Sedation and analgesia in the pediatric patient

Outcomes of Non-anesthesiologist-Administered Propofol in Pediatric Gastroenterology Procedures

Background and Aims: Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) has been found to have an acceptable safety profile in adult endoscopy, but its use remains controversial and pediatric data is limited. Our aim was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists in pediatric endoscopy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 929 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and combined EGD/colonoscopy cases in children aged 5-20 years between April 2015 and December 2016 at a large children's hospital. We analyzed the data for adverse events in relation to demographics and anthropometrics, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification score, presence of a trainee, comorbid conditions, and procedure time. Results: A total of 929 cases were included of which 496 (53%) were completed with NAAP. Seventeen (3.4%) of NAAP cases had an adverse event including the following: 12 cases of hypoxia, 2 cardiac, and 3 gastrointestinal adverse events. General anesthesia cases had 62 (14.3%) adverse events including the following: 54 cases of hypoxia, 1 cardiac, 7 gastrointestinal, and 1 urologic adverse event. No adverse events in either group required major resuscitation. NAAP vs. general anesthesia had a lower overall adverse event rate (3.4 vs. 14.3%, p < 0.0004) and respiratory adverse event rate (2.4% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.0004). Overall, cardiac and gastrointestinal adverse event rates between the two groups were comparable. When accounting for all captured factors via logistic regression, both younger age (P < 0.001) and general anesthesia (P < 0.0001) remained risk factors for an adverse event. Conclusion: The overall adverse event rate of NAAP was low (3.4%) with none requiring major resuscitation or hospitalization. This is comparable to studies of NAAP in adult endoscopy and suggests that NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists has an acceptable safety profile.

A survey of procedural sedation for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in India

BACKGROUND

Sedation practices for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (PGEP) vary based on infrastructure, availability of trained personnel, and local protocols. Data on prevalent sedation practices is lacking from India. This study aimed to survey the sedation practices for PGEP in India.

METHODS

A mailing list was constituted with the e-mail addresses of the members of the Indian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Indian Academy of Pediatrics, Association of Surgeons of India, Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons, and Indian Society of Gastroenterology. The web-based survey was sent by e-mail.

RESULTS

Of the 498 recipients, who responded through the survey link, 91 did not complete the survey. Among those who completed the survey, 91 performed PGEP. Among these 91, 12.1 % performed PGEP without sedation or general anesthesia. Anesthetist involvement was associated with use of propofol based-sedation. Of the respondents, 70.3 % found non-anesthetist administered propofol sedation unacceptable while 38.5 % of the centers had a policy against it. Two-thirds of the respondents were assisted by an anesthetist for most PGEP. An operating room (OR) was used for PGEPs by 23.1 %. PGEP in a non-teaching hospital, non-availability of pediatrician in the endoscopy room, use of an OR for PGEP, and the easy availability of an anesthetist were strongly associated with the involvement of an anesthetist.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey indicates a high frequency of involvement of anesthetists and use of OR. This survey should serve as an impetus to evaluate the cost of PGEP in India and the training accorded to non-anesthetists for procedural sedation.

The provision of paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy services in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

There are no specific data available regarding paediatric endoscopy provision in the UK and anecdotal experiences suggest that such provision varies widely between the units. The aim of our study was to identify the current provision of paediatric endoscopy services in the UK, the number of endoscopies performed in each unit, the number of operators performing these endoscopies and whether endoscopies were performed under sedation or general anaesthesia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An email questionnaire was sent to all 31 units in the UK performing paediatric endoscopies and responses were received from 25 centres (81%). The median number of total endoscopies (upper and lower) per unit each year was 332 (range 64-2040). The median number of gastrosopy per consultant in each centre was 101 (range 20-288) and median number of colonoscopies performed per consultant per year was 49 (range 10-215). 18 of the 25 centres performed all endoscopies under general anaesthesia with 7 centres using sedation as well as general anaesthesia. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion (PEG) was performed in 24 out of 25 centres with the service undertaken by paediatric surgeons in 11 centres. 11 centres provided formal out of hours endoscopy services.

CONCLUSION

There is wide variation in paediatric endoscopy provision and the British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) endoscopy working group is collaborating with the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) to provide specific standards for paediatric endoscopy services in the UK.

Gastric contents in pediatric patients following bone marrow transplantation

BACKGROUND

Graft versus host disease (GVHD) of the gut is thought to delay gastric emptying and so may increase the risk of aspirating retained contents while under anesthesia. Knowing that gastric emptying is delayed in patients with GVHD might lead one to choose to intubate the trachea for all patients with suspected GVHD, who present for diagnostic esophagogastricduodenoscopy (EGD). We are not aware of published data that gives specific guidance as to the need for intubation in the pediatric bone marrow or stem cell transplantation (BMT) population. This review was intended to evaluate the gastric contents (pH and volume) in this group of patients, to provide anesthesiologists with data that would inform their decisions about airway management for these patients.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients <or=19 years of age undergoing EGD between 2004 and 2006. Gastric content volume and pH were measured in addition to underlying disease state and treatment. We compared BMT patients with suspected GVHD to nontransplant patients with other underlying gastrointestinal conditions.

RESULTS

Data were obtained for 77 patients post-BMT undergoing EGD, including 40 patients whose biopsies and endoscopic findings were positive for GVHD, and 37 patients with no demonstrable GVHD. Records of 144 non-BMT patients undergoing EGD within the same study period were also reviewed.

CONCLUSION

Patients in the BMT group overall did not have higher volumes when compared to non-BMT patients. A secondary comparison of BMT patients who were found to have GVHD vs BMT patients without GVHD suggests that gastric content volume may be elevated with GVHD. Patients in the BMT group had statistically significantly higher gastric pH than patients in the non-BMT group. It is possible that the higher gastric volume in the GVHD-positive group could put them at slightly higher risk for aspiration, but the severity of any pneumonitis, should aspiration occur, might be mitigated, by the tendency toward a higher gastric pH in the BMT patients.

Safety of propofol sedation for pediatric outpatient procedures

Propofol sedation is used more frequently in pediatric procedures because of its ability to provide varying sedation levels. The authors evaluated all outpatient pediatric procedures using propofol sedation over a 6-year period. All sedation was provided by pediatric intensivists at a single institution. In all, 4716 procedures were recorded during the study period; 15% of procedures were associated with minor complications, whereas only 0.1% of procedures were associated with major complications. Significantly more major complications associated with propofol occurred during bronchoscopy (P = .001). Propofol administered by a pediatric intensivist is a safe sedation technique in the pediatric outpatient setting.

Methods of sedation in pediatric endoscopy: a survey of NASPGHAN members

The performance of endoscopy in children generally requires the concomitant administration of sedation to ensure the patient's safety, comfort, and cooperation throughout the procedures. New pharmacological agents, increased procedural volume, variable access to anesthesia support, and improvement in endoscopic technique have contributed to vast differences in sedation regimens for gastrointestinal procedures in patients of all ages. To better understand variation in practice patterns among pediatric gastroenterologists, the NASPGHAN Endoscopy and Procedures Committee surveyed 103 NASPGHAN members during a recent NASPGHAN national meeting. The results of this survey confirm that sedation practices vary widely and reflect continued uncertainty regarding optimal sedation regimens for pediatric endoscopy.

Emergency endoscopy in children

Endoscopy in children has developed along with pediatric gastroenterology over the last four decades. Introduction of endoscopic techniques in adults precedes application in children, and pediatric endoscopists do fewer procedures than their adult counterparts whether routine or as an emergency. Training for pediatric endoscopists therefore needs to be thorough. This article in particular highlights developments in pediatric gastroenterology of importance to emergency procedures.

Safety of intravenous midazolam and fentanyl for pediatric GI endoscopy: prospective study of 1578 endoscopies

BACKGROUND

Data on safety of intravenous sedation in pediatric GI endoscopy are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety of intravenous sedation for GI endoscopy.

DESIGN/SETTING

Single-center prospective series of outpatient GI endoscopies performed from February 2003 to February 2004 at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The recorded information included demographic, medication, and adverse event data.

PATIENTS

A total of 1226 patients were studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Description of adverse events relating to intravenous sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 2635 endoscopies were performed, of which 1717 were outpatient procedures with the patient under intravenous sedation. Sedation data were available on 1578 procedures (92%, M/F 674/552): 758 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) alone, 116 colonoscopies (COL) alone, and 352 combined EGD and COL. The median dose of fentanyl was 2.77 microg/kg (SD 0.97, range 0-6.73), and of midazolam was 0.11 mg/kg (SD 0.06, range 0-0.39). The mean recovery time was 118 minutes (SD 47.3, range 31-375). Ten patients (0.8%) failed intravenous sedation. Serious adverse events (apnea) were noted in 2 patients (0.2%). Mild or moderate adverse events included desaturation below 92% for less than 20 seconds (100 patients, 9%), vomiting (64 patients, 5%), agitation (15 patients, 1%), desaturation below 92% for greater than 20 seconds (12 patients, 0.7%), and rash (8 patients, 0.7%). No cardiopulmonary resuscitation or sedation reversal was necessary. No patients required hospitalization. Patients younger than 6 years were more likely to develop respiratory adverse event (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous sedation with midazolam and fentanyl is safe for pediatric GI endoscopy. Serious adverse events are rare and no patient required hospitalization.

Strategies for preventing sedation accidents

We have come a long way in sedation accident prevention, and we need to continue to improve. Although the systems approach has made flying very safe, accidents can and will continue to occur. Fortunately, when sedating a child, we can rescue the patient if we have the skills to do it. It is our obligation to provide the safety net needed to achieve the goal of accomplishing sedation safely, painlessly, and returning the child safely to a pre-sedation level of consciousness.