Comparison of patient-controlled and operator-controlled conscious sedation for restorative dentistry:

Evaluation of maximum dose intravenous midazolam used in dental intravenous sedation: a West of Scotland regional audit

Background Intravenous (IV) midazolam sedation is commonly used in the delivery of dentistry for phobic patients. There is currently no guidance on a maximum dose for use specifically in dentistry. Dentists practise with the British National Formulary recommended maximum dose of 7.5 mg; however, anecdotally, this is often exceeded. We aim to evaluate prescribing and propose recommendations for a maximum dose for dentists.Method Data was collected from ten dentists across four Scottish health boards regarding their last 20 IV sedation patients, giving a total of 200. Data obtained from standard Dental Sedation Teachers Group IV logbooks included: dose of midazolam administered; justification for doses over 7.5 mg; flumazenil or supplemental oxygen usage; significant medical/social factors; and the Ramsay Sedation Score.Results Mean midazolam dose was 6.1 mg with a range of 14 mg. The recommended maximum dose of 7.5 mg was exceeded in 28% of cases. The mean sedation score was 2.7 and there were no reported adverse events or use of flumazenil.Conclusion IV midazolam is an effective way to achieve conscious sedation in dentistry. Acknowledgement of current off-label prescribing is important; however, 7.5 mg as a recommended maximum dose is too conservative as it is regularly exceeded without adverse events. Further investigation and expert opinion is required to set a maximum dose specifically for dentistry.

Conscious sedation procedures using intravenous midazolam for dental care in patients with different cognitive profiles: a prospective study of effectiveness and safety

The use of midazolam for dental care in patients with intellectual disability is poorly documented. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of conscious sedation procedures using intravenous midazolam in adults and children with intellectual disability (ID) compared to dentally anxious patients (DA). Ninety-eight patients with ID and 44 patients with DA programmed for intravenous midazolam participated in the study over 187 and 133 sessions, respectively. Evaluation criteria were success of dental treatment, cooperation level (modified Venham scale), and occurrence of adverse effects. The mean intravenous dose administered was 8.8±4.9 mg and 9.8±4.1 mg in ID and DA sessions respectively (t-test, NS). 50% N₂O/O₂ was administered during cannulation in 51% of ID sessions and 61% of DA sessions (NS, Fisher exact test). Oral or rectal midazolam premedication was administered for cannulation in 31% of ID sessions and 3% of DA sessions (p<0,001, Fisher exact test). Dental treatment was successful in 9 out of 10 sessions for both groups. Minor adverse effects occurred in 16.6% and 6.8% of ID and DA sessions respectively (p = 0.01, Fisher exact test). Patients with ID were more often very disturbed during cannulation (25.4% ID vs. 3.9% DA sessions) and were less often relaxed after induction (58.9% ID vs. 90.3% DA) and during dental treatment (39.5% ID vs. 59.7% DA) (p<0.001, Fisher exact test) than patients with DA. When midazolam sedation was repeated, cooperation improved for both groups. Conscious sedation procedures using intravenous midazolam, with or without premedication and/or inhalation sedation (50% N₂O/O₂), were shown to be safe and effective in patients with intellectual disability when administered by dentists.

Recent advances in patient-controlled sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in minimally invasive procedures have resulted in an increased demand for procedural sedation. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been in clinical use for almost 20 years, but has not been reviewed in over 10 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in microprocessor technology, increased demand for procedural sedation in a cost-conscious environment, and the availability of readily titratable pharmacologic agents together stimulated the development of alternative sedation practices. Continued research into the neurobiology of pain perception and the placebo effect has also played a role. PCS and patient-maintained sedation, primarily with propofol, have emerged as intriguing clinical alternatives to traditional sedation based in part on extensions of traditional PCA models.

SUMMARY

PCS has been applied to a wide variety of procedures, but systems that can be applied 'off-the-shelf' are not easy to tune. New approaches to PCS may address these limitations. Better understanding of the psychology of sedation may lead to better patient acceptance of PCS.

Closed claims review of anesthesia for procedures outside the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The demand for anesthesia services is increasing due to more complex procedures being performed outside the operating room. We reviewed the literature and closed malpractice claims in the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Closed Claims database to assess liability and injury associated with anesthesia for procedures outside the operating room (nonoperating-room anesthesia, n = 24) compared with intra-operative surgical anesthesia (operating room, n = 1927) claims.

RECENT FINDINGS

A higher proportion of patients in nonoperating-room anesthesia claims underwent monitored anesthesia care (58 vs. 6%, P < 0.001) and were at the extremes of age (50 vs. 19%, P = 0.003) than in operating room claims. Half of the nonoperating-room anesthesia claims occurred in the gastrointestinal suite. Inadequate oxygenation/ventilation was the most common specific damaging event in nonoperating-room anesthesia claims (33 vs. 2% in operating room claims, P < 0.001). The proportion of death was increased in nonoperating-room anesthesia claims (54 vs. 24%, P = 0.003). Nonoperating-room anesthesia claims were more often judged as having substandard care (P = 0.003) and being preventable by better monitoring (P = 0.007).

SUMMARY

Nonoperating-room anesthesia claims had a higher severity of injury and more substandard care than operating room claims. Inadequate oxygenation/ventilation was the most common mechanism of injury. Maintenance of minimum monitoring standards and airway management training is required for staff involved in patient sedation.