Efficacy and safety of rectal thiopental, intramuscular cocktail and rectal midazolam for sedation in children undergoing neuroimaging

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%.

Use of Intramuscular Chlorpromazine Versus Intramuscular Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation and Aggression in Youth

OBJECTIVES

In the inpatient psychiatric setting, one treatment strategy used to manage acute agitation in youth includes administration of IM antipsychotics. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of IM chlorpromazine versus IM olanzapine in treating aggression in youth.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients younger than 18 years hospitalized in the inpatient psychiatric unit who received either IM chlorpromazine or IM olanzapine for acute agitation. Demographic, efficacy, and tolerability data were collected using the electronic health record EPIC. The primary outcome was change from baseline to end point in the Behavioral Activity Rating Scale (BARS) score. BARS was applied retrospectively using nursing and physician documentation to evaluate for clinical response.

RESULTS

Among 145 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 72 received IM chlorpromazine, compared with 73 who received IM olanzapine. The mean change in BARS score (before and after IM antipsychotic) was greater with olanzapine (3.58 ± 0.99) than with chlorpromazine (3.07 ± 1.18, p = 0.006). The target BARS score of 4 was achieved more frequently with chlorpromazine (45.8%) than with olanzapine (24.7%, p < 0.008). Coadministration of IM diphenhydramine occurred significantly more often in the olanzapine group than in the chlorpromazine group (71.2% vs 36.1%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Management of acute agitation with IM olanzapine resulted in a greater change in BARS score, despite more youth requiring coadministration with diphenhydramine. In comparison, IM chlorpromazine demonstrated a higher likelihood of returning patients to baseline. Study results suggest tolerability of IM chlorpromazine and olanzapine.

Systematic Review: Rectal Administration of Medications for Pediatric Procedural Sedation

BACKGROUND

Per rectum (PR) medication delivery is an alternative to traditional oral (PO), intravenous (IV), or intramuscular (IM) administration of medication for procedural sedation of pediatric emergency department patients. However, many emergency physicians are unfamiliar with its use, and there are no widely adopted guidelines or reviews dedicated to this topic.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to provide emergency physicians with an overview of PR procedural sedation medications in pediatric patients.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed literature search of relevant keywords limited to studies of human subjects published in English between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2017. We excluded case reports, general review articles, editorial/opinion pieces, correspondence, and abstracts. Two of the authors then conducted a structured review of the selected studies.

RESULTS

A total of 315 PubMed citations meeting the search criteria were found. Twenty-eight articles were included for final detailed review. Only 4 of the 28 included studies were conducted in the emergency department setting. A total of 9 different medications have been studied for PR procedural sedation. Sedation effectiveness ranged from 40% to 98%. No life-threatening complications were reported in any of the included clinical trials. Hypoxia was found to occur in up to 10% of those receiving PR sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric procedural sedation with PR medications appears to be feasible, moderately effective, and safe based on our review of the current literature. However, further studies on its applicability in the emergency department setting are needed.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous thiopental for sedation during magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A retrospective analysis

Introduction:

Although the administration of rectal thiopental for sedation during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been well described, there are limited data regarding its intravenous (IV) use in this clinical scenario. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency of IV thiopental for sedation during MRI in the pediatric population.

Methods:

A retrospective review was conducted over a 12-month period of pediatric patients who received IV thiopental for sedation during MRI. Data collected included the procedure length, the induction dose, the time to sedation, recovery time, total sedation time, and adverse events. The parents were telephoned and questioned regarding any adverse effect after discharge and their satisfaction (yes = satisfied; no = not satisfied) regarding the sedation process.

Results:

A total of 300 (American Society of Anesthesiology I–II status) pediatric patients received IV thiopental for sedation during MRI. The average age of the patients was 4.7 ± 3 years. Thiopental was administered as an initial IV bolus dose of 3 mg/kg, followed by additional bolus doses of thiopental (1 mg/kg) as needed to achieve a Ramsay sedation score of 4. The average procedure length was 20.7 ± 11.9 min. The average total dose of thiopental during the procedure was 5.6 ± 0.9 mg/kg. Patients recovered in an average time of 11 ± 5.6 min after a total sedation time of 31.7 ± 14.2 min. None of the patients had oxygen desaturation, adverse effects before or after discharge, and no patient required unplanned hospital admission. All parents were satisfied with the sedation process.

Conclusion:

IV thiopental is an effective, safe, and inexpensive medication for the sedation of children undergoing MRI.

Intramuscular midazolam for pediatric sedation in the emergency department: a short communication on clinical safety and effectiveness

Background:

Procedural sedation in children continues to be a problem in the emergency department (ED). Midazolam is the first water-soluble benzodiazepine and it has been widely used for procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was evaluation of clinical safety and effectiveness of intramuscular Midazolam for pediatric sedation in the ED setting.

Materials and Methods:

We performed a self-controlled clinical trial on 30 children who referred to the Baqiyatallah Hospital ED between 2009 and 2010. They received intramuscular Midazolam 0.3 mg/kg for procedural sedation and then they were followed for sedative effectiveness and safety. Vital signs and O2 saturation were also observed. The findings were compared using SPSS ver. 16 software.

Results:

The mean age was 5.50 ± 2.70 years, the mean weight was 19.50 ± 6.63 kilograms and 16 patients (53.3%) were females. The most common adverse effect was euphoria (66.66%) and vertigo (6.7%); 27.7% did not show any side effects. There was an overall complication rate of 72.3%. The vital signs including heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and O2 saturation decreased significantly during sedation (P value < 0.05).

Conclusions:

Midazolam is an effective and relatively safe sedative for pediatric patients in the ED. The patient should be observed closely and monitored for psychological and hemodynamic side effects.

Low dose of rectal thiopental sodium for pediatric sedation in spiral computed tomography study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of reduced new dose in rectal sedation by thiopental sodium for computed tomography (CT) diagnostic imaging.

METHODS

A total of 90 children (mean age, 24.21 month +/- 13.63 [standard deviation]) underwent spiral CT study after rectal administration of thiopental sodium injection solution. The new dose ranged from 15 to 25 mg/kg with a total dose of 350 mg. The percentage of success and adverse reaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sedation was successful in 98% of infants and children with an average time of 8.04 min +/- 6.87 (standard deviation). One of the cases found desaturation, two experienced vomiting, 14 found rectal defecation, and two experienced hyperactivity. No prolonged sedation was observed.

CONCLUSION

Rectal administration of thiopental sodium for pediatric CT imaging is safe and effective even for hyperextend position by new reduced dose of the drug. This procedure could be easily done in the CT department under supervision of the radiologist.

Oral sedation with midazolam and diphenhydramine compared with midazolam alone in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of oral midazolam and midazolam-diphenhydramine combination to sedate children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized double-blind study in 96 children who were randomly allocated into two groups. Group D received oral diphenhydramine (1.25 mg x kg(-1)) with midazolam (0.5 mg x kg(-1)), and Group P received oral placebo with midazolam (0.5 mg x kg(-1)) alone. Sedation scores, onset and duration of sleep were evaluated. Adverse effects, including hypoxemia, failed sedation, and the return of baseline activity, were documented.

RESULTS

Diphenhydramine facilitated an earlier onset of midazolam sedation (P < 0.01), and higher sedation scores (P < 0.01). In children who received midazolam alone, 20 (41%) were inadequately sedated, compared with 9 (18%) children who received midazolam and diphenhydramine combination (P < 0.01). Time to complete recovery was not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that the combination of oral diphenhydramine with oral midazolam resulted in safe and effective sedation for children undergoing MRI. The use of this combination might be more advantageous compared with midazolam alone, resulting in less sedation failure during MRI.

Efficacy and adverse effects of rectal thiamylal with oral triclofos for children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

We studied the efficacy and adverse effects of rectal thiamylal in combination with oral triclofos in sedation for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging. Five hundred forty-six children underwent MRI examination from January of 1997 to December of 2001. Among them, 10mg/kg of rectal thiamylal was administrated after oral triclofos in 378 children. Successful sedation was obtained in 321 of 378 patients (85%) after a single rectal administration of thiamylal. Totally, 369 children (98%) could undergo MRI examination completely under successful sedation. Adverse effect was observed only in one patient showing respiratory depression. Rectal thiamylal is effective for sedation for MRI in children. Adverse effect was rare in our patients. Although the risk of side effect was considered to be rare, we should follow principles for the sedation of children.

Prevention of Emergence Agitation After Sevoflurane Anesthesia for Pediatric Cerebral Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Small Doses of Ketamine or Nalbuphine Administered Just Before Discontinuing Anesthesia

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) requires long-lasting immobilization that frequently can only be provided by general anesthesia in pediatric patients. Sevoflurane provides adequate anesthesia but many patients experience emergence agitation. Small doses of ketamine and nalbuphine provide moderate sedation but their benefits have subsided at the time of emergence. We hypothesized that delaying their administration until the end of the procedure would prevent emergence agitation without prolonging patient wake-up and discharge times from the postanesthesia care unit. We performed a double-blind study involving 90 patients (aged 6 mo to 8 yr) randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups receiving either saline (S-group), ketamine (0.25 mg/kg) (K-group), or nalbuphine (0.1 mg/kg) (N-group) at the end of an MRI procedure under sevoflurane anesthesia. We evaluated emergence conditions, sedation/agitation status and completion of discharge criteria at 30 min. The three groups were comparable in age, sex ratio, physical status, and associated medical disorders. Emergence conditions did not differ significantly. There were significantly more agitated children, at all times, in the S-group and more obtunded patients at early times (5 and 10 min) in both K- and N-groups. All patients met discharge criteria at 30 min but significantly more children were awake and quiet in the K-group and still more in the N-group. In conclusion, small doses of ketamine or nalbuphine administered at the end of an MRI procedure under sevoflurane anesthesia reduce emergence agitation without delaying discharge. Nalbuphine provided better results than ketamine.

Midazolam (dormicum®): Clinical practice guidelines

Introduction. Three benzodiazepines are available for IV injection and are commonly used in anesthesia practice: diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam. The last is the most frequently used in anaesthesia practice. Benzodiazepines induce amnesia and sedation secondary to potentiation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma amino-butyric acid (GABA). Although sleep inducing doses of midazolam (0,2-0,4 mg/kg) may produce unconsciousness in one to three minutes it is commonly used for sedation and to ensure amnesia and premedication. The effects of midazolam on the cardiovascular system are minimal. Mild decreases in blood pressure and heart rate are indicative of its sedative effect. There have been reports of respiratory depression with diazepam, however this response is dose dependent and can be marked if concomitant doses of narcotics are used. Because of its potential for depressing respiration, especially if given with narcotics, the respiratory response of these patients needs to be monitored. Intravenous midazolam should be titrated to effect and the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil should be immediately available. .