guidelines on procedural sedation and analgesia is a formidable and challenging task. There are many disciplines and societies at international level now involved in writing guidelines and we need to be aware of what they see as important in their guidelines. We always need to identify new trends in sedation; for that we need to be involved at international level. Our aim with these guidelines is to provide a guidance for safe sedation practice for all healthcare providers who are involved in sedation practice. In this issue we have added adverse events and record-keeping, accreditation and the importance of simulation training to our recommendations under clinical governance. We would like our sedation practitioners to keep records and report adverse events to our societies, e.g. SOSPOSA, so that we all can benefit from the information we get. It is also crucial that sedation practitioners keep their logbooks and update them regularly – “if it is not written down, it never happened”. All aspects of accreditation remain an important issue and we need to address this urgently. This forms an important part of safe sedation practice, also done at international level, and we need to follow this. The facilities where we work, especially outside the operating theatre, must meet the requirements for safe practice. It is our responsibility to see that this is the case. In the appendices there is a practice appraisal protocol that should be filled in by sedation practitioners doing sedation outside the operating theatre. We do not cover sedation techniques in the guidelines. We believe sedation practitioners must learn the techniques with supervised clinical training. Capnography for sedation outside the operating theatre will become a focus point in future. We are only supposed to be doing ASA I and II patients outside the operating theatre so there may be a feeling we do not need capnography. There is pressure to include capnography under monitoring as a minimum monitoring standard, like pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring. Our appendices have been revised with more information on what patients need to know about sedation e.g. an example of a cover letter to the patient. This will include information to the patient, as well as information from the patient. Sedation is today one of the fastest growing areas in anaesthesia care. Our research studies show a low incidence of side-effects, and a high incidence of patient satisfaction. To all our readers we wish you a safe sedation journey.

Indications, contraindications, and safety aspects of procedural sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is a steadily increasing demand for procedural sedation outside the operating room, frequently performed in comorbid high-risk adult patients. This review evaluates the feasibility and advantages of sedation vs. general anesthesia for some of these new procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Generally, sedation performed by experienced staff is safe. Although for some endoscopic or transcatheter interventions sedation is feasible, results of the intervention might be improved when performed under general anesthesia. For elected procedures like intra-arterial treatment after acute ischemic stroke, avoiding general anesthesia and sedation at all might be the optimal treatment.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiologists are facing continuously new indications for procedural sedation in sometimes sophisticated diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Timely availability of anesthesia staff will mainly influence who is performing sedation, anesthesia or nonanesthesia personal. While the number of absolute contraindications for sedation decreased to almost zero, relative contraindications are becoming more relevant and should be tailored to the individual procedure and patient.

Unscheduled Procedural Sedation: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Practice Guideline

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) organized a multidisciplinary effort to create a clinical practice guideline specific to unscheduled, time-sensitive procedural sedation, which differs in important ways from scheduled, elective procedural sedation. The purpose of this guideline is to serve as a resource for practitioners who perform unscheduled procedural sedation regardless of location or patient age. This document outlines the underlying background and rationale, and issues relating to staffing, practice, and quality improvement.

Incidence and risk factors for adverse events during monitored anaesthesia care for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Better understanding of risk factors for adverse events during monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy may improve outcome in children.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence and predictors of adverse events during MAC for paediatric endoscopy.

DESIGN

An observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary university hospital, single-centre cohort, from January 2010 to August 2016.

PATIENTS

The prospectively collected electronic anaesthetic records of 3435 children aged up to 16 years who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy under MAC were analysed retrospectively. Children with an American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status at least 4, and those requiring mechanical ventilation and therapeutic or urgent endoscopy were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prevalence and predictors of adverse events during MAC for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy, with particular reference to the use of different anaesthetic or sedative agents.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD age of the children was 8.5 ± 4.4 years. The incidences of adverse events and adverse respiratory events were 3.4 and 3.3%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified 12 independent predictors: age [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, P = 0.002], children's size for example underweight (OR 1.78, P = 0.039), overweight (OR 2.20, P = 0.039), (morbid) obesity (OR 4.25, P = 0.006), presence of respiratory comorbidities (OR 8.18, P < 0.001), recent respiratory infection (OR 23.55, P < 0.001) or both (OR 17.46, P < 0.001), neurological comorbidities (OR 2.18, P = 0.007), upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (OR 5.66, P < 0.001), propofol co-administration with ketamine (OR 10.34, P < 0. 001) or after sevoflurane induction (OR 44.95, P < 0.001), and propofol induction dose (OR 18.97, P < 0.001). Posthoc secondary analyses revealed a significantly higher risk of adverse events (OR 3.9, P < 0.0001) and also significantly more respiratory comorbidities and respiratory infections (P < 0.0001) in children aged less than 2 years when compared with children aged at least 2 years. No cardiovascular events were observed and outcome was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

The present cohort demonstrated the feasibility and safety of MAC for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy by an experienced team. Although adverse events occurred rarely, their predictive factors were clinically identifiable. Applying this information in risk assessment and modifying anaesthetic management accordingly could improve outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN70362666.

Safe pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia by anesthesiologists for elective procedures: A clinical practice statement from the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology

The growing number of medical procedures performed in children that require cooperation of patients, lack of movement, anxiolysis or/and analgesia triggers the increased need for procedural sedation. This document presents the consensus statement of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology about the principles connected with the safe management of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) by anaesthesiologists for elective procedures in children. It does not aim to provide a legal statement on how and by whom PSA should be performed. The document highlights that any staff taking part in sedation of children must be appropriately trained with the required competencies and must be able to demonstrate regularly that they have maintained their knowledge, skills and clinical experience. The main goal of creating this document was to reflect the opinions of the community of the paediatric anaesthesiologists in Europe regarding how PSA for paediatric patients should be organized to make it safe.

Future of paediatric sedation: towards a unified goal of improving practice

This review offers a perspective on the future of paediatric sedation. This future will require continued evaluation of adverse events, their risk factors, and predictors. As the introduction of new sedatives with paediatric applications will remain limited, the potential role of mainstay sedatives administered by new routes, for new indications, and with new delivery techniques, should be considered. The role of non-pharmacological strategies for anxiolysis, along with the application of non-mainstay physiologic monitoring, may aid in the improvement of targeted sedation delivery. Understanding the mechanism and location of action of the different sedatives will remain an important focus. Important developments in paediatric sedation will require that large scale studies with global data contribution be conducted in order to support changes in sedation practice, improve the patient experience, and make sedation safer.

Incidence of severe critical events in paediatric anaesthesia in the United Kingdom: secondary analysis of the anaesthesia practice in children observational trial (APRICOT study)

The anaesthesia practice in children observational trial of 31,127 patients in 261 European hospitals revealed a high (5.2%) incidence of severe critical events in the peri-operative period and wide variability in practice. A sub-analysis of the UK data was undertaken to investigate differences compared with the non-UK cohort in the incidence and nature of peri-operative severe critical events and to attempt to identify areas for quality improvement. In the UK cohort of 7040 paediatric patients from 43 hospitals, the overall incidence of peri-operative severe critical events was lower than in the non-UK cohort (3.3%, 95%CI: 2.9-3.8 vs. 5.8%, 95%CI: 5.5-6.1, RR 0.57, p < 0.001). There was a lower rate of bronchospasm (RR 0.22, 95%CI: 0.14-0.33; p < 0.001), stridor (RR 0.42, 95%CI: 0.28-0.65; p < 0.001) and cardiovascular instability (RR 0.69, 95%CI: 0.55-0.86; p = 0.001) than in the non-UK cohort. The proportion of sicker patients where less experienced teams were managing care was lower in the UK than in the non-UK cohort (10.4% vs. 20.4% of the ASA physical status 3 and 9% vs. 12.9% of the ASA physical status 4 patients). Differences in work-load between centres did not affect the incidence and outcomes of severe critical events when stratified for age and ASA physical status. The lower incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory complications could be partly attributed to more experienced dedicated paediatric anaesthesia providers managing the higher risk patients in the UK. Areas for quality improvement include: standardisation of serious critical event definitions; increased reporting; development of evidence-based protocols for management of serious critical events; development and rational use of paediatric peri-operative risk assessment scores; implementation of current best practice in provision of competent paediatric anaesthesia services in Europe; development of specific training in the management of severe peri-operative critical events; and implementation of systems for ensuring maintenance of skills.

Procedural sedation of elderly patients by emergency physicians: a safety analysis of 740 patients

BACKGROUND

The elderly are perceived as a high-risk group for procedural sedation. Concern exists regarding the safety of sedation of this patient group by emergency physicians, particularly when using propofol.

METHODS

We analysed prospectively collected data on patients aged 75 yr or older undergoing sedation between October 2006 and March 2017 in the emergency department of a single centre. We used the World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia International Sedation Task Force adverse event tool, stratifying identified adverse events according to consensus agreement.

RESULTS

Of 740 consecutive patients (median age 84 yr), 571 patients received propofol, 142 morphine and midazolam, and 27 other agents. We identified 19 sentinel events: 2 cases of hypoxia, 10 of apnoea (without hypoxaemia), 5 of hypotension, and 2 of both hypoxaemia and hypotension. We also identified 30 moderate, 41 minor, and 7 minimal risk adverse events. There were no adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed safe sedation practice in this high-risk group of patients in this department. A sentinel adverse event rate of 2.6% including a hypoxaemia rate of 0.5%, with no adverse outcomes sets a benchmark for elderly sedation. We recommend quality pre-oxygenation, an initial propofol bolus of no more than 0.5 mg kg^-1, and a robust training and governance framework.

Association of Preprocedural Fasting With Outcomes of Emergency Department Sedation in Children

IMPORTANCE

It is not clear whether adherence to preprocedural fasting guidelines prevent pulmonary aspiration and associated adverse outcomes during emergency department (ED) sedation of children.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between preprocedural fasting duration and the incidence of sedation-related adverse outcomes in a large sample of children.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study of children aged 0 to 18 years who received procedural sedation for a painful procedure in 6 Canadian pediatric EDs from July 2010 to February 2015. The primary risk factor was preprocedural fasting duration. Secondary risk factors were age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, preprocedural and sedation medications, and procedure type.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Four outcomes were examined: (1) pulmonary aspiration, (2) the occurrence of any adverse event, (3) serious adverse events, and (4) vomiting.

RESULTS

A total of 6183 children with a median age of 8.0 years (interquartile range, 4.0-12.0 years), of whom 6166 (99.7%) had healthy or mild systemic disease (American Society of Anesthesiologists levels I or II), were included in the analysis. Of these, 2974 (48.1%) and 310 (5.0%) children did not meet American Society of Anesthesiologists fasting guidelines for solids and liquids, respectively. There were no cases of pulmonary aspiration. There were 717 adverse events (11.6%; 95% CI, 10.8%-12.4%), of which 68 (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.3%) were serious adverse events and 315 (5.1%; 95% CI, 4.6%-5.7%) were vomiting. The odds ratio (OR) of occurrence of any adverse event, serious adverse events, and vomiting did not change significantly with each additional hour of fasting duration for both solids (any adverse event: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.02; serious adverse events, OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.07; vomiting: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) and liquids (any adverse event: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; serious adverse events: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.95-1.07; vomiting: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, there was no association between fasting duration and any type of adverse event. These findings do not support delaying sedation to meet established fasting guidelines.