Pediatric sedation for procedures titrated to a desired degree of immobility results in unpredictable depth of sedation

The Evolution of Sedation for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Sedation for pediatric endoscopy has evolved from an endoscopist-administered component of procedures to an almost entirely anesthesiologist-supported endeavor. Nevertheless, there are no ideal endoscopist or anesthesiologist-administered sedation protocols, and wide practice variation exists in both models. Furthermore, sedation for pediatric endoscopy, whether administered by endoscopists or anesthesiologists, remains the highest risk to patient safety. This underscores the importance of both specialties identifying best sedation practices together that can safeguard patients while maximizing procedural efficiency and minimizing costs. In this review, the authors discuss specific levels of sedation for endoscopy and the risks and benefits of various regimens.

Safety of hydroxyzine in the sedation of pediatric dental patients

Hydroxyzine is one of the most popular oral sedatives used in pediatric dentistry. This study aimed to investigate the safety and possible side effects of sedation using hydroxyzine in pediatric dentistry. "Hydroxyzine," "Dental sedation," "Child," and "Safety" and their associated synonyms were searched using the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, KISS, KMBASE, and KoreaMed databases. Academic information and portals of DBpia and RISS were also perused. Altogether, 340 papers were found, among which a total of 24 papers were selected according to the detailed criteria. Nine studies used hydroxyzine as monotherapy, and 10 studies compared its safety when hydroxyzine used as multitherapy. In addition, seven studies employed a drug regimen wherein hydroxyzine was one of the components. All these studies revealed that the adverse events specific to hydroxyzine usage were drowsiness and dryness of the mouth, and that there were respiratory complications due to a synergistic reaction of hydroxyzine. Although classified as a histamine blocker, hydroxyzine with its sedative, antiemetic, anticonvulsant, and anticholinergic properties is an oral sedative available without serious adverse events, If the proper dosage of the drug is used and its synergistic effects with other drugs are ascertained in the route of administration.

Adjuvant lidocaine to a propofol-ketamine-based sedation regimen for bone marrow aspirates and biopsy in the pediatric population

Pediatric patients with hematological malignancies repeatedly undergo painful bone marrow aspirates and biopsies (BMABs) in routine care. No standard sedation regimen has been established. This study evaluated the addition of injected local lidocaine to a propofol-ketamine sedation for BMAB and its effects on propofol dosing, safety, and efficacy. A retrospective analysis of children undergoing BMAB with propofol-ketamine with (PK+L) and without (PK-only) the injection of local lidocaine. Patients were matched through propensity probability scores. To measure efficacy, dosing, procedure length, and recovery time were evaluated. To assess safety, adverse and serious events were recorded. As an indirect measurement of analgesia, changes in heart rate and blood pressure were analyzed. Of the 420 encounters included, 188 matched pairs (376 patients) were analyzed. Patient demographics were comparable. The median dose of propofol was not significantly different between both groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar. There were no significant differences in the changes in heart rate and blood pressure with sedation between groups.Conclusion: This study suggests that the addition of local lidocaine injection to a propofol-ketamine sedation for BMAB pediatric patients does not affect the propofol dose, safety, or efficacy properties of the regimen. What is Known: •Although propofol is commonly used, there is no standard sedation regimen for pediatric patients undergoing bone marrow aspiration and biopsy. •Local lidocaine is used in analgesia in the adults undergoing the same procedure. What is New: •Local lidocaine adjuvant to propofol-ketamine sedation does not affect propofol dosing, the safety of efficacy properties of the regimen in the pediatric population.

[Propofol-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Day-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

METHODS

We enrolled 120 patients (2-7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg^-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg^-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg^-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes respectively, p <0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and six patients experienced SpO₂ <92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p=0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

Propofol-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial

Background and objectives

Day-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.

Methods

We enrolled 120 patients (2−7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg^-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg^-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg^-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.

Results

There was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and 6 patients experienced SpO₂ < 92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p =  0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.

Conclusions

The P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.

Registration number

Clinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).

Drug selection for sedation and general anesthesia in children undergoing ambulatory magnetic resonance imaging

The demand for drug-induced sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans have substantially increased in response to increases in MRI utilization and growing interest in anxiety in children. Understanding the pharmacologic options for deep sedation and general anesthesia in an MRI environment is essential to achieve immobility for the successful completion of the procedure and ensure rapid and safe discharge of children undergoing ambulatory MRI. For painless diagnostic MRI, a single sedative/anesthetic agent without analgesia is safer than a combination of multiple sedatives. The traditional drugs, such as chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, midazolam, and ketamine, are still used due to the ease of administration despite low sedation success rate, prolonged recovery, and significant adverse events. Currently, dexmedetomidine, with respiratory drive preservation, and propofol, with high effectiveness and rapid recovery, are preferred for children undergoing ambulatory MRI. General anesthesia using propofol or sevoflurane can also provide predictable rapid time to readiness and scan times in infant or children with comorbidities. The selection of appropriate drugs as well as sufficient monitoring equipment are vital for effective and safe sedation and anesthesia for ambulatory pediatric MRI.

Combined Treatment with Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation and Ketamine Induces Adverse Changes in CA1 Neuronal Structure in Male Murine Hippocampi

In children, ketamine sedation is often used during radiological procedures. Combined exposure of ketamine and radiation at doses that alone did not affect learning and memory induced permanent cognitive impairment in mice. The aim of this study was to elucidate the mechanism behind this adverse outcome. Neonatal male NMRI mice were administered ketamine (7.5 mg kg⁻¹) and irradiated (whole-body, 100 mGy or 200 mGy, ¹³⁷Cs) one hour after ketamine exposure on postnatal day 10. The control mice were injected with saline and sham-irradiated. The hippocampi were analyzed using label-free proteomics, immunoblotting, and Golgi staining of CA1 neurons six months after treatment. Mice co-exposed to ketamine and low-dose radiation showed alterations in hippocampal proteins related to neuronal shaping and synaptic plasticity. The expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, activity-regulated cytoskeleton-associated protein, and postsynaptic density protein 95 were significantly altered only after the combined treatment (100 mGy or 200 mGy combined with ketamine, respectively). Increased numbers of basal dendrites and branching were observed only after the co-exposure, thereby constituting a possible reason for the displayed alterations in behavior. These data suggest that the risk of radiation-induced neurotoxic effects in the pediatric population may be underestimated if based only on the radiation dose.

Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

Incidence and risk factors for adverse events during anesthesiologist-led sedation or anesthesia for diagnostic imaging in children: a prospective, observational cohort study

Background

Pediatric sedation for diagnostic radiological procedures remains the mainstay for adequate imaging quality.

Objectives

To clarify the risk of adverse events during anesthesiologist-led sedation or anesthesia for diagnostic radiological procedures in children in order to improve quality of care.

Methods

We enrolled children aged <15 years given sedation or anesthesia by an anesthesiologist and scheduled for computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or nuclear medicine imaging November 2010-September 2014. We recorded adverse events occurring in the first 24 h.

Results

Of 1,042 patients enrolled, adverse events were recorded in 254 (24.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 21.9 to 27.1). Adverse respiratory events occurred in 31 (3.0%), cardiovascular events in 7 (0.7%), sedation was prolonged in 165 (15.8%), there was one case of contrast allergy (0.01%), and there were 50 other minor complications (4.9%). Of the respiratory complications, there were 14 of airway obstruction (1.3%), 2 of apnea (0.2%), 14 of oxygen desaturation (1.3%), and one of laryngospasm (0.01%). There were no life threatening complications or consequences. Age <1 year (adjusted odds ratio [adjusted OR] 2.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 5.3) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification 2 and 3 (adjusted OR 4.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 19.8, and adjusted OR 6.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 30.9, respectively) were risk factors for respiratory complications.

Conclusions

Adverse events were common during sedation or anesthesia, but no life threatening or sentinel events occurred under experienced supervision. Caution should be exercised in children <1 year or with an ASA classification >1.

Sedation and Monitoring in the Pediatric Patient during Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Sedation is a fundamental component of pediatric gastrointestinal procedures. The 2 main types of sedation for pediatric endoscopy remain general anesthesia and procedural sedation. Although anesthesiologist-administered sedation protocols are more common, there is no ideal regimen for endoscopy in children. This article discusses specific levels of sedation for endoscopy as well as various regimens that can be used to achieve each. Risks and considerations that may be specific to performing gastrointestinal procedures in children are reviewed. Finally, potential future directions for sedation and monitoring that may change the practice of pediatric gastroenterology and ultimately patient outcomes are examined.

Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: Update 2016

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

High dose dexmedetomidine: effective as a sole agent sedation for children undergoing MRI

Objective. To determine the efficacy and safety of high dose dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative agent for MRI. We report our institution's experience. Design. A retrospective institutional review of dexmedetomidine usage for pediatric MRI over 5.5 years. Protocol included a dexmedetomidine bolus of 2 μg/kg intravenously over ten minutes followed by 1 μg/kg/hr infusion. 544 patients received high dose dexmedetomidine for MRI. A second bolus was used in 103 (18.9%) patients. 117 (21.5%) required additional medications. Efficacy, side effects, and use of additional medicines to complete the MRI were reviewed. Data was analyzed using Student's t-test, Fisher's exact test, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Main Results. Dexmedetomidine infusion was associated with bradycardia (3.9%) and hypotension (18.4%). None of the patients required any intervention. Vital signs were not significantly different among the subgroup of patients receiving one or two boluses of dexmedetomidine or additional medications. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the group receiving only one dexmedetomidine bolus and increased with second bolus or additional medications (P < 0.0001). Discharge time was longer for children experiencing bradycardia (P = 0.0012). Conclusion. High dose Dexmedetomidine was effective in 78.5% of cases; 21.5% of patients required additional medications. Side effects occurred in approximately 25% of cases, resolving spontaneously.

Safety and efficacy of propofol administered by paediatricians during procedural sedation in children

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the safety and the efficacy of paediatrician-administered propofol in children undergoing different painful procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study over a 12-year period in three Italian hospitals. A specific training protocol was developed in each institution to train paediatricians administering propofol for painful procedures.

RESULTS

In this study, 36,516 procedural sedations were performed. Deep sedation was achieved in all patients. None of the children experienced severe side effects or prolonged hospitalisation. There were six calls to the emergency team (0.02%): three for prolonged laryngospasm, one for bleeding, one for intestinal perforation and one during lumbar puncture. Nineteen patients (0.05%) developed hypotension requiring saline solution administration, 128 children (0.4%) needed O2 ventilation by face mask, mainly during upper endoscopy, 78 (0.2%) patients experienced laryngospasm, and 15 (0.04%) had bronchospasm. There were no differences in the incidence of major complications among the three hospitals, while minor complications were higher in children undergoing gastroscopy.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre study demonstrates the safety and the efficacy of paediatrician-administered propofol for procedural sedation in children and highlights the importance of appropriate training for paediatricians to increase the safety of this procedure in children.

Analysis of procedural sedation provided by pediatricians

BACKGROUND

Pediatric procedural sedation outside of the operating room is performed by a variety of pediatric specialists. Using the database from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC), patient demographics, medications used, diagnoses, complications, and procedures involved when pediatricians provided sedation in this cohort, were described. 'Pediatrician' was defined as a general pediatrician, cardiologist, endocrinologist, gastroenterologist, hematologist/oncologist, neurologist, pulmonologist or hospitalist.

METHODS

Data were collected by the PSRC, a group of 35 institutions dedicated to improving sedation care for children. Members prospectively enrolled consecutive patients who received sedation or anesthesia for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Data on demographics, primary diagnoses, procedures, medications, interventions, and complications were collected and stored on a Web-based data collection tool.

RESULTS

A total of 12 113 sedations performed by pediatricians were submitted from 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2008, compared to 119 665 cases performed by non-pediatricians. Pediatrician patients were more frequently non-emergency American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II, aged 2-8 years old, with a neurologic primary diagnosis, being sedated for a radiologic procedure with a sedative. Distraction techniques were used more frequently in the pediatrician group (11.9% vs 3.1%). The most common complication encountered was inadequate sedation, which occurred 2.2% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatricians sedate for a variety of patients within the PSRC, but the patients tended to be younger, predominately ASA class I or II, non-emergency, and undergoing non-painful procedures when compared to non-pediatrician providers. The patient demographics, medications used, diagnoses, complications, and procedures involved varied between the groups significantly. Complication rates were similar between the groups.

A comparison of the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

Aim:

To compare the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging procedures.

Methods:

Sixty children between the age of 1 to 7 years were randomly distributed into two groups: The dexmedetomidine (D) group received 1 μg/kg initial dose followed by continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h, and the propofol group (P) received 3 mg/kg initial dose, followed by a continuous infusion of 100 μg/kg/min. Inadequate sedation was defined as difficulty in completing the procedure because of the child's movement during magnetic resonance imaging. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate (RR) were recorded during the study.

Result:

The onset of sedation, recovery, and discharge time were significantly shorter in group P than in group D. MAP, heart rate, and RR decreased during sedation from the baseline values in both groups. MAP and RR were significantly lower in group P than in group D during sedation. Dexmedetomidine and propofol provided adequate sedation in most of the children.

Conclusion:

We conclude that although propofol provided faster anesthetic induction and recovery times, it caused hypotension and desaturation. Dexmedetomidine could be an alternative, reliable sedative drug to propofol in selected patients.

Anxiety in medically ill children/adolescents

Anxiety disorders are thought to be one of the most common psychiatric diagnoses in children/adolescents. Chronic medical illness is a significant risk factor for the development of an anxiety disorder, and the prevalence rate of anxiety disorders among youths with chronic medical illnesses is higher compared to their healthy counterparts. Anxiety disorders may develop secondary to predisposing biological mechanisms related to a child's specific medical illness, as a response to being ill or in the hospital, a threatening environment, as a result of other genetic and psychological factors, or as a combination of all these factors. Additionally, exposure to physical pain early in one's life and/or frequent painful medical procedures are correlated with fear and anxiety during subsequent procedures and treatments, and may lead to medical nonadherence and other comorbidities. Anxiety disorders can have serious consequences in children/adolescents with chronic and/or life-limiting medical illnesses. Therefore, proper identification and treatment of anxiety disorders is necessary and may improve not only psychiatric symptoms but also physical symptoms. Behavioral and cognitive methods as well as psychotropic medications are used to treat anxiety disorders in pediatric patients. We will review current treatments for anxiety in children/adolescents with medical illnesses and propose future research directions.

Professional skills and competence for safe and effective procedural sedation in children: recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature

Objectives. To investigate which skills and competence are imperative to assure optimal effectiveness and safety of procedural sedation (PS) in children and to analyze the underlying levels of evidence. Study Design and methods. Systematic review of literature published between 1993 and March 2009. Selected papers were classified according to their methodological quality and summarized in evidence-based conclusions. Next, conclusions were used to formulate recommendations. Results. Although the safety profiles vary among PS drugs, the possibility of potentially serious adverse events and the predictability of depth and duration of sedation define the imperative skills and competence necessary for a timely recognition and appropriate management. The level of effectiveness is mainly determined by the ability to apply titratable PS, including deep sedation using short-acting anesthetics for invasive procedures and nitrous oxide for minor painful procedures, and the implementation of non-pharmacological techniques. Conclusions. PS related safety and effectiveness are determined by the circumstances and professional skills rather than by specific pharmacologic characteristics. Evidence based recommendations regarding necessary skills and competence should be used to set up training programs and to define which professionals can and cannot be credentialed for PS in children.

Safety first: Recognizing and managing the risks to child participants in magnetic resonance imaging research

Specialized and up-to-date knowledge is required to identify and manage the risks associated with advanced biomedical research. Additional complexities need to be considered when the research involves infants or young children. In this article, we focus on recent information about the physical risks of pediatric magnetic resonance imaging research and highlight information gaps. With an eye to assisting institutional review boards and researchers, we consider strategies for the management of these risks and formulate key questions aimed at exposing hidden hazards. Institutional review boards should ask these questions, and researchers should bear them in mind as they develop research protocols.

Analgesia and sedation for painful interventions in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Painful procedures on children and adolescents often have to be performed with the aid of analgesia and sedation in order to prevent pain and emotional distress. Moreover, many procedures can be performed more rapidly and more effectively in a relaxed patient. Because the combination of analgesia and sedation can cause serious or even life-threatening complications, it must be accompanied by the same safety precautions as a general anesthetic.

METHODS

Selective review of the literature.

RESULTS

A high level of safety can be achieved by adherence to the published guidelines of the societies for anesthesiology and pediatrics. The depth of sedation during procedures performed under combined analgesia and sedation is often equivalent to that resulting from general anesthesia. Therefore, in order to avoid serious complications, combined analgesia and sedation should only be administered by physicians trained in pediatric anesthesia or pediatric critical care. This is particularly so when propofol is used, because it has a narrow therapeutic range and can cause cardiorespiratory respiratory problems without warning. As long as the appropriate safety precautions are followed, non-anesthesiologists can also administer propofol in combination with an analgesic, such as ketamine, to children and adolescents.

CONCLUSION

In children and adolescents, the combination of analgesia and sedation can prevent the emotional trauma that would result from a painful procedure, while often enhancing the quality of the procedure itself. This method should be considered a variant of general anesthesia. Accordingly, any non-anesthesiologist employing this method must be as well versed as an anesthesiologist in the management of its specific side effects and complications.

Nurse reports of adverse events during sedation procedures at a pediatric hospital

The purpose of our study was to examine the reliability of nurse reports of adverse events related to procedural sedation in children. A descriptive, correlational design was used to analyze for inter-rater agreement between prospective adverse event reporting and that identified on independent review of the medical record. All sedation documentation at a pediatric hospital over one calendar year was reviewed, and inter-rater reliability of reporting was analyzed using K statistics. Five thousand forty-five sedation documentation records were reviewed. An adverse event rate of 6.52% was identified: 1.92% of adverse events were serious, and 4.60% were minor. Although overall agreement between nurse reports and independent review was greater than 99%, subanalysis suggested greater agreement for serious events than for minor ones (K values: 0.85 vs 0.49, P < .01). The results of our study revealed that minor adverse events associated with procedural sedation were under-reported, despite clear perianesthesia documentation in the medical record that an event had occurred. Improved education for perianesthesia nurses regarding the importance of monitoring both for serious and minor adverse events will help to identify opportunities to improve sedation protocols.

Risks of general anesthesia for the special needs dental patient

The risk of dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia has multiple contributing factors. The literature has addressed the general anesthetic risk of dental general anesthesia and sedation in the operating room and the office settings, but more studies are needed to address the special needs population in particular. There is still a great need for more studies to assess the risk versus benefit for special need population as well as to stratify such risk in order to assist care providers in decision making as well as in sharing such risk concerns with patients, caretakers, and guardians. One recommended approach is to conduct a national retrospective study of patients treated under general anesthesia in the past 10 years in all the various settings and assess the associated risks and complications related to their physical status and the underlying physical and mental disabilities. The product of such a study could be a stratification of risk versus benefit as well as some guidelines for decision making as far as which kind of procedures should be conducted under general anesthesia while weighing the level of risk for the particular patient. Although access to care is not a direct risk factor, it can certainly deter timely treatment and intervention for patients with special needs.

Endoscopic sedation in pediatric practice

Best sedation practices for pediatric endoscopy involve the consideration of many patient factors, including age, medical history, clinical status, and anxiety level, as well as physician access to anesthesia support. A recent survey of pediatric gastroenterologists suggests that endoscopist-administered intravenous (iv) sedation and anesthesiologist-administered propofol represent common sedation regimens in children. Technical advances in ventilatory monitoring are contributing to increased patient safety for all children undergoing gastrointestinal procedures, regardless of sedation type.

Multidrug intravenous anesthesia for children undergoing MRI: a comparison with general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

We used a multidrug intravenous anesthesia regimen with midazolam, ketamine, and propofol to provide anesthesia for children during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This regimen was compared with general anesthesia in a randomized comparative study. Outcome measures were safety, side effects and recovery variables in addition to adverse events in relation to age strata.

METHODS

The children received either general anesthesia with propofol, vecuronium and isoflurane [general endotracheal anesthesia (GET) group; n=313] or intravenous anesthesia with midazolam, ketamine, and propofol [intravenous anesthesia (MKP) group; n=342]. Treatment assignment was randomized based on the date of the MRI. Physiological parameters were monitored during anesthesia and recovery. Desaturation (SpO2<93%), airway problems, and the need to repeat the scan were recorded. The discharge criteria were stable vital signs, return to baseline consciousness, absence of any side effects, and ability to ambulate.

RESULTS

With the exception of two children (0.6%) in the MKP group, all enrolled children completed the scan. A significantly greater number (2.3%) required a repeat scan in the MKP group (P<0.05) and were sedated with a bolus dose of propofol. The total incidence of side effects was comparable between the MKP (7.7%) and GET groups (7.0%). Infants below the age of 1 year showed a significantly higher incidence of adverse events compared with the other age strata within each group. Within the MKP group, risk ratio was 0.40 and 0.26 when comparing infants aged below 1 year with the two older age strata, respectively. Recovery characteristics were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous midazolam, ketamine and propofol provides safe and adequate anesthesia, comparable with that obtained from general endotracheal anesthesia, for most children during MRI.

Propofol in paediatric anaesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review we intend to ascertain trends in propofol administration for paediatric anaesthesia and sedation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Propofol is being 'discovered' by non-anaesthesiologist practitioners of paediatric sedation. However it appears that the drug is not infrequently administered alone for painful procedures, necessitating large doses that result in uncontrolled general anaesthesia with a high potential for adverse events. An elegant technique comprises small doses of short-acting opioid (e.g. fentanyl 1 mug/kg) with low-dose propofol infusion. This does not result in worsening of pre-existing right-to-left intracardiac shunts. The dilemma is to educate non-anaesthesiologists about propofol pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and in particular about the advantages of combined drug therapy. A paediatric target-controlled system for propofol has undergone preliminary clinical evaluation and it is hoped that administration according to pharmacokinetic principles will refine administration to infants and children. Sporadic cases of the propofol infusion syndrome in patients receiving prolonged sedation in intensive care units continue to be reported (characterized by metabolic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis and myocardial failure). It appears that one mechanism may be a deficiency of mitochondrial oxidative processes possibly induced by a dialyzable substance, perhaps a propofol metabolite. Propofol has been used with some success in treating postoperative laryngospasm and for tracheal intubation without muscle relaxants.

SUMMARY

Propofol should be used with extreme caution for prolonged sedation in intensive care unit patients, at dose rates of below 5 mg/kg per h, while maintaining extreme vigilance for signs of developing propofol infusion syndrome. If used correctly propofol is a suitable drug for sedation outside the operating room.

Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical supervision; careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications; appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure; a focused airway examination for large tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction; a clear understanding of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of the medications used for sedation, as well as an appreciation for drug interactions; appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient; age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access; appropriate medications and reversal agents; sufficient numbers of people to carry out the procedure and monitor the patient; appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure; a properly equipped and staffed recovery area; recovery to presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical supervision; and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

A Comparison of the Sedative, Hemodynamic, and Respiratory Effects of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol in Children Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging

We compared the sedative, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging procedures. Sixty children were randomly distributed into two groups: The dexmedetomidine (D) group received 1 microg/kg initial dose followed by continuous infusion of 0.5 microg.kg(-1).h(-1) and a propofol group (P) received 3 mg/kg initial dose followed by a continuous infusion of 100 microg.kg(-1).min(-1). Inadequate sedation was defined as difficulty in completing the procedure because of the child's movement during magnetic resonance imaging. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate (RR) were recorded during the study. The onset of sedation, recovery, and discharge time were significantly shorter in group P than in group D. MAP, heart rate, and RR decreased during sedation from the baseline values in both groups. MAP and RR were significantly lower in group P than in group D during sedation. Desaturation was observed in four children of group P. Dexmedetomidine and propofol provided adequate sedation in most of the children. We conclude that although propofol provided faster anesthetic induction and recovery times, it caused hypotension and desaturation. Thus, dexmedetomidine could be an alternative reliable sedative drug to propofol in selected patients.

Procedural sedation in the pediatric patient

The demand for safe and effective procedural sedation for children is rapidly increasing because of the increased awareness about procedure-related anxiety even in young infants and children. The development of short-acting sedatives, improved monitoring, and new regulatory requirements have led to the evolution of new paradigms of safe, effective, and resource-efficient systems for providing procedural sedation outside the operating rooms by anesthesiologists and nonanesthesiologists.

Propofol sedation for longitudinal pediatric neuroimaging research

There is disagreement about allowing propofol sedation for research magnetic resonance imaging/spectroscopy (MRI/MRS) in children. Our study is the first to provide relevant safety and efficacy data. With institutional approval, 108 research MRI/MRS procedures under propofol sedation were performed longitudinally on children at ages 3-4 years (N=59) and 6-7 years (N=49). Sedation parameters, physiological values, and outcome data were collected. Success rate for acquisition of satisfactory quality MRI/MRS during propofol sedation was compared with that in typically developing, age-matched sleeping children. Only 5 minor events (2 with need to insert an oral airway, 2 with premature termination of study, 1 with bradycardia not requiring treatment) and no major events occurred. These safety/efficacy data are equal to or better than previously reported with propofol for clinically indicated procedures. A high percentage of parents of children participating in MRI/MRS studies at 3-4 years of age returned with their child at 6-7 years of age, and longitudinal follow-up was not adversely impacted by their child's experience with sedation. The success rate of data acquisition was significantly higher during propofol sedation (98%) than during late-night sleep studies in typically developing children (30%-50%). We conclude that propofol sedation for research MRI/MRS is safe and effective when children of appropriate ASA class are selected, supplemental oxygen is delivered, and sedation and monitoring are done by an experienced anesthesiologist.

Pain management for the hospitalized pediatric patient

Pediatric hospitalists should make pain assessment and treatment a high priority and a central part of their daily practice. Efforts at improving pain treatment in pediatric hospitals should be multidisciplinary and should involve combined use of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches. Although available information can permit effective treatment of pain for most children in hospitals, there is a need for more research on pediatric analgesic pharmacology, various nonpharmacologic treatments, and different models of delivery of care.

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.

Approach to procedures in neonates

Physical constraints and metabolic differences in neonates require that special attention is given to performing procedures in this patient group. Neonates have a thinner dermis and a greater surface-to-weight ratio, allowing for easier invasion through the skin barrier. The enzymes for metabolism of agents and defense against organisms inside the body are not fully developed in infants. Very premature neonates also have less circulating albumin, making the effective concentration of circulating agent even greater. The infant is prone to unanticipated movement during procedures, such as rolling on the procedure table. The neonatal period is the most common time period for malformations to become manifest on the skin, and invasion of some of these lesions can produce morbidity. These and other factors affect the choice of the type of procedure used, the timing for intervention, and the approach to intervention in this age group. This article reviews the important considerations for approaching procedures and offers suggestions for safe and effective methods of reliably producing the intended outcome.

Sedation and analgesia in the pediatric patient

The administration of sedation and analgesia for pediatric gastrointestinal procedures has become routine but is not standardized. For the most part, pediatric endoscopists are encouraged to use their clinical judgment to select between using intravenous (IV) sedation or general anesthesia on an individual patient basis. Commonly administered IV sedation regimens in children combine benzodiazepines with narcotics, but anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation is gaining acceptance among pediatric gastroenterologists. Guidelines for patient monitoring and new technologic advances may help to ensure patient safety for children undergoing endoscopic procedures, no matter what sedation regimen is used.

Procedural sedation for children with special health care needs

Children with special health care needs represent a growing percentage of pediatric patients treated in all emergency departments. Substantial literature exists concerning the medical treatment of these patients, but there is little written describing the management of procedural sedation or analgesia in this population. This article examines the unique anatomic and physiologic implications of procedural sedation or analgesia management in children with special health care needs.

Comparison of propofol/fentanyl versus ketamine/midazolam for brief orthopedic procedural sedation in a pediatric emergency department

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of 2 medication regimens, propofol/fentanyl (P/F) and ketamine/midazolam (K/M), for brief orthopedic emergency department procedural sedation. This study was powered to compare recovery times (RT) and procedural distress as measured by the Observational Score of Behavioral Distress-revised (OSBD-r; range: 0-23.5 with 23.5 representing maximal distress).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, partially-blinded controlled comparative trial comparing intravenous P/F with K/M in a convenience sample of 113 patients aged 3 to 18 years old undergoing orthopedic procedural sedation. All medications were administered by the intermittent intravenous bolus method. An independent sedation nurse recorded total sedation time and RT. Effectiveness was measured using 6 parameters: 1) patient distress as assessed by independent blinded observers after videotape review using the OSBD-r; 2) orthopedic satisfaction score (Likert scale 1-5); 3) sedation nurse satisfaction score (Likert 1-5); 4) parental perception of procedural pain using a 0 to 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with the upper limit being "most pain"; 5) patient recall of the procedure; and 6) 1 to 3 week follow-up.

RESULTS

RT and total sedation time were significantly less in the P/F group than in the K/M group (33.4 minutes vs 23.2 minutes). The mean OSBD-r scores during manipulation were 0.084 and 0.278 for the K/M and P/F groups, respectively. Although this difference was statistically significant (95% confidence interval for the mean difference -0.34 to -0.048), both regimens were successful in keeping the scores low. There was no statistical difference between the groups in the other measures of effectiveness. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in the occurrence of desaturation and late side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

RT with P/F is shorter than with K/M. P/F is comparable to K/M in reducing procedural distress associated with painful orthopedic procedures in the pediatric emergency department. Although propofol has a greater potential of respiratory depression and airway obstruction as compared with ketamine, it offers some unique advantages including a quicker offset and smoother recovery profile.

Adverse effects of sedatives in children

The application of sedation/analgesia in paediatric patients is rapidly expanding as less invasive, non-operative techniques of diagnosis and treatment are applied to the paediatric population. Medical providers who are asked to provide sedation may include radiologists, paediatricians, nurses and emergency physicians, as well as anaesthesiologists and intensive care physicians. At the same time, the range of drugs used in these settings has expanded considerably. As there is no single drug fulfilling the criteria for the ideal sedative (rapid-onset, rapid recovery, no adverse effects, immobility appropriate to procedure being performed), multiple drugs may be used in combination. It is imperative that practitioners using drugs for sedation/analgesia in children be aware of the adverse effect profile(s) of these drugs, both individually and in combination. The purpose of this review is to describe the adverse effects of sedative and reversal agents currently used in paediatric sedation/analgesia.

Pediatric sedation: can it be safely performed by non-anesthesiologists?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the present review is to provide the reader with a synopsis of the recent literature on sedation of children by non-anesthesiologists.

RECENT FINDINGS

Health care centers are experiencing an increasing demand for sedation of pediatric patients. Whether provided by physician anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, or appropriately credentialed non-anesthesia clinicians, this increase is a reflection of new advances in the area of diagnostic imaging, better pharmacologic agents, and a heightened awareness of the psychologic needs of children. By definition anesthesiologists are the experts when it comes to providing sedation to patients. For pediatric patients, pediatric anesthesiologists provide the most appropriate specialization. However, because of insufficient manpower, anesthesiologists cannot adequately meet the increasing workload of providing sedation for each child in need.

SUMMARY

In some circumstances the incidence of adverse events when sedation is provided by non-anesthesiologist can be high. Predicators of adverse outcome have been identified. Given strict adherence to sedation guidelines and appropriate credentialing of the sedation provider, non-anesthesiologists can safely provide sedation for children.