Pediatric sedation

Characterization of Pediatric Rectal Absorption, Drug Disposition, and Sedation Level for Midazolam Gel Using Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling

This study aims to explore and characterize the role of pediatric sedation via rectal route. A pediatric physiologically based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PBPK/PD) model of midazolam gel was built and validated to support dose selection for pediatric clinical trials. Before developing the rectal PBPK model, an intravenous PBPK model was developed to determine drug disposition, specifically by describing the ontogeny model of the metabolic enzyme. Pediatric rectal absorption was developed based on the rectal PBPK model of adults. The improved Weibull function with permeability, surface area, and fluid volume parameters was used to extrapolate pediatric rectal absorption. A logistic regression model was used to characterize the relationship between the free concentrations of midazolam and the probability of sedation. All models successfully described the PK profiles with absolute average fold error (AAFE) < 2, especially our intravenous PBPK model that extended the predicted age to preterm. The simulation results of the PD model showed that when the free concentrations of midazolam ranged from 3.9 to 18.4 ng/mL, the probability of "Sedation" was greater than that of "Not-sedation" states. Combined with the rectal PBPK model, the recommended sedation doses were in the ranges of 0.44-2.08 mg/kg for children aged 2-3 years, 0.35-1.65 mg/kg for children aged 4-7 years, 0.24-1.27 mg/kg for children aged 8-12 years, and 0.20-1.10 mg/kg for adolescents aged 13-18 years. Overall, this model mechanistically quantified drug disposition and effect of midazolam gel in the pediatric population, accurately predicted the observed clinical data, and simulated the drug exposure for sedation that will inform dose selection for following pediatric clinical trials.

Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and procedural sedation

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient's underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

Safety of Non-Operating Room Anesthesia With Propofol Sedation in Three Pediatric Patients With Central Sleep Apnea

Children with central sleep apnea may require sedation for procedures, including brain imaging as part of the evaluation of apnea. However, the safety of deep sedation without a protected airway is not known in this patient population. In this case series, we present 3 children with central sleep apnea who were sedated with propofol for brain imaging in a non-operating room setting. All 3 did well with no complications; those with a home oxygen requirement were on oxygen during the procedure but none experienced apnea, desaturation, or respiratory distress. While obstructive sleep apnea is a known contraindication to deep sedation with propofol, it may be safe in pediatric patients with central sleep apnea. Deep sedation may be a good option for these patients, thereby avoiding the need for general anesthesia and placement of an advanced airway.

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.

Nasal drip of dexmedetomidine for optimal sedation during PICC insertion in pediatric burn care

BACKGROUND

For peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) inserting, tranquil cooperation of children for an extended period is often required. Therefore, sedation is routinely induced clinically prior to PICC inserting. Chloral hydrate is a commonly used sedative for children. However, its clinical acceptance has remained low. And the sedation effect is non-satisfactory. Previous studies have confirmed the safety and effectiveness of intravenous/oral dosing or nasal dripping for sedation during the examinations of electrocardiography and computed tomography. Yet few studies have assessed the sedating efficacy of dexmedetomidine nasal drops for PICC inserting.

METHODS

From a cohort of 40 hospitalized patients scheduled for PICC inserting, 15 children employing a novel sedative mode of dexmedetomidine nasal drops at a dose of 2 ug/kg were assigned into group A while group B included another 25 children sedated routinely via an enema of 10% chloral hydrate at a dose of 0.5 mL/kg. The Ramsay's scoring criteria were utilized for assessing the status of sedation. Two groups were observed with regards to success rate of sedation, onset time of sedation and occurrences of adverse reactions.

RESULTS

Statistical inter-group differences existed in success rate and onset time of sedation. The success rate of group A was higher than that of group B (93.3% vs 64.0%, X2 = 4.302, P = .038 < 0.05). Group A had a faster onset of sedation than group B (14.86 ± 2.57 vs 19.06 ± 3.40 minutes, t = 3.781, P = .001 < 0.05). No inter-group difference of statistical significance existed in occurrence of adverse reactions (P = 1.000 > 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the success rate of sedation in group A was higher than that in group B, and the difference was statistically significant (P = .036 < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For sedating burn children, nasal dripping of dexmedetomidine is both safe and effective during PICC inserting. Without any obvious adverse reaction, it may relieve sufferings and enhance acceptance.

The Influence of Patient-Centered Communication on Children's Anxiety and Use of Anesthesia for MR

Background: The aim of this study was to inspect the influence of patient-centered communication (PCC) with 4- to 10-year-old children on the use of anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging exams (MRs). Methods: A total of thirty children received the PCC and pre-simulated the exam with an MR toy. Another 30 children received routine information about the MR and pre-simulated the exam with the toy. Anesthesia use in these two groups was additionally compared with a previously existing group of children (n = 30) who had received only routine information about the exam (CG). Children’s anxiety was assessed with a self-report question plus heartbeat frequency. Children’s satisfaction was assessed through several questions. The analyses were based on group comparisons and regression. Results: A total of two children (7%) in the PCC + simulation group used sedation compared with 14 (47%) in the simulation group and 21 (70%) in the CG. Differences between the PCC + simulation and the other two groups were significant (p < 0.001), although not between the simulation and the CG. The decrease in anxiety was significantly greater (self-reported p < 0.001; heart rate p < 0.05) and satisfaction was higher (p = 0.001) in the PCC + simulation, when compared with the simulation group. Reduced anxiety was associated with less anesthesia use (OR 1.39; CI 1.07−1.79; p = 0.013). Conclusions: PCC + simulation was more effective than simulation and routine practice in decreasing children’s anxiety, increasing satisfaction, and reducing the use of anesthesia for MRs.

Behaviour of 3-11-year-old children during dental treatment requiring multiple visits: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

To examine children's behaviours during consecutive dental treatments, relative to gender, age, and behaviour guidance techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective study of medical records of children treated by four residents in a Department of Paediatric Dentistry, during 2015-2018. Data included: age, gender, behaviour guidance technique (no medication, inhaled sedation, conscious sedation with hydroxyzine or benzodiazepines) and behaviour according to Frankl scale.

RESULTS

Of 205 children, 134 were 3-6 yo (Group 1) and 71 were 6.1-11 yo (Group 2). Most presented a positive behavioural profile, with significant difference between groups (p = 0.02), no significant difference between genders (p = 0.72). A significant association between behaviour guidance techniques and behavioural profile was found (p = 0.01). Most children with positive behaviour received inhaled sedation (83%), while most children with negative behaviour received conscious sedation using benzodiazepines (8%). Negative behaviour was observed only in the younger children receiving conscious sedation with benzodiazepines (9%) or hydroxyzine (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most 3-11 yo patients exhibited positive behaviour during four consecutive dental treatments, with different behaviour guidance techniques. Negative behaviour was more frequent among 3-6 yo children, where sedation was often required to achieve cooperation, and 4.5% could benefit from general anesthesia.

The Sedative Effects of Inhaled Nebulized Dexmedetomidine on Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Children that need surgery and medical examinations are often uncooperative, and preoperative sedation is necessary. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine in children for sedation that underwent medical examinations or surgery.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library, for randomized controlled trials of Intranasal dexmedetomidine using a spray or a mucosal atomization device in children undergoing examination or elective surgery. We included all studies that analyzed the sedation efficiency of intranasal dexmedetomidine in children.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1,233pediatric patients were included. Compared to other sedation treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine showed similar sedation satisfaction [risk ratio RR: 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.18; P = 0.83; I² = 72%]. there was also no statistical difference in the success rate of separation from parents (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82-1.12; P = 0.58; I² = 67%), and mask acceptability (RR: 1; 95% CI: 0.83-1.20; P = 0.99; I² = 35%). But it is worth mentioning that nebulized dexmedetomidine combined with ketamine provided better sedation satisfaction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.96; I² = 49%) and more satisfactory separation from parents (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; I² = 0%). Moreover, nebulized dexmedetomidine reduced the occurrences of nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.51; P < 0.01; I² = 10%) and emergence agitation (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18-0.49; P < 0.01; I² = 0%). There are no hypotension or arrhythmia reported that required intervention in all articles.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other premedication treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine provided equivalent sedation satisfaction for the examination or preoperative sedation of children, but it reduced the occurrences of emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Trends in Outpatient Procedural Sedation: 2007-2018

BACKGROUND

Pediatric subspecialists routinely provide procedural sedation outside the operating room. No large study has reported trends in outpatient pediatric procedural sedation. Our purpose in this study was to identify significant trends in outpatient procedural sedation using the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 2007 to 2018 were used for trending procedural sedation. Patient characteristics, medications, type of providers, serious adverse events, and interventions were reported. The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to explore the association between the year and a given characteristic.

RESULTS

A total of 432 842 sedation encounters were identified and divided into 3 4-year epochs (2007-2011, 2011-2014, and 2014-2018). There was a significant decrease in infants <3 months of age receiving procedural sedation (odds ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.98). A large increase was noticed in pediatric hospitalists providing procedural sedation (0.6%-9.5%; P < .001); there was a decreasing trend in sedation by other providers who were not in emergency medicine, critical care, or anesthesiology (13.9%-3.9%; P < .001). There was an increasing trend in the use of dexmedetomidine (6.3%-9.3%; P < .001) and a decreasing trend in the use of chloral hydrate (6.3%-0.01%; P < .001) and pentobarbital (7.3%-0.5%; P < .001). Serious adverse events showed a nonsignificant increase overall (1.35%-1.75%).

CONCLUSIONS

We report an increase in pediatric hospitalists providing sedation and a significant decrease in the use of chloral hydrate and pentobarbital by providers. Further studies are required to see if sedation services decrease costs and optimize resource use.

Does pre-scanning training improve the image quality of children receiving magnetic resonance imaging?: A meta-analysis of current studies

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used in children for its clear display of body parts. But it is usually hard to acquire high-quality images, for the uncooperative ability of children. It is believed that pre-MRI training could ensure the high quality of images. The current meta-analysis was done to analyze the current evidences in this field.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched up to July 2018, for studies assessing the effects of training on pediatric MRI. Data, including image quality, failed scanning rate, and sedation use, were extracted and analyzed using Revman 5.2 software.

RESULTS

There were 5 studies with 379 subjects in the meta-analysis. Training and control groups were quite comparable when accepted image quality was reviewed (P = .30), but a lower rate of excellent image quality was found in subjects with training (P = .02). The pooling results found no significance between training and control group in sedation use (P = .09) and successful MRI scanning (P = .63).

CONCLUSIONS

It is cautious to conclude that pre-MRI training does not improve the image quality and reduce sedation use among children, for the limited number of studies and sample size. More trials should be encouraged to demonstrate this issue.

Outpatient Procedural Sedation of Patients With Autism Spectrum Disorders for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain Using Propofol

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the number of personnel, time to induce and complete sedation using propofol for outpatient magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, and the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared with children without ASD.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were the same between both groups. Overall sedation success was 99%. Although most children were sedated with ≤3 providers, 10% with ASD needed ≥4 providers (P = .005). The duration of sedation was less for the ASD group compared with the non-ASD group (49 minutes vs 56 minutes, P = .005). There was no difference in SAE frequency between groups (ASD 14% vs non-ASD 16%, P = .57).

CONCLUSION

Children with ASD can be sedated for brain MRI using propofol with no increased frequency of SAEs compared with children without ASD. Sedation teams should anticipate that 10% of children with ASD may need additional personnel before propofol induction.

Experience with the use of propofol for radiologic imaging in infants younger than 6 months of age

BACKGROUND

There is an increased risk associated with procedural sedation of infants younger than 6 months of age. The use of propofol for radiologic imaging of this age group is not well studied.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesize that adverse events are higher in the infant population receiving propofol for radiologic imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was undertaken of 304 infants younger than 6 months old who received propofol for procedural sedation from October 2012 to February 2015. Patient demographics, propofol dosing, sedation-related adverse events and interventions were collected. Serious adverse events were defined as laryngospasm, aspiration, the need for admission, cardiac arrest or death.

RESULTS

Procedural sedation for radiologic imaging was successful in 301/304 (99%) of infants using propofol. Of these 304 patients, 130 (42.8%) patients were female, and 240 of the 304 (79%) were between 3 and 6 months of age. The majority of patients (172/304 [56.6%]) were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status Class II. There were 57 sedation-related, minor adverse events in 39 out of 304 (12.8%) patients. Thirteen of the 304 (4.3%) patients had 14 serious adverse events, with airway obstruction the most common. Eighty interventions were required in 56/304 (18.4%) patients. The most common interventions were continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in 25/304 patients (8.2%) and jaw thrust in 15/304 (4.9%). The median induction propofol dose was 4.7 mg/kg. A need for an increase in the propofol infusion rate during the procedure was noted in 162/304 (53.3%) infants. No significant predictors of sedation-related adverse events were detected.

CONCLUSION

Propofol can be used for radiologic imaging of infants younger than 6 months of age with a high success rate. Practitioners should be mindful of significantly higher dosing requirements and a higher incidence of airway events, which can be easily identified and managed by a team of experienced sedation providers.

Current Roles and Perceived Needs of Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship Graduates

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric hospitalists report the need for additional training in clinical and nonclinical domains. Pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) fellowships seek to provide this training and produce leaders in the field. Our objective is to describe current roles and perceived training needs of PHM fellowship graduates.

METHODS

In 2014, all PHM fellowship graduates were asked to complete a Web-based survey. Survey questions addressed demographics, past training, current roles, and training needs in clinical care, research, education, and administration. Associations between fellowship experiences and outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

Fifty-one of 61 eligible individuals completed the survey. Average duration as a pediatric hospitalist was 5 years. Ninety percent completed pediatric categorical residency, whereas 10% completed an Internal Medicine-Pediatrics Residency. Most respondents completed a 1- (38%) or 2-year (46%) fellowship program. Ninety-six percent of respondents currently work in academic environments. The perceived need for additional clinical training was low, except procedures (44%). Nearly all teach medical students and pediatric residents, reporting adequate training in variety of teaching strategies. The majority of respondents conduct research, most commonly quality improvement (QI; 67%) and education (52%). Two-thirds are first authors on at least 1 peer-reviewed article. Research training needs include QI methodology (44%), biostatistics (43%), and obtaining funding (54%). A considerable number of respondents have academic leadership positions.

CONCLUSIONS

PHM fellowship graduates are academic hospitalists with diverse responsibilities. Despite a short average career span, many have achieved leadership roles and been academically productive. Future curriculum development should focus on procedures, QI, and research training.

Paediatric procedural sedation within the emergency department

Procedural sedation and analgesia in children requires the use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches to facilitate the management of painful procedures. The development of skills in such techniques has mirrored the development of paediatric emergency medicine as a subspecialty. Governance, education and credentialing must facilitate safe sedation practice, using a structured approach, as sedating children in the busy environment of an emergency department is not without risk. Emergency clinicians, patients and caregivers all have a role to play in developing a safe, effective sedation plan.

Current State of Institutional Privileging Profiles for Pediatric Procedural Sedation Providers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Providers from a variety of training backgrounds and specialties provide procedural sedation at institutions in the United States. We sought to better understand the privileging patterns and practices for sedation providers.

METHODS

Surveys were sent to 56 program directors belonging to the Society for Pediatric Sedation using Research Electronic Data Capture to 56 pediatric sedation programs. The survey was designed to gather information regarding characteristics of their sedation service and the privileging of their sedation providers.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 41 (73%) of 56. Most programs surveyed (81%) said their physicians provided sedation as a part of their primary subspecialty job description, and 17% had physicians whose sole practice was pediatric sedation and no longer practiced in their primary subspecialty. Fifty-one percent of surveyed sedation programs were within freestanding children's hospitals and 61% receive oversight by the anesthesiology department at their institution. Eighty-one percent of the sedation programs require physicians to undergo special credentialing to provide sedation. Of these, 79% grant privileging through their primary specialty, whereas 39% require separate credentialing through sedation as a stand-alone section. For initial credentialing, requirements included completion of a pediatric sedation orientation and training packet (51% of programs), sedation training during fellowship (59%), and documentation of a specific number of pediatric procedural sedation cases (49%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this survey of pediatric sedation programs belonging to the Society for Pediatric Sedation, the process for privileging providers in procedural sedation varies significantly from institution to institution. An opportunity exists to propose privileging standards for providers of pediatric procedural sedation.

Perceived core competency achievements of fellowship and non-fellowship-trained early career pediatric hospitalists

BACKGROUND

The pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) core competencies were established in 2010 to identify the specific knowledge base and skill set needed to provide the highest quality of care for hospitalized children. The objectives of this study were to examine the perceived core competency achievements of fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained early career pediatric hospitalists and identify perceived gaps in our current training models.

METHODS

An anonymous Web-based survey was distributed in November 2013. Hospitalists within 5 years of their residency graduation reported their perceived competency in select PHM core competencies. χ(2) and multiprobit regression analyses were utilized.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven hospitalists completed the survey and were included; 147 were non-fellowship-trained and 50 were PHM fellowship graduates or current PHM fellows. Both groups reported feeling less than competent in sedation and aspects of business practice. Non-fellowship-trained hospitalists also reported mean scores in the less than competent range in intravenous access/phlebotomy, technology-dependent emergencies, performing Plan-Do-Study-Act process and root cause analysis, defining basic statistical terms, and identifying research resources. Non-fellowship-trained hospitalists reported mean competency scores greater than fellowship-trained hospitalists in pain management, newborn care, and transitions in care.

CONCLUSIONS

Early career pediatric hospitalists report deficits in several of the PHM core competencies, which should be considered when designing PHM-specific training in the future. Fellowship-trained hospitalists report higher levels of perceived competency in many core areas.