Update on pharmacological management of procedural sedation for children

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and bioavailability of dexmedetomidine nasal spray in healthy Chinese adults: A phase I clinical trial

Background

Intranasal administration is a convenient route for drug delivery that can be applied for procedural sedation. However, there is currently limited exploration into fixed dosing regimens. This study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), bioavailability (BA) and safety of dexmedetomidine after fixed doses of intranasal and intravenous administration in healthy male and female subjects.

Methods

Group A subjects received intranasal or intravenous administration in two periods (12 subjects received intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) or the intravenous formulation, and four received the corresponding placebo). Groups B to F underwent single-period dose ascending, receiving only the intranasal Dex formulation or the corresponding placebo (the number of subjects receiving the drug/placebo in groups B to F were 12/2, 12/2, 12/2, 10/2, 10/2, respectively), with doses of 75 μg, 125 μg, 150 μg, 175 μg, and 200 μg, respectively. After administration of each group, blood samples were collected to investigate the plasma concentration of dexmedetomidine, adrenaline and noradrenaline using a HPLC-MS/MS method. Ramsay score, blood pressure and heart rate were collected for safety evaluation. Pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, Tmax, AUC0-24h,AUC 0 - ∞ , and t1/2) of dexmedetomidine were calculated.

Results

A total of 82 subjects were randomized. One subject withdrew for personal reasons before administration and the other subjects completed the entire study process. At a dose of 25 μg, the absolute bioavailability was 59%. Across the dose range of 25 to 200 μg, the median Tmax was similar (0.5-1 h), and the mean elimination half-life was comparable (3.09-4.28 h), with exposure (Cmax and AUC0-t) increasing with dose. The pharmacokinetics after intranasal spray administration exhibited linear characteristics, although Cmax was similar in the higher dose groups (175 μg and 200 μg). PD results showed that ideal sedation effects (Ramsay score of 3 or higher in at least 90% of subjects) could be achieved within 30 min following intranasal administration of 75 μg or higher doses. All the subjects were well tolerated without any serious adverse events (SAEs).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine nasal spray was well tolerated and achieved satisfactory sedation in the dose range of 25-200 μg in Chinese healthy male and female subjects.

Clinical Trial Registration

http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/, identifier CTR20201650.

Effective and safe pediatric sedation

Pediatric sedation is a crucial tool for minimizing pain and anxiety during procedures and examinations in children. However, it is not without risks. This review provides a comprehensive review of pediatric sedation, including both established practices and recent advancements. A thorough pre-procedural evaluation is crucial to mitigate these risks. Skilled healthcare professionals trained in pediatric sedation are paramount to ensure a safe and effective procedure. The choice of sedative medication depends on various factors, such as the type of procedure and the patient's medical condition. Medications, used alone or in combination, offer sedation with varying onset times and durations. Non-pharmacological approaches can complement pharmacological sedation and further reduce potential complications. Preventing sedation-related complications requires a multidisciplinary approach. This includes collaborative decision-making, vigilant monitoring throughout the procedure, and a focus on patient safety. Recovery involves ensuring the child returns to their baseline status before discharge, following established criteria. In conclusion, successful pediatric sedation hinges on a comprehensive strategy. This strategy encompasses a thorough evaluation, skilled personnel, appropriate medication selection, vigilant monitoring, and a focus on patient safety throughout the process. By following these steps, we can minimize risks and achieve successful outcomes.

Use of intranasal and sublingual analgesia in children and adolescents in the paediatric emergency department

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence showing that the intranasal and sublingual routes are safe and effective in providing analgesia, no data are available about their day-to-day use in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of the use of the intranasal and sublingual routes, and the clinical characteristics of the patients receiving analgesia through these routes.

METHODS

A multicentre study was performed in the EDs participating in the Pain in Paediatric Emergency Room research group. It included a survey and a retrospective data collection in which the medical records of all patients who received analgesia from 1 April 2022 to 31 May 2022 were collected.

RESULTS

48 centres (91%) answered the survey. The intranasal and sublingual routes were used in 25 centres (52%). 13 centres (27%) used both routes, 9 centres (19%) used only the sublingual and 3 centres (6%) used only the intranasal route.12 centres (48%) participated in the retrospective study. Data about 3409 patients, median age 9 years (IQR 5-12), were collected. Among them, 337 patients (9.6%) received sublingual analgesia, and 87 patients (2.5%) received intranasal analgesia. The intranasal route was employed for injuries in 79 (90.8%) cases, and fentanyl was the drug delivered in 85 (97.7%) cases. The sublingual route was used mainly for injuries (57.3%), but also for abdominal pain (15.4%), musculoskeletal pain (14.5%) and headache (10.7%). Paracetamol, ketorolac and tramadol were administered through this route.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the intranasal and sublingual routes for analgesia in the paediatric ED is still limited.

Intravenous Sedation and Analgesia in a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Retrospective Descriptive Study

Background Painful procedures in the pediatric emergency department often require the use of sedation and analgesia to ensure adequate pain control, a right of children and adolescents. This study aims to describe the procedural sedation and analgesia with intravenous medications performed in a pediatric emergency department. Methods This is a retrospective descriptive study of intravenous sedoanalgesia used in a pediatric emergency department of a level II district hospital in the Lisbon metropolitan area from October 2018 to December 2023. The type of intervention, drugs used, and adverse events were analyzed. Results A total of 615 patients were included in the study; 65.7% (n=404) were male with a median age of 6 years. The most frequently performed procedures were wound suturing (50.9%, n=313) and fracture reduction (36.3%, n=223). The drugs used for sedation and analgesia were ketamine (99.2%, n=610), midazolam (95.8%, n=589), propofol (1.6%, n=10), and morphine (0.5%, n=3). The majority of patients received midazolam and ketamine in association (93.8%, n=577). A total of 50 adverse events (8.1%) were recorded in 42 patients. The most frequent side effects were transient oxygen desaturation (2%, n=12), vomiting (1.5%, n=9), apnea/bradypnea (1%, n=6), and hallucinations (0.8%, n=5). The occurrence of adverse events was not dose-dependent (p >0.05). Respiratory complications resolved without requiring invasive interventions. Children were sedated by a pediatric intensivist in 68.1% (n=419), by a general pediatrician in 26.7% (n=164), and by a pediatric resident in 2% (n=12). Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate that intravenous sedoanalgesia, particularly the combination of ketamine and midazolam, is a safe method for sedation in pediatric patients, with a low rate of adverse events.

Nitrous oxide use in Canadian pediatric emergency departments: a survey of physician's knowledge, attitudes, and practices

OBJECTIVES

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is an inhaled analgesic/ anxiolytic gas with evidence supporting its safety and efficacy for distressing procedures in children. Despite this, its use is not consistent across Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs). We aimed to characterize a) physicians' knowledge and practices with N2O and b) site-specific N2O protocols in Canadian pediatric EDs to help optimize its use nationally.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey was distributed to physician members of Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) in early 2021. Survey items addressed practice patterns, clinician comfort, and perceived barriers/ facilitators to use. Further, a representative from each ED completed a site-specific inventory of N2O policies and procedures.

RESULTS

N2O was available in 40.0% of 15 pediatric EDs, with 83.3% of these sites having written policies in place. Of 230 distributed surveys, 67.8% were completed with mean (SD) attending experience of 14.7 (8.6) years and 70.1% having pediatric emergency subspecialty training. Of the 156 respondents, 48.7% used N2O in their clinical practice. The most common indications for use were digit fracture/ dislocation reduction (69.7%), wound closure (60.5%), and incision & drainage (59.2%). Commonly perceived facilitators were N2O equipment availability (73.0% of 156) and previous clinical experience (71.7% of 156). Of the 51.3% of physicians who reported not using N2O, 93.7% did not have availability at their site; importantly, the majority indicated a desire to acquire access. They identified concerns about ventilation/ scavenging systems (71.2% of 80) and unfamiliarity with equipment (52.5% of 80) as the most common barriers to use.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence to support its use, only half of Canadian pediatric ED physicians surveyed use N2O in their clinical practice for treating procedure-related pain and distress. Increased availability of N2O equipment, protocols, and training may improve clinicians' abilities to better manage pediatric acute pain and distress in the ED.

Inhalation anesthesia without any intravenous management for pediatric proton beam therapy

INTRODUCTION

Proton beam therapy is an oncological treatment, argued to be an appropriate tumor irradiation technique for childhood solid tumors. Due to its duration and the need for immobility, many children require anesthesia for proton therapy sessions. As not many centers in the world provide this therapy, there is little published research about pediatric anesthesia for these cases, and the available data suggest a preference for intravenous anesthesia or combined intravenous and inhalation anesthesia. We conducted this study with the aim of describing and analyzing the inhalation anesthetic management of children undergoing proton therapy at our medical center, comparing our results with studies that have followed different anesthetic protocols.

METHODS

We reviewed two major databases (Web of Science and Scopus) to find papers that had addressed, to date, anesthesia for pediatric proton therapy. To describe our anesthetic management, we included all pediatric patients treated with proton therapy under anesthesia in our center between June 2020 and August 2021. The characteristics of the patients, their diagnoses, treatments, airway management, drugs administered, duration of induction, and recovery from anesthesia, and adverse effects where all recorded. All anesthesiologists followed a strict anesthetic protocol based only on inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane delivered via laryngeal mask airway.

RESULTS

Of the total of 1082 papers found in Web of Science and Scopus on pediatric proton therapy, 11 have addressed its anesthetic management, using intravenous or combined intravenous and inhalation anesthesia. Between June 2020 and August 2021, 31 children were anesthetized in our center to receive proton therapy under inhalational anesthesia (total number of sessions: 873). The mean anesthesia induction time was 4.1 min (SD = 0.7, 95% CI [3.9, 4.4]). The mean anesthesia recovery time was 13.8 min (SD = 4.1, 95% CI [12.3, 15.3]). The percentage of non-serious adverse effects was 0.7% (Clopper-Pearson 95% CI [0.3, 1.5]). The percentage of serious adverse effects was 0.1% (Clopper-Pearson 95% CI [0, 0.6]), without statistically significant difference with other published works with different anesthetic approaches.

CONCLUSION

Inhalation anesthesia without any intravenous management for pediatric proton therapy is, in our experience, an effective technique with a complication rate similar to other anesthetic approaches.

Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Moderate to deep sedation is required for dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. Midazolam is the most commonly used sedative, whereas intranasal dexmedetomidine is increasingly used in pediatric sedation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this trial was to compare the sedative efficacy of oral midazolam alone with that of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam during dental treatment of children with dental anxiety.

DESIGN

In total, 83 children (aged 3-12 years) scheduled to undergo dental sedation were randomized to receive oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal placebo, or oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) plus intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg). The primary outcome was the rate of successful sedation for dental treatment. Secondary outcomes were the onset time and adverse events during and after treatment. Data analyses involved descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

The rate of successful sedation was significantly higher in combination group (P = 0.007), although the sedation onset time was significantly longer in combination group (17.5 ± 2.4 min) than in monotherapy group (15.7 ± 1.8) (P = 0.003). No children required medical intervention or oxygen therapy for hemodynamic disturbances, and the incidences of adverse events had no significant difference between groups (P = 0.660).

CONCLUSION

Combined treatment with oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) is more significantly effective for managing the behavior of non-cooperative children during dental treatment, compared to oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) alone. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100042300) TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2100042300, Clinical trial first registration date: 17/01/2021.

Physician Self-Reported Practice Patterns: Midazolam for Minor Procedures in Pediatric Patients

Midazolam is frequently used as a single agent to provide minimal sedation (also called anxiolysis) when performing procedures in minor children. Published guidelines on the optimal use of intranasal (INM) and oral midazolam (POM) are lacking. The purpose of this study is to explore the self-reported physician practice related to midazolam use in facilitating minor procedures in children. We developed a survey that was approved by the Academy of Pediatrics Section on Emergency Medicine (APP-SOEM) and was then electronically distributed via its listserve. Questions were posed about the therapeutic and maximum dosing of INM and POM, consideration of Nothing-By-Mouth (NPO) status, use of cardiopulmonary monitors, as well as discharge criteria. There was a 47% (218/465) response rate. For therapeutic INM doses, 65% of responders used a dose range of 0.3 to 0.6 mg/kg, and 75% selected a maximum dose of 10 mg irrespective of the child's weight. About 20% of the responders selected a dosage range of 0.7 to 1 mg/kg for therapeutic POM dose, with 43% opting for a maximum dose of 20 mg irrespective of the child's weight. We observed a dichotomous variation in reported physician use of cardiopulmonary monitors; 42% never employ monitors, and the remainder used monitors some of the time. There was consensus on the NPO status and discharge criteria; 80% of physicians did not consider NPO status prior to midazolam use. The level of alertness was the most commonly selected discharge criterion. This nationwide survey of physicians indicates practice variation with midazolam dosing and cardiopulmonary monitor usage when performing minor procedures in children. Implementing practice guidelines, specifically for minimal sedation with mainstay agents such as midazolam, may standardize physician practice and improve overall patient care.

Remimazolam Compared to Propofol During Hysteroscopy: A Safety and Efficacy Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Propofol is the main drug used to induce sedation for endoscopic procedures, and few drugs had shaken its dominant clinical use for a decade until the development of remimazolam. Remimazolam has been demonstrated to perform well in post-marketing studies on sedation for colonoscopy or other procedures requiring short periods of sedation. This study aimed to establish whether remimazolam was effective and safe for inducing sedation for hysteroscopy.

METHODS

One hundred patients who were scheduled to undergo hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to receive induction with remimazolam or propofol. A dose of 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam was administered. Propofol was started at 2-2.5 mg/kg. Before remimazolam or propofol induction, 1 μg/kg fentanyl was infused. Hemodynamic parameters, vital signs, and bispectral index (BIS) values were measured and adverse events recorded to evaluate safety. We comprehensively evaluated the efficacy and safety of the two drugs by the success rate of induction, fluctuation of vital signs, depth of anesthesia, adverse reactions, recovery time, and other indicators.

RESULTS

Information on 83 patients was successfully recorded and carefully documented. The success rate of sedation in the remimazolam group (group R) was 93%, which was lower than for the propofol group (group P) (100%), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The incidence of adverse reactions in group R (7.5%) was significantly lower than that in group P (67.4%), and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The fluctuation of vital signs in group P was more severe after induction, especially in patients with cardiovascular diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam avoids the injection pain produced by propofol sedation, has a better pre-sedation experience, had the advantage of stable hemodynamics after injection compared to propofol, and a lower respiratory depression rate in the study patients.

Safety of nurse-directed triage intranasal fentanyl protocol for acute pain management in a European pediatric emergency department: A retrospective observational analysis

BACKGROUND

Nurse-directed pain protocols for intranasal fentanyl administration are not widely implemented in European (EU) pediatric emergency departments (PED). Barriers include perceived safety concerns for intranasal (IN) fentanyl. The aim of this study is to describe our experience with a nurse-directed triage IN fentanyl protocol with a focus on safety in a tertiary EU PED.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient records of children aged 0-16 years who received nurse-directed IN fentanyl between January 2019 and December 2021 at the PED of the University Children's Hospital of Bern, Switzerland. Extracted data points included demographics, presenting complaint, pain score, IN fentanyl dosage, concomitant pain medication use, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 314 patients were identified with ages ranging from 9 months to 15 years. The main indication for nurse-directed fentanyl administration was musculoskeletal pain due to trauma (n = 284, 90%). Mild adverse events (vertigo) were reported in two patients (0.6%), without a correlation to concomitant pain medication or protocol violation. The only reported severe adverse event of syncope and hypoxia in a 14-year-old adolescent occurred in a setting where the institutional nurse-directed protocol was violated.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with previous studies outside of Europe, our data support the case that when appropriately used, nurse-directed IN fentanyl is a safe potent opioid analgesic for pediatric acute pain management. We strongly encourage the introduction of nurse-directed triage fentanyl protocols Europe-wide in order to provide effective and adequate acute pain management in children.

Pediatric Sedation and Analgesia Outside the Operating Room: Combining Intranasal Fentanyl and Inhaled Nitrous Oxide

OBJECTIVE

Combining intranasal fentanyl (IN FENT) with inhaled nitrous oxide (N2O) seems to have good properties for pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). This study aims to assess the side effect rate of the combined use of IN FENT and N2O.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, single-center study. Patients treated in either the pediatric emergency department (PED) or the pediatric surgery outpatient clinic (PSOC) were included, if they received PSA with IN FENT and nitrous oxide with 50% oxygen (N2O 50%).

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-five patients were included over a period of 4 years. Median age was 9.4 years (range, 3.1 to 15.9) and 39% of patients were female. Overall side effect rate was 30% (114 patients). Most frequent was dizziness (n = 63, 17%; 95% CI, 13–21), followed by nausea (n = 23, 6%; 95% CI, 4–9) and emesis (n = 14, 4%; 95% CI, 2–6), with 35 patients having either nausea and/or emesis (9%; 95% CI, 7–13). No serious side effects were recorded (0%; 95% CI, 0–0.1). Of 298 patients with information regarding satisfaction, 280 patients would like the same sedation for a similar procedure in the future (94%; 95% CI, 90–96). We found no relation between previously described risk factors and emesis and/or nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

N2O 50% combined with IN FENT can be recommended as an effective and safe treatment in the PED and the PSOC. While the side effect rate, primarily dizziness, nausea and emesis was substantial, antiemetic prophylaxis is not indicated owing to the overall low incidence of nausea and emesis.

The relationship between the effect-site concentration of propofol and sedation scale in children: a pharmacodynamic modeling study

Background

Continuous infusion of propofol has been used to achieve sedation in children. However, the relationship between the effect-site concentration (C_e) of propofol and sedation scale has not been previously examined. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between the C_e of propofol and the University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS) score in children with population pharmacodynamic modeling.

Methods

A total of 30 patients (aged 3 to 6 years) who underwent surgery under general anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil lasting more than 1 h were enrolled in this study. Sedation levels were evaluated using the UMSS score every 20 s by a 1 μg/mL stepwise increase in the C_e of propofol during the induction of anesthesia. The pharmacodynamic relationship between the C_e of propofol and UMSS score was analyzed by logistic regression with nonlinear mixed-effect modeling.

Results

The estimated C_e50 (95% confidence interval) of propofol to yield UMSS scores equal to or greater than n were 1.84 (1.54–2.14), 2.64 (2.20–3.08), 3.98 (3.66–4.30), and 4.78 (4.53–5.03) μg/mL for n = 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The slope steepness for the relationship of the C_e versus sedative response to propofol (95% confidence interval) was 5.76 (4.00–7.52).

Conclusions

We quantified the pharmacodynamic relationship between the C_e of propofol and UMSS score, and this finding may be helpful to predict the sedation score at the target C_e of propofol in children.

Trial registration

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (No.: NCT03195686, Date of registration: 22/06/2017).

High-Dose Dexmedetomidine Promotes Apoptosis in Fetal Rat Hippocampal Neurons

Objective

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a potent a2-adrenoceptor agonist that has sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Its primary clinical use is as an adjunct to general anesthesia to reduce anesthetic doses, provide analgesia and sedation in the preoperative and postoperative periods, it also used in intensive care units (ICUs). However, high concentrations of DEX may have toxic effects on neurons and cause neuronal apoptosis. This study aimed to evaluate the potential proapoptotic effects of DEX on fetal rat hippocampal neurons.

Methods

Primary hippocampal were cultured in vitro for 8 days and incubated with different DEX concentrations for 3 h. Cell viability was measured using cell counting kit-8 assays. Cell apoptosis was evaluated using flow cytometry. The expression of apoptosis-related proteins, such as cleaved caspase-3, caspase-9, Cyt-c, Bax, and Bcl-2, was measured by Western blotting. The mitochondrial ATP levels, Δψm, and ROS analyzed were conducted.

Results

High concentrations of DEX (≥100 μM) significantly reduced cell viability, induced neuronal apoptosis, upregulated the protein expression of cleaved caspase 3, Bax, cleaved caspase 9, and Cyt-c. DEX also considerably promoted the release of ROS. However, DEX (≥100 μM) downregulated the protein expression of Bcl-2, decreased the mitochondrial membrane potential (MTP), and reduced ATP synthesis.

Conclusion

High concentrations of dexmedetomidine produced toxic effects on neurons and caused neuronal apoptosis.

Effects of dexmedetomidine sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Pediatric sedation is commonly required to obtain high-quality images in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine sedation for MRI in children.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to find all randomized controlled trials concerning dexmedetomidine sedation for MRI in children. We searched databases using the Ovid platform in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. This study was registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42020198368.

RESULTS

Seven studies and 753 participants were included. Dexmedetomidine sedation showed a significantly delayed onset time [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 8.13 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.64 to 11.63, I² = 98%] and recovery time (WMD = 5.22 min, 95% CI 0.35 to 10.09, I² = 92%) compared to propofol, ketamine, and midazolam sedation. There was no difference in quality of sedation [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.69, I² = 89%], or incidence of sedation failure (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.66, I² = 83%) between groups. Although a significantly decreased heart rate (WMD = - 17.34 beats/minute, 95% CI - 22.42 to - 12.26, I² = 96%) was observed, bradycardia that required treatment was not increased (RR = 8.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 62.64, I² = 0%). Dexmedetomidine sedation had a lower incidence of desaturation events (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86, I² = 4%). However, there was no difference in incidence of postoperative vomiting (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.17, I² = 17%) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine sedation provided a similar sedation quality with a reduced incidence of desaturation events. However, the delayed onset and recovery times were drawbacks. The clinical significance of bradycardia is considered to be low. GRADE assessment revealed the quality of the evidence in this meta-analysis ranged from very low to moderate.

Pediatric characteristics and the dose of propofol for sedation during radiological examinations: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to investigate patients' characteristics that can affect the dose of propofol required to sedate children undergoing imaging.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational study, we reviewed medical records of children aged 0 to 18 years who were classified as having American Society of Anesthesiologists status 1 or 2 and they underwent imaging under propofol sedation between January 2011 and August 2016. Collected data included patients' demographics, propofol doses, duration of sedation, and complications. Regression analysis was performed to determine patients' characteristics that may affect the dose of propofol required to induce sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 925 patients were included. Simple linear regression showed that the dose of propofol was correlated with age, height, weight, and body surface area. Using the results of multiple linear regression, the following formula was used to estimate the dose of propofol (mg) for sedation: 0.75 + 0.14 × age (months) + 45.82 × body surface area (m²).

CONCLUSION

A child's age, height, and body surface area should be considered when deciding the induction dose of propofol. Additionally, the formula that we have proposed can be used to estimate the dose of propofol required to induce sedation in children undergoing imaging.

A review of the clinical applications of ketamine in pediatric oncology

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic agent with excellent analgesic properties and a favorable safety profile. The feasibility and efficacy of various routes of administration have been established, including intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), oral, intranasal, rectal, and transdermal routes. The advent of newer anesthetic agents has led to a decline in the use of ketamine as an anesthetic, but its utility in short-term sedation and analgesia has expanded. Its value for chronic pain management in children with cancer is being increasingly recognized but requires more evidence. The use of topical ketamine is largely in investigational stages. Medical use of ketamine is, to a great extent, free from significant long-term neurological side effects. The objective of this review is to provide a brief account of the pharmacology of ketamine and primarily focus on the clinical applications of ketamine in pediatric oncology.

Ketamine-propofol (Ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this review is to elucidate the efficacy and side effects of ketofol in comparison to other anaesthetic agents during procedural sedation and analgesia.

Method

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.

Results

Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: − 14.30 to − 5.46; P = 0.0003; I² = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: − 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I² = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I² = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I² = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I² = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I² = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I² = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I² = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I² = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I² = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I² = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I² = 59%).

Conclusion

There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019127278.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Pediatric Oncology Patients

Objective Procedural sedation and analgesia are the standard of care for painful procedures in children that require immobility. The aim is to assess the safety and efficacy of procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric oncological patients in a large tertiary care hospital. Method An observational study performed to review medical records of children who received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for pediatric oncological procedures from July 2018 to September 2018. Patients undergoing oncology procedures (lumbar puncture, intrathecal chemotherapy, bone marrow aspiration +/- trephine) were included, and non-anesthesiologist (intensive care physician/emergency physician certified in pediatric advanced life support) provided PSA. Patients were assessed according to PSA protocol guidelines by the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA). Low-dose ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) and propofol (2 mg/kg) were administered. Results A total of 565 children underwent 1216 procedures in whom the median age was 7.4 years, and the majority (65.1%) were males. The most common procedure was the lumbar puncture (n = 956; 78.6%) followed by bone marrow aspirate only (n = 137, 11.3%) and both (n = 123, 10.1%). Eight (0.7%) patients developed transient oxygen desaturation only as an adverse effect of ketamine-propofol drug combination with 50% procedures utilizing propofol 1 mg/kg for sedation. Conclusion According to the results of our study, the majority of the pediatric patients responded and reported no adverse events during the procedure with ketamine and propofol. Therefore, we conclude that ketamine and propofol are safe and effective as both sedative and an analgesic in procedures on pediatric oncology patients.

Psychomotor Recovery Following Remimazolam-induced Sedation and the Effectiveness of Flumazenil as an Antidote

PURPOSE

Remimazolam tosylate (HR-7056) is a novel ester-type benzodiazepine with ultrafast onset of effect. The compound is being developed for sedation induction and maintenance during anesthesia. It was approved for procedural anesthesia in December 2019 by the National Medical Products Administration of China. Previous studies have reported on remimazolam's effects on consciousness and cognition. Although the time to full psychomotor recovery after remimazolam-mediated sedation is critical for decisions regarding hospital discharge, relevant clinical evidence is still lacking. This study investigated the residual psychomotor effects of remimazolam and their recovery from sedating treatment in 2 simulated clinical settings: (1) single-dose administration for sedation initiation; and (2) constant rate infusion for sedation maintenance.

METHODS

A single-ascending-dose, parallel-group, midazolam-controlled study and a 2-way crossover study evaluating the reversal effect of flumazenil versus placebo after a 2-h constant rate infusion were conducted with HR-7056 in 87 Chinese healthy volunteers; the studies used a double-blind, randomized trial design. A battery of psychomotor tests was administered before dosing and several times postdose over 4-6 h. Pharmacokinetic, sedation, and safety assessments were performed throughout the studies.

FINDINGS

After bolus infusion, the Bispectral Index score decreased in a concentration-dependent manner with HR-7056, accompanied by a sharp drop of Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score. The recovery of consciousness was much faster with HR-7056 than with midazolam. During the constant rate infusion, the Bispectral Index score was maintained between 40 and 60 with an average plasma remimazolam concentration of ~1000 ng/mL. Subjects' performance in saccadic and smooth pursuit eye movement, body sway, test of choice reaction time, and word recall was significantly impaired after single-dose midazolam and after constant rate infusion of remimazolam. The end-of-infusion injection of flumazenil shortened the median time to full alertness to 3.5 min and effectively reversed psychomotor and cardiovascular dysfunction.

IMPLICATIONS

The study results showed quicker psychomotor recovery from sedation in the remimazolam-treated group. The moderate and short-lasting residual effect of remimazolam after 2-h conscious sedation proposes a need for psychomotor assessment(s) before hospital discharge. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01970072 and NCT03444480.

La gestion de la douleur et de l’anxiété chez les enfants lors de brèves interventions diagnostiques et thérapeutiques

Les interventions médicales courantes utilisées pour évaluer et traiter les patients peuvent causer une douleur et une anxiété marquées. Les cliniciens devraient adopter une approche de base pour limiter la douleur et l’anxiété chez les enfants, notamment à l’égard des interventions diagnostiques et thérapeutiques fréquentes. Le présent document de principes est axé sur les nourrissons, les enfants et les adolescents qui subissent des interventions médicales courantes mineures, mais douloureuses. Il n’aborde pas les soins prodigués à l’unité de soins intensifs néonatale. Les auteurs examinent des stratégies simples et fondées sur des données probantes pour gérer la douleur et l’anxiété et donnent des conseils pour en faire un volet essentiel de la pratique clinique. Les professionnels de la santé sont invités à utiliser des façons de procéder peu invasives et, lorsque les interventions douloureuses sont inévitables, à combiner des stratégies simples de réduction de la douleur et de l’anxiété pour améliorer l’expérience du patient, du parent et du professionnel de la santé. Les administrateurs de la santé sont encouragés à créer des politiques pour leurs établissements, à améliorer la formation et l’accès aux lignes directrices, à créer des environnements propices aux enfants et aux adolescents, à s’assurer de la disponibilité du personnel, de l’équipement et des agents pharmacologiques appropriés et à effectuer des contrôles de qualité pour garantir une gestion de la douleur optimale.

Managing pain and distress in children undergoing brief diagnostic and therapeutic procedures

Common medical procedures to assess and treat patients can cause significant pain and distress. Clinicians should have a basic approach for minimizing pain and distress in children, particularly for frequently used diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. This statement focuses on infants (excluding care provided in the NICU), children, and youth who are undergoing common, minor but painful medical procedures. Simple, evidence-based strategies for managing pain and distress are reviewed, with guidance for integrating them into clinical practice as an essential part of health care. Health professionals are encouraged to use minimally invasive approaches and, when painful procedures are unavoidable, to combine simple pain and distress-minimizing strategies to improve the patient, parent, and health care provider experience. Health administrators are encouraged to create institutional policies, improve education and access to guidelines, create child- and youth-friendly environments, ensure availability of appropriate staff, equipment and pharmacological agents, and perform quality audits to ensure pain management is optimal.

[Drugs for intravenous induction of anesthesia: propofol]

In a series of articles dealing with hypnotics for induction of anesthesia, this article describes the development and current value of propofol. Its significance far exceeds that of a pure induction hypnotic (sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and on the intensive care unit). Propofol is also used for sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and on the intensive care unit. In the field of induction of anesthesia, the alternatives are barely used. Some contraindications are still controversial whereas others are no longer sufficiently anchored in the users' awareness (widespread off-label use). Adverse effects, such as injection pain, infection risk and propofol-related infusion syndrome (PRIS) could be significantly reduced by pharmacovigilance. With appropriate caution nearly the whole spectrum of anesthesiology patients can be treated using propofol. The hemodynamic side effects and the rare but potentially fatal PRIS are limitations. Further developments address the water solubility and the solubilizing agents of propofol.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine and intravenous ketamine for procedural sedation in a child with alpha-mannosidosis: a magic bullet?

Background

Procedural sedation is increasingly needed in pediatrics. Although different drugs or drugs association are available, which is the safest and most efficient has yet to be defined, especially in syndromic children with increased sedation-related risk factors.

Case report

we report the case of a five-year-old child affected by alpha-mannosidosis who required procedural sedation for an MRI scan and a lumbar puncture. We administered intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg) 45 min before intravenous cannulation, followed by one bolus of ketamine (1 mg/kg) for each procedure. The patient maintained spontaneous breathing and no desaturation or any complication occurred.

Conclusion

intranasal dexmedetomidine and intravenous ketamine could be a feasible option for MRI and lumbar puncture in children with alpha-mannosidosis needing sedation.

EMDR and Nonpharmacological Techniques for Anxiety Prevention in Children Prior to Invasive Medical Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Nonpharmacological Techniques (NPT) have been suggested as an efficient and safe means to reduce pain and anxiety in invasive medical procedures. Due to the anxious and potentially traumatic nature of these procedures, we decided to integrate an eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) session in the preprocedure NPT. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of one session of EMDR in addition to the routine NPT. Forty-nine pediatric patients (Male = 25; Female = 24) aged 8–18 years (M = 13.17; SD = 2.98) undergoing painful and invasive medical procedures were randomized to receive standard preprocedural care (N = 25) or a session of EMDR in addition to the standard nonpharmacological interventions (N = 24). Participants completed the anxiety and depression scales from the Italian Psychiatric Self-evaluation Scale for Children and Adolescents (SAFA) and rated anxiety on a 0–10 numeric rating scale. Participants in the NPT+EMDR condition expressed significantly less anxiety before the medical procedure than those in the NPT group (p = .038). The integration of EMDR with NPT was demonstrated to be an effective anxiety prevention technique for pediatric sedo-analgesia. These results are the first data on the efficacy of EMDR as a technique to prevent anxiety in pediatric sedo-analgesia. There are important long-term clinical implications because this therapy allows an intervention on situations at risk of future morbidity and the prevention of severe disorders.

Conscious sedation and reduction of fractures in the paediatric population: an orthopaedic perspective

PURPOSE

Closed reduction under conscious sedation in the emergency department (ED) has been demonstrated to provide cost-effective, timely care. There has been little research into the efficacy of conscious sedation and reduction from an orthopaedic trauma perspective. This study describes the epidemiology and outcomes associated with fracture conscious sedation and reduction in our level I paediatric ED.

METHODS

All fracture patients presenting overnight to our level I trauma centre ED between 01 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 were identified. Patient records were reviewed to determine diagnoses, treatments and outcomes. The rate of repeat intervention after successful conscious sedation and reduction and rate of changes in management in which the orthopaedic resident's overnight management plan to provide procedural sedation was altered to surgical intervention after morning case review rounds was calculated.

RESULTS

Conscious sedation and reduction was performed on a total of 386 patients covering ten fracture types during the course of our study, with distal radius fractures (n = 167, 43.3%) comprising the majority of cases. A total of 53 cases (13.7%, 53/386) lost alignment and required repeat intervention, consisting of 33 cases (8.5%, 33/386) that required repeat surgery and 5.2% (20/386) that required cast wedging. In all, 12 patients (3.1%, 12/386) initially reduced under conscious sedation required a change in management and surgical intervention. There were five cases of growth arrest and two cases of malunion.

CONCLUSIONS

Conscious sedation and reduction provides an alternative to general anaesthesia for many paediatric trauma injuries without compromising patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Study of Feasibility and Safety of Higher-Dose Dexmedetomidine in Special Outpatient Examination of Pediatric Ophthalmology

Objective

To investigate the feasibility and safety of higher-dose dexmedetomidine in ophthalmological outpatient examination of children with cataract.

Methods

100 cases of children were recruited in the study and randomly equally divided into two groups. One group was given 2 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine anesthesia, while the other group was under 3 μg/kg. The dosage of dexmedetomidine was calculated by the same anesthesiologist according to the weight of patient. After sufficient sedation, the same ophthalmologist performed ocular examinations manually, including intraocular pressure, keratometry, axial length, and corneal thickness and recorded the ocular position score during intraocular pressure measurement and corneal thickness measurement. Other variables were sedation onset time, recovery time, vital signs, and side effects.

Results

In intraocular pressure measurement, only one case in the 2 μg/kg group did not complete the examination, while all cases in the 3 μg/kg group completed the examination and the difference of the success rate between the two groups was nonsignificant (P > 0.05). The success rates of the 3 μg/kg group in corneal curvature, axial length, and corneal thickness examination were 96%, 92%, and 86%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of the 2 μg/kg group (22%, 18%, and 4%). The average onset time of sedation in the 3 μg/kg group was 15.42 ± 2.09 minutes, which was significantly shorter than that in the 2 μg/kg group (19.52 ± 2.43 minutes, P < 0.001). The average time of completing all examinations in the 3 μg/kg group was 18.36 ± 4.01 minutes, which was significantly shorter than that in the 2 μg/kg group (22.62 ± 4.13 min, P < 0.001). The recovery time of group 3 μg/kg was 90.62 ± 27.80 min, which was significantly longer than that of group 2 μg/kg (49.20 ± 15.50 min). Vital signs such as pulse, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and heart rate kept in normal range throughout the tests, and no obvious side effects were observed.

Conclusion

3 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine had a higher sedation success rate and quality than 2 μg/kg did in pediatric ocular examinations, without any obvious side effects.

Use of ketamine by paediatricians in Italian paediatric emergency departments: a missed opportunity?

Procedural sedation and analgesia with ketamine are part of daily practice for children undergoing painful procedures in the paediatric emergency department (ED) of North America. A massive number of studies demonstrate ketamine's safety and efficacy in the hands of trained ED paediatricians, with few severe adverse events (SAEs) recorded. Since there are no data on ketamine's usage in Italian paediatric EDs, we created a survey to examine procedural sedation with ketamine in the EDs of the Italian PIPER (Pain in Paediatric Emergency Room) group, which includes 36 paediatric EDs providing 1.4 million paediatric visits each year. Results were reviewed using frequencies to describe responses. Thirty-two out of 36 centres replied to the questionnaire. In 6 (19%) out of 32 centres, ketamine is not used at all in the paediatric ED. In 6 centres (23%) of 26 which use ketamine, this drug is autonomously administered by the emergency paediatrician, whereas in 20 (77%) of them it is exclusively managed by the anaesthesiologist on call.Conclusion: ketamine is autonomously administered only by a small percentage of Italian emergency paediatricians. There is an increasing need for implementation of procedural sedation training and use of ketamine in the everyday practice outside the operating room in paediatric EDs. What is Known: • Ketamine is safely and efficaciously administered for children's procedural sedation and analgesia by trained emergency paediatricians in the everyday practice outside the operating room in North America. • In the Italian setting, there are no data at all concerning ketamine's usage by the emergency paediatricians for procedural sedation and pain control. What is New: • In this study emerged that ketamine is poorly administered by Italian emergency paediatricians for procedural sedation and analgesia outside the operating room. • A great deal of educational effort should be made to widen ketamine based procedural sedation availability in Italian emergency departments by spreading specific training tracks and guidelines.

Randomized clinical trial on the efficacy of intranasal or oral ketamine-midazolam combinations compared to oral midazolam for outpatient pediatric sedation

Purpose

The optimal sedative regime that provides the greatest comfort and the lowest risk for procedural sedation in young children remains to be determined. The aim of this randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-design trial was to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal ketamine and midazolam as the main component of the behavioral guidance approach for preschoolers during dental treatment.

Materials and methods

Children under seven years of age, with caries and non-cooperative behavior, were randomized into three groups: (KMIN) intranasal ketamine and midazolam; (KMO) oral ketamine and midazolam; or (MO) oral midazolam. The dental sedation appointments were videotaped, and the videos were analyzed using the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS) to determine the success of the sedation in each group. Intra- and postoperative adverse events were recorded. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests (P < 0.05, IBM SPSS).

Results

Participants were 84 children (28 per group; 43 boys), with a mean age of 3.1 years (SD 1.2). Children’s baseline and the dental sedation session characteristics were balanced among groups. The success of the treatment as assessed by the dichotomous variable ‘quiet behavior for at least 60% of the session length’ was: KMIN 50.0% (n = 14; OR 2.10, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.30), KMO 46.4% (n = 13; OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.40), MO 32.1% (n = 9) (P = 0.360). Adverse events were minor, occurred in 37 of 84 children (44.0%), and did not differ among groups (P = 0.462).

Conclusion

All three regimens provided moderate dental sedation with minor adverse events, with marked variability in the behavior of children during dental treatment. The potential benefit of the ketamine–midazolam combination should be further investigated in studies with larger samples.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02447289. Registered on 11 May 2015, named “Midazolam and Ketamine Effect Administered Through the Nose for Sedation of Children for Dental Treatment (NASO).”

Intravenous Ketamine for Adolescents with Treatment-Resistant Depression: An Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

Novel interventions for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adolescents are urgently needed. Ketamine has been studied in adults with TRD, but little information is available for adolescents. This study investigated efficacy and tolerability of intravenous ketamine in adolescents with TRD, and explored clinical response predictors.

METHODS

Adolescents, 12-18 years of age, with TRD (failure to respond to two previous antidepressant trials) were administered six ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) infusions over 2 weeks. Clinical response was defined as a 50% decrease in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R); remission was CDRS-R score ≤28. Tolerability assessment included monitoring vital signs and dissociative symptoms using the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS).

RESULTS

Thirteen participants (mean age 16.9 years, range 14.5-18.8 years, eight biologically male) completed the protocol. Average decrease in CDRS-R was 42.5% (p = 0.0004). Five (38%) adolescents met criteria for clinical response. Three responders showed sustained remission at 6-week follow-up; relapse occurred within 2 weeks for the other two responders. Ketamine infusions were generally well tolerated; dissociative symptoms and hemodynamic symptoms were transient. Higher dose was a significant predictor of treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the potential role for ketamine in treating adolescents with TRD. Limitations include the open-label design and small sample; future research addressing these issues are needed to confirm these results. Additionally, evidence suggested a dose-response relationship; future studies are needed to optimize dose. Finally, questions remain regarding the long-term safety of ketamine as a depression treatment; more information is needed before broader clinical use.

Factors affecting procedural pain in children during and immediately after intramuscular botulinum toxin injections for spasticity

PURPOSE

To evaluate variables that modulate pain during intramuscular botulinum toxin A injections in children.

METHODS

As part of a Quality Improvement project, this retrospective analysis compared reported pain during and five minutes post injections with patient and procedural variables using subgroup and regression analyses (N= 593 procedures with 249 unique patients).

RESULTS

Mean procedural pain for all procedures (n= 563) was 3.8 ± 3.0. Most children reported no pain (83.8%) or mild pain (12.1%) five minutes after the procedure. Provider, previous patient experience, and dose did not significantly impact pain. Linear regression analysis (R=2 0.64) demonstrated that younger age (p< 0.05), use of vapo-coolant spray or topical anesthetic (p< 0.01), and body region injected (p< 0.01) were significantly associated with increased procedural pain. Logistic regression (R=2 0.14) demonstrated that pain during the procedure (p< 0.001) and older age (p< 0.01) increased the likelihood of pain post-procedure. Utilization of personnel for distraction did not significantly predict pain ratings at either time point.

CONCLUSION

Age, topical anesthesia, and injected region impact procedural pain and in nearly 96% of cases, patients report mild or no pain within five minutes. Additional research into these predictors is necessary, but short-lived procedural pain may suggest that frequent use of sedation/anesthesia is unnecessary.

Pharmacologic Considerations for Pediatric Sedation and Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: A Review for Anesthesia and Non-Anesthesia Providers

Understanding the pharmacologic options for pediatric sedation outside the operating room will allow practitioners to formulate an ideal anesthetic plan, allaying anxiety and achieving optimal immobilization while ensuring rapid and efficient recovery. The authors identified relevant medical literature by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for English language publications covering a period from 1984 to 2017. Search terms included pediatric anesthesia, pediatric sedation, non-operating room sedation, sedation safety, and pharmacology. As a narrative review of common sedation/anesthesia options, the authors elected to focus on studies, reviews, and case reports that show clinical relevance to modern day sedation/anesthesia practice. A variety of pharmacologic agents are available for sedation/anesthesia in pediatrics, including midazolam, fentanyl, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, etomidate, and propofol. Dosing ranges reported are a combination of what is discussed in the reviewed literature and text books along with personal recommendations based on our own practice. Several reports reveal that ketofol (a combination of ketamine and propofol) is quite popular for short, painful procedures. Fospropofol is a newer-generation propofol that may confer advantages over regular propofol. Remimazolam combines the pharmacologic effects of remifentanil and midazolam. A variety of etomidate derivatives such as methoxycarbonyl-etomidate, carboetomidate, methoxycarbonyl-carboetomidate, and cyclopropyl-methoxycarbonyl metomidate are in development stages. The use of nitrous oxide as a mild sedative, analgesic, and amnestic agent is gaining popularity, especially in the ambulatory setting. Utilizing a dedicated and experienced team to provide sedation enhances safety. Furthermore, limiting sedation plans to single-agent pharmacy appears to be safer than using multi-agent plans.

Pediatric Procedural Sedation Using the Combination of Ketamine and Propofol Outside of the Emergency Department: A Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes associated with a sedative regimen comprised ketamine + propofol for pediatric procedural sedation outside of both the pediatric emergency department and operating room are underreported. We used the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to describe a multicenter experience with ketamine + propofol by pediatric sedation providers.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study of children receiving IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation outside of the operating room and emergency department using data abstracted from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium during 2007-2015.

SETTING

Procedural sedation services from academic, community, free-standing children's hospitals, and pediatric wards within general hospitals.

PATIENTS

Children from birth to less than or equal to 21 years old.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 7,313 pediatric procedural sedations were performed using IV ketamine + propofol as the primary sedative regimen. Median age was 84 months (range, < 1 mo to ≤ 21 yr; interquartile range, 36-144); 80.6% were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status less than III. The majority of sedation was performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (76.1%). Procedures were successfully completed in 99.8% of patients. Anticholinergics (glycopyrrolate and atropine) or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) were used in 14.2% and 41.3%, respectively. The overall adverse event and serious adverse event rates were 9.79% (95% CI, 9.12-10.49%) and 3.47% (95% CI, 3.07-3.92%), respectively. No deaths occurred. Risk factors associated with an increase in odds of adverse event included ASA status greater than or equal to III, dental suite, cardiac catheterization laboratory or radiology/sedation suite location, a primary diagnosis of having a gastrointestinal illness, and the coadministration of an anticholinergic.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium data, we describe the diverse use of IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation in the largest reported cohort of children to date. Data from this study may be used to design sufficiently powered prospective randomized, double-blind studies comparing outcomes of sedation between commonly administered sedative and analgesic medication regimens.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine for adrenergic crisis in familial dysautonomia

PURPOSE

To report the use of intranasal dexmedetomidine, an α₂-adrenergic agonist for the acute treatment of refractory adrenergic crisis in patients with familial dysautonomia.

METHODS

Case series.

RESULTS

Three patients with genetically confirmed familial dysautonomia (case 1: 20-year-old male; case 2: 43-year-old male; case 3: 26-year-old female) received intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 mcg/kg, half of the dose in each nostril, for the acute treatment of adrenergic crisis. Within 8-17 min of administering the intranasal dose, the adrenergic crisis symptoms abated, and blood pressure and heart rate returned to pre-crises values. Adrenergic crises eventually resumed, and all three patients required hospitalization for investigation of the cause of the crises.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal dexmedetomidine is a feasible and safe acute treatment for adrenergic crisis in patients with familial dysautonomia. Further controlled studies are required to confirm the safety and efficacy in this population.

Effect of anesthesia on intraocular pressure measurement in children

Measurement of the intraocular pressure (IOP) is central to the diagnosis and management of pediatric glaucoma. An examination under anesthesia is often necessary in pediatric patients. Different agents used for sedation or general anesthesia have varied effects on IOP. Hemodynamic factors, methods of airway management, tonometry technique, and body positioning can all affect IOP measurements. The most accurate technique is one that reflects the awake IOP. We review factors affecting IOP measurements in the pediatric population and provide recommendations on the most accurate means to measure IOP under anesthesia based on the present literature.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine for Procedural Sedation in Children, a Suitable Alternative to Chloral Hydrate

Sedation is often required for children undergoing diagnostic procedures. Chloral hydrate has been one of the sedative drugs most used in children over the last 3 decades, with supporting evidence for its efficacy and safety. Recently, chloral hydrate was banned in Italy and France, in consideration of evidence of its carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative with unique properties that has been increasingly used for procedural sedation in children. Several studies demonstrated its efficacy and safety for sedation in non-painful diagnostic procedures. Dexmedetomidine's impact on respiratory drive and airway patency and tone is much less when compared to the majority of other sedative agents. Administration via the intranasal route allows satisfactory procedural success rates. Studies that specifically compared intranasal dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate for children undergoing non-painful procedures showed that dexmedetomidine was as effective as and safer than chloral hydrate. For these reasons, we suggest that intranasal dexmedetomidine could be a suitable alternative to chloral hydrate.

Pain prevalence in hospitalized children: a prospective cross-sectional survey in four Danish university hospitals

BACKGROUND

Pain management in hospitalized children is often inadequate. The prevalence and main sources of pain in Danish university hospitals is unknown.

METHODS

This prospective mixed-method cross-sectional survey took place at four university hospitals in Denmark. We enrolled 570 pediatric patients who we asked to report their pain experience and its management during the previous 24 hours. For patients identified as having moderate to severe pain, patient characteristics and analgesia regimes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirteen children (37%) responded that they had experienced pain in the previous 24 hours. One hundred and thirty four (24%) indicated moderate to severe pain and 43% would have preferred an intervention to alleviate the pain. In children hospitalized for more than 24 hours, the prevalence of moderate/severe pain was significantly higher compared to children admitted the same day. The single most common painful procedure named by the children was needle procedures, such as blood draw and intravenous cannulation.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals high pain prevalence in children across all age groups admitted to four Danish university hospitals. The majority of children in moderate to severe pain did not have a documented pain assessment, and evidence-based pharmacological and/or integrative ('non-pharmacological') measures were not systematically administered to prevent or treat pain. Thus, practice changes are needed.