Safe and effective procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children

Anesthesia choice and its potential impact on endoluminal functional lumen imaging probe measurements in esophageal motility disorders

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The widespread use of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has revolutionized the management of esophageal motility disorders (EMDs). The introduction of an endoluminal functional lumen imaging probe (EndoFLIP, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) can serve as a complementary diagnostic tool to assess the mechanical properties (ie, pressure, diameter, distensibility, topography) of the esophagus. During EndoFLIP measurements, different anesthesia techniques may induce variable degrees of neuromuscular blockade, potentially affecting esophageal motility and altering the results of EndoFLIP metrics. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of using total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus general anesthesia with inhalational anesthetics (GAIA) on diagnostic EndoFLIP measurements.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing EndoFlip during the POEM procedure at our institution between February 2017 and February 2022. Differences in pressure, diameter, and distensibility index were obtained by using propofol-based TIVA versus sevoflurane-based GAIA with a 30 mL and a 60 mL balloon. The differences were divided into terciles and compared between diagnoses by using univariate comparisons and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were included (39% type I achalasia, 43% type II or III achalasia, and 18% jackhammer esophagus [JE]). Compared with spastic disorders (types II and III achalasia and JE), type I had lower values of pressure differences at 60 mL in univariate (3.75 vs 15.20, P = .001) and multivariate (adjusted odds ratio, .89; 95% confidence interval, .82-.978) analyses. Compared with type I, types II and III achalasia had higher rates of pressure differences at 60 mL in the univariate (9.85 vs 3.75, P = .04) analysis and nearly reached significance in the multivariate analysis (1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1-1.20). Compared with type I achalasia, JE exhibited higher values in pressure differences at 60 mL (27.7 vs 3.75, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal pressure, as measured by EndoFLIP, was significantly reduced when patients were sedated with sevoflurane-based GAIA. The use of sevoflurane-based GAIA for diagnostic EndoFLIP may potentially lead to the misclassification of spastic disorders as type I achalasia. Propofol-based TIVA should therefore be considered over sevoflurane-based GAIA for sedation during the diagnostic test.

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.

The Effect of Preoperative Combined with Intravenous Lidocaine and Ketamine vs. Intravenous Ketamine on Pediatric Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ketamine is widely used in pediatric sedation. New studies have recommended combination therapy to reduce the side effects of ketamine.

Objectives

This study investigated the effect of adding intravenous (IV) lidocaine to ketamine on hemodynamic parameters, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time of children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

This triple-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in Isfahan, Iran (2021). One hundred twenty children between the ages of 1 and 6 were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups. The intervention group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV lidocaine and 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine, and the placebo group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine and placebo 2 minutes before entering the endoscopic room. Patients in both groups were sedated with 1.0 mg/kg of propofol, 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam, and 2.0 ug/kg of fentanyl for the procedure. The pulse rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded 1 minute before injection and every 5 minutes afterward.

Results

The mean (SD) ages of the intervention and control groups were 3.4 (1.5) and 3.4 (1.7), respectively. The mean difference in hemodynamic parameters between the 2 groups was insignificant during the investigation (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were found regarding endoscopist satisfaction scores and length of recovery room stay (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Adding low-dose IV lidocaine to ketamine for pediatric sedation does not significantly affect the hemodynamic status, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time.

Safety, Efficacy and High-Quality Standards of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures in Personalized Sedoanalgesia Managed by the Gastroenterologist: A Retrospective Study

Performing GI endoscopy under sedoanalgesia improves the quality-indices of the examination, in particular for cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. The implementation of procedural sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy is also strongly recommended by the guidelines of the major international scientific societies. Nevertheless, there are regional barriers that prevent the widespread adoption of this good practice. A retrospective monocentric analytic study was performed on a cohort of 529 patients who underwent EGDS/Colonoscopy in sedoanalgesia, with personalized dosage of Fentanyl and Midazolam. ASA class, age and weight were collected for each patient. The vital parameters were recorded during, pre- and post-procedure. The rates of cecal intubation and of procedure-related complications were entered. The VAS scale was used to evaluate the efficacy of sedoanalgesia, and the Aldrete score was used for patient discharge criteria. No clinically significant differences were found between vital signs pre- and post-procedure. Both anesthesia and endoscopic-related complications occurring were few and successfully managed. At the end of examination, both the mean Aldrete score (89.56), and the VAS score (<4 in 99.1%) were suitable for discharge. For the colonoscopies, the cumulative adenoma detection rate (25%) and the cecal intubation rate in the general group (98%) and in the colorectal cancer screening group (100%) were satisfying. Pain control management is an ethical and medical issue aimed at increasing both patient compliance and the quality of the procedures. The findings of this work underscore that in selected patients personalized sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy can be safely managed by gastroenterologists.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence rates of adverse events after digestive endoscopy in children

BACKGROUND

With the widespread use of digestive endoscopy in children, a variety of adverse events (AEs) have occurred after digestive endoscopy. However, there are notable differences in the incidence of adverse reactions in digestive endoscopy in children at present, which makes it difficult to assess the safety of digestive endoscopy in children.

METHODS

Studies related to digestive endoscopy in children were screened from January 2005 to October 2021 from PubMed, Web of Science, Spring, CNKI, and Science Direct databases. RevMan5.3 and Stata were employed to carry out meta-analysis on the incidence of adverse respiratory events, myoclonus, abdominal pain, fever, bleeding, chest pain, sore throat, vomiting, and delayed capsule discharge after digestive endoscopy in children. The article quality was evaluated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The chi-square test and I² were adopted to test literature heterogeneity, and the article publication bias was assessed by displaying an inverted funnel plot as a funnel plot.

RESULTS

In all, 15 articles were included, involving a total of 27,770 children. In all, 15 articles were included, involving a total of 27,770 children. The risk ratio (RR) value of adverse respiratory events after digestive endoscopy in children was 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17 to 1.47, P<0.00001]; the odds ratio (OR) value of the incidence of myoclonus was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.46, P=0.04); the incidence of abdominal pain was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.27, P<0.00001); the incidence of fever was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.12, P<0.00001); the incidence of bleeding was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.64, P=0.13); the incidence of chest pain was 1.06 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.09, P<0.0001); incidence of sore throat was 1.11 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.18, P=0.0004); incidence of vomiting was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.21, P=0.0001); and the incidence of delayed capsule expulsion was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.40, P=0.05).

DISCUSSION

The incidence of AEs after digestive endoscopy in children was low, which can be used in the diagnosis and therapy of digestive system diseases in children.

Can Propofol Be Used to Assess the Presence of the Rectoanal Inhibitory Reflex During Anorectal Manometry Studies?

OBJECTIVES

To study changes in intra-anal pressure (IAP) and characteristics of the rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR) during anorectal manometry (ARM) in patients undergoing anesthesia induction with propofol.

METHODS

Prospective study in which ARM was performed at baseline while patients were awake and repeated after propofol-induced anesthesia. We studied IAP and the presence and characteristics of the RAIR before and after propofol.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients were included (63% male; 9.2 years). Three patients had obstructive symptoms after Hirschsprung disease repair (HSCR), and 24 had intractable constipation. At baseline, the RAIR was present on 21 of 27 patients and absent on 6 of 27. Of the six patients with an absent RAIR, it remained absent in four of six (three known HSCR, and one new diagnosis of IAS achalasia), and two of six had a normal RAIR during propofol. Therefore, RAIR was present in all patients with constipation. The mean resting IAP was significantly lower after propofol. The percentage of IAS relaxation after lower balloon volume inflations was significantly higher during propofol (P < 0.05). No difference was observed over the latency time or the total relaxation time after propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol can be used to assess the presence of the RAIR during ARM in children who are uncooperative and undergoing other procedures under anesthesia. On the other hand, propofol significantly reduces the resting IAP and increases the percentage of internal anal sphincter relaxation after balloon distention. These findings may impact the interpretation to decide if an intervention is needed, or if there is a possible spinal neuropathy.

Stimulating peristalsis improves esophagogastric junction observation during sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children and adolescents

Background and study aims

Sedation impairs full visualization of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) and Z line (the squamocolumnar junction) during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The aim of this study was to determine whether induction of esophageal peristalsis could improve the ability to evaluate the Z line in children and adolescents.

Patients and methods

Study 1: Consecutive patients (10-15 years) undergoing EGD with propofol or midazolam sedation were enrolled. The proportion of Z line observed was compared between the two groups. Study 2: The effect of an air infusion near the EGJ following deflation of the stomach to induce esophageal peristalsis was investigated in the patients (15-18 years), undergoing EGD with propofol sedation. The proportion of Z line observed was compared between the stimulated group and control group.

Results

Study 1: 149 patients were evaluated; 87 received propofol (43 boys; average age 13.2 years (range, 10-15)) and 62 received midazolam (30 boys; average age 12.8 years (range, 10-15)). The proportion of the Z line visualized was low but was greater with propofol vs. midazolam sedation (36.8% vs 16.1%, P=0.0059). Study 2: 102 patients were evaluated; 62 had induction of peristalsis (34 boys; average age 16.2 years (range, 15-18)) and 40 controls (20 boys; average age 16.8 years (range, 15-18)). Complete visualization of the Z line achieved in 95% (59 of 62) following induction of peristalsis vs. 37.5% (15 of 40) of controls (P>0.001).

Conclusions

Induction of esophageal peristalsis greatly improved visualization of the Z line during sedated EGD in children and adolescents.

Procedural Sedation for Pediatric Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Korea

BACKGROUND

Sedative upper endoscopy is similar in pediatrics and adults, but it is characteristically more likely to lead to respiratory failure. Although recommended guidelines for pediatric procedural sedation are available within South Korea and internationally, Korean pediatric endoscopists use different drugs, either alone or in combination, in practice. Efforts are being made to minimize the risk of sedation while avoiding procedural challenges. The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data on the sedation methods used by Korean pediatric endoscopists to help physicians perform pediatric sedative upper endoscopy (PSUE).

METHODS

The PSUE procedures performed in 15 Korean pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic units within a year were analyzed. Drugs used for sedation were grouped according to the method of use, and the depth of sedation was evaluated based on the Ramsay scores. The procedures and their complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 734 patients who underwent PSUE were included. Sedation and monitoring were performed by an anesthesiologist at one of the institutions. The sedative procedures were performed by a pediatric endoscopist at the other 14 institutions. Regarding the number of assistants present during the procedures, 36.6% of procedures had one assistant, 38.8% had 2 assistants, and 24.5% had 3 assistants. The average age of the patients was 11.6 years old. Of the patients, 19.8% had underlying diseases, 10.0% were taking medications such as epilepsy drugs, and 1.0% had snoring or sleep apnea history. The average duration of the procedures was 5.2 minutes. The subjects were divided into 5 groups as follows: 1) midazolam + propofol + ketamine (M + P + K): n = 18, average dose of 0.03 + 2.4 + 0.5 mg/kg; 2) M + P: n = 206, average dose of 0.06 + 2.1 mg/kg; 3) M + K: n = 267, average dose of 0.09 + 0.69 mg/kg; 4) continuous P infusion for 20 minutes: n = 15, average dose of 6.6 mg/kg; 5) M: n = 228, average dose of 0.11 mg/kg. The average Ramsay score for the five groups was 3.7, with significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001). Regarding the adverse effects, desaturation and increased oxygen supply were most prevalent in the M + K group. Decreases and increases in blood pressure were most prevalent in the M + P + K group, and bag-mask ventilation was most used in the M + K group. There were no reported incidents of intubation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A decrease in oxygen saturation was observed in 37 of 734 patients, and it significantly increased in young patients (P = 0.001) and when ketamine was used (P = 0.014). Oxygen saturation was also correlated with dosage (P = 0.037). The use of ketamine (P < 0.001) and propofol (P < 0.001) were identified as factors affecting the Ramsay score in the logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although the drug use by Korean pediatric endoscopists followed the recommended guidelines to an extent, it was apparent that they combined the drugs or reduced the doses depending on the patient characteristics to reduce the likelihood of respiratory failure. Inducing deep sedation facilitates comfort during the procedure, but it also leads to a higher risk of complications.

A comparison of ketamine-midazolam combination and propofol-fentanyl combination on procedure comfort and recovery process in pediatric colonoscopy procedures

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-propofol combination in pediatric diagnostic colonoscopy.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 68 children undergoing diagnostic gastroenterology with midazolam-ketamine combination (Group-K) or with fentanyl-propofol combination (Group-P) in the pediatric gastroentology department at a Turkish tertiary hospital between January 2015 and June 2017. An intravenous midazolam was administered one minute before ketamine administration in Group K. Intravenous fentanyl was given to Group P, followed by intravenous propofol.

Results

There were statistically no significant differences between the groups as for age, gender, weight, duration of colonoscopy and complications observed during procedure. Ramsay sedation score was significantly higher in Group K. Recovery time and the rate of complications during the recovery of Group-K (23 patients, 65.7%) was significantly higher than that of Group P (8 patients, 24.2%) (p= 0.001).

Conclusions

Colonoscopy procedures can be quite comfortable in children when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.

Variation in Pediatric Anesthesiologist Sedation Practices for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background: Despite a worldwide shift toward anesthesiologist-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children, ideal sedation regimens remain unclear and best practices undefined. Aim: The aim of our study was to document variation in anesthesiologist-administered sedation for pediatric endoscopy. Outcomes of interest included coefficients of variation, procedural efficiency, as well as adverse events. Methods: IRB approval was obtained to review electronic health records of children undergoing routine endoscopy at our medical center during a recent calendar year. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to examine predictors of sedation practices. Results: 258 healthy children [2-21 years (median 15, (Q1-Q3 = 10-17)] underwent either upper and/or lower endoscopies with sedation administered by anesthesiologists (n = 21), using different sedation regimens (29) that ranged from a single drug administered to 6 sedatives in combination. Most patients did not undergo endotracheal tube intubation for the procedure (208, 81%), and received propofol (255, 89%) either alone or in combination with other sedatives. A total of 10 (3.8%) adverse events (9 sedation related) were documented to occur. The coefficient of variation (CV) for sedation times was high at 64.2%, with regression analysis suggesting 8% was unexplained by procedure time. Multivariable model suggested that longer procedure time (p < 0.0001), younger age (p < 0.0001), and use of endotracheal tube intubation (p = 0.02) were associated with longer sedation time. Discussion: We found great variation in anesthesiologist administered regimens for pediatric endoscopy at our institution that may be unwarranted, presenting may opportunities for minimizing patient risk, as well as for optimizing procedural efficiency.

Comparison of Ketamine and Propofol-Based Regimens for Deep Sedation in Children Undergoing Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 180 children sedated for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with ketamine or propofol-based regimens at our institution. Pre-EGD diagnoses and American Society of Anesthesiology physical status were similar in all subjects. Onset of action and recovery time for both regimens were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Mean onset of sedation for all patients was 3.85 ± 3.04 minutes, mean Aldrete score was 6.31 ± 0.61, and mean recovery time was 51.85 ± 31.78 minutes (p > 0.05). Sedation-related adverse events observed include apnea, hypoxemia, bradycardia, hypotension, laryngospasm, skin rash, and wheezing. Deep sedation for pediatric EGD is safe if patients are carefully screened and properly monitored.

Pediatric Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: Case Management

Anesthesiology teams care for children in diverse locations, including diagnostic and interventional radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary endoscopy suites, radiation oncology units, and cardiac catheterization laboratories. To provide safe, high-quality care, anesthesiologists working in these environments must understand the unique environmental and perioperative considerations and risks involved with each remote location and patient population. Once these variables are addressed, anesthesia and procedural teams can coordinate to ensure that patients and families receive the same high-quality care that they have come to expect in the operating room. This article also describes some of the considerations for anesthetic care in outfield locations.

Effects of Sedation Performed by an Anesthesiologist on Pediatric Endoscopy: a Single-Center Retrospective Study in Korea

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy is used for diagnosing and treating various digestive diseases in children as well as in adults. However, in pediatric patients, it is recommended that sufficient sedation should be ensured before conducting endoscopy, since insufficient sedation may cause serious complications. However, in Korea, no studies have yet described the types of sedation drugs, effects of sedation, and efficiency of endoscopy with respect to the sedation instructor. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness of sedative procedures performed by anesthesiologists.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients aged < 18 years who underwent endoscopy during March 2014-July 2019. Data of sedation instructors, sedation drugs and their doses, complications, and the recovery after sedation were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 257 patients, 217 underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 40 underwent colonoscopies. Before EGD, 29 patients (13.4%) underwent sedation by the pediatric endoscopist and 188 (86.6%) were sedated by the anesthesiologist. The anesthesiologist performed the sedation for all 40 patients who underwent colonoscopy. Endoscopic examinations performed by the anesthesiologist were relatively more time-consuming (401.0 ± 135.1 seconds vs. 274.9 ± 106.1 seconds, P < 0.001). We observed that in patients who underwent EGD, there was a difference in the dose of midazolam administered (P = 0.000). When comparing EGD and colonoscopy in patients undergoing sedation by the anesthesiologist, there were no significant differences in the doses of midazolam and ketamine, but the dose of propofol increased for colonoscopy (2.50 ± 0.95 mg/kg vs. 4.71 ± 1.66 mg/kg, P = 0.000). The cognitive recovery time according to drug dose was associated with propofol only in EGD with a shorter endoscopy time. The longer cognitive recovery time in colonoscopy and the discharge time of EGD and colonoscopies were not associated with propofol use.

CONCLUSION

When sedation is performed by an anesthesiologist, various drugs are used with sufficient doses and complications are reduced, but the discharge time does not change. For performing pediatric endoscopy in Korea, anesthesiologists should be considered for inducing anesthesia.

Application of Gastroscopy in the Diagnosis of Congenital Pyriform Sinus Fistula in Children

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the diagnostic value of gastroscopy under local anesthesia for congenital pyriform sinus fistula (CPSF). Methods: This research was a diagnostic study. Patients received gastroscopy under local anesthesia to diagnose CPSF, and suspension laryngoscopy under general anesthesia was performed 2 days after gastroscopy. Various conditions of the internal opening of CPSF were then recorded. Patients were grouped according to lesion sides, age, time after the inflammation subsided, and history of previous surgery. The sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of gastroscopy were compared between the groups. Results: A total of 48 patients were recruited in this study, and no patients had severe gastroscopy-related complications. The diagnostic values of gastroscopy in 41 cases (85.4%) were consistent with suspension laryngoscopy. The sensitivity of gastroscopy was 86.4%, the specificity was 75%, the AUC was 0.807, the positive prediction rate was 97.4%, the negative prediction rate was 33.3%, the accuracy rate was 85.4%, and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 2.1. The kappa consistency test results had statistical significance (P = 0.0026, kappa = 0.3913). The diagnostic value of gastroscopy was better for the patients with inflammation subsiding for more than 4 weeks (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Gastroscopy under local anesthesia is a safe, effective, reliable and novel diagnostic method for CPSF, and it is especially recommended as a diagnostic method for the patients with inflammation subsiding for more than 4 weeks.

Incidence and risk factors for adverse events during monitored anaesthesia care for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Better understanding of risk factors for adverse events during monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy may improve outcome in children.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence and predictors of adverse events during MAC for paediatric endoscopy.

DESIGN

An observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary university hospital, single-centre cohort, from January 2010 to August 2016.

PATIENTS

The prospectively collected electronic anaesthetic records of 3435 children aged up to 16 years who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy under MAC were analysed retrospectively. Children with an American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status at least 4, and those requiring mechanical ventilation and therapeutic or urgent endoscopy were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prevalence and predictors of adverse events during MAC for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy, with particular reference to the use of different anaesthetic or sedative agents.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD age of the children was 8.5 ± 4.4 years. The incidences of adverse events and adverse respiratory events were 3.4 and 3.3%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified 12 independent predictors: age [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, P = 0.002], children's size for example underweight (OR 1.78, P = 0.039), overweight (OR 2.20, P = 0.039), (morbid) obesity (OR 4.25, P = 0.006), presence of respiratory comorbidities (OR 8.18, P < 0.001), recent respiratory infection (OR 23.55, P < 0.001) or both (OR 17.46, P < 0.001), neurological comorbidities (OR 2.18, P = 0.007), upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (OR 5.66, P < 0.001), propofol co-administration with ketamine (OR 10.34, P < 0. 001) or after sevoflurane induction (OR 44.95, P < 0.001), and propofol induction dose (OR 18.97, P < 0.001). Posthoc secondary analyses revealed a significantly higher risk of adverse events (OR 3.9, P < 0.0001) and also significantly more respiratory comorbidities and respiratory infections (P < 0.0001) in children aged less than 2 years when compared with children aged at least 2 years. No cardiovascular events were observed and outcome was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

The present cohort demonstrated the feasibility and safety of MAC for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy by an experienced team. Although adverse events occurred rarely, their predictive factors were clinically identifiable. Applying this information in risk assessment and modifying anaesthetic management accordingly could improve outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN70362666.

Pediatric Endoscopy, Update 2020

Optimal management of pediatric endoscopy requires a multidisciplinary approach. In most hospitals, endoscopy in pediatric patients is performed by conventional gastroenterologists and only a few centers have specialized pediatric gastroenterologists. This is due to the fact that the number of pediatric gastroenterologists is limited and not all of them are experienced in endoscopic techniques. However, there are also some pediatric centers offering a high-quality and high-volume endoscopy service provided by very experienced pediatric gastroenterologists. Up to now, the literature on pediatric endoscopy is rather sparse. In this article, we describe current knowledge and practice of endoscopic procedures in pediatric patients, which should be relevant for both the adult and pediatric gastroenterologists.

Oral Lorazepam is not Superior to Placebo for Lowering Stress in Children Before Digestive Endoscopy: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Digestive endoscopies must be performed within a safe and comfortable environment. We have previously shown that the quality of intravenous sedation is influenced by preoperative stress.

AIM

Our primary objective was to compare the effects of oral lorazepam and placebo on the salivary cortisol response of children undergoing a digestive endoscopy. Secondary objectives were the assessment of procedural pain and comfort as well as the occurrence of adverse events.

METHODS

Participants were randomized and received either lorazepam, placebo, or no premedication. Saliva was collected upon arrival at the hospital and 1 h following randomization. The sedation protocol included midazolam and fentanyl ± ketamine. Procedural pain was evaluated with the Nurse Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS). Patients completed a postoperative questionnaire. The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of children having a cortisol decrease ≥ 15 nmol/L.

RESULTS

101 participants (54 females) were included. The rate of children having a cortisol decrease ≥ 15 nmol/L was 27.3%, 35.3%, and 19.4% for lorazepam, placebo, and no premedication, respectively (p = 0.356). The median (IQR) NAPCOMS pain score was 3.0 (0-6) for lorazepam, 4.4 (0-6) for placebo, and 3.4 (3-4) for no premedication (p = 0.428). With lorazepam, 75.9% of children reported experiencing a comfortable procedure, compared with 41.9% taking placebo and 34.5% with no premedication (p = 0.013). Transient tachycardia was the most frequent intraoperative adverse event, particularly with lorazepam (62.5%, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral lorazepam had no effect on patients' preoperative stress, as measured by salivary cortisol, but was associated with a higher rate of comfortable procedures.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT03180632.

Dexamethasone Reduces Postoperative Nausea in Pediatric Upper Endoscopy With Deep Sedation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the effect of a single dose of preoperative dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), a frequent complication and a major cause of delayed recovery in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) under sedation.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized controlled study, 98 children aged 2 to 14, with American Society of Anesthesiologists status I to II, and undergoing elective UGIE with deep sedation were included and randomly assigned to 2 groups. Preoperatively, after anesthesia induction with sodium thiopental and maintenance with sevoflurane, patients in the intervention (n = 49) and control (n = 49) groups, respectively received 0.1 mg/kg i.v. dexamethasone and 2 cm i.v. 0.9% saline. Postoperatively, PONV incidence was measured as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

PONV incidence was significantly less in dexamethasone group (8.2%) compared to the control group (26.5%) (difference = 18.3%, 95% confidence interval: 3.4%-33%, P = 0.016). For secondary outcomes, between-group differences were not statistically significant: incidence of bronchospasm or laryngospasm (both 4.1%, P = 1); emergence delirium assessed with Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium scale (5.9 ± 3.4 vs 5.7 ± 3.2, P = 0.751); Modified Aldrete score at 0 minutes (9.4 ± 0.8 vs 9.3 ± 0.9, P = 0.909) and at 5 minutes (9.5 ± 0.7 vs 9.4 ± 0.9, P = 0.527); and recovery time (21.1 ± 6.6 vs 23.4 ± 8.6 minutes, P = 0.130).

CONCLUSIONS

A single preoperative dose of i.v. dexamethasone reduces PONV in children undergoing elective UGIE with deep sedation, but has no significant effect on the patient recovery time or the incidence of postoperative bronchospasm or laryngospasm and emergence delirium.

Evaluation of the safety of using propofol for paediatric procedural sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Propofol is one of the most widely used drugs for paediatric procedural sedation owing to its known advantages, but some concerns remain regarding respiratory and/or cardiac complications in patients receiving propofol. Although a considerable number of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been conducted to compare it with other sedative agents or opioids for children undergoing various procedures, propofol is still being used off-label for this indication in many countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of those RCTs to provide an overall summation of evidence that can potentially be considered for further regulatory decisions, including reimbursement policies. We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to January 31, 2018. Our meta-analysis of 30 RCTs confirmed that propofol sedation had advantages in recovery time when compared with other drugs, without excessive concerns for cardiovascular or respiratory adverse events. Its safety profile regarding coughing, nausea or vomiting, and emergence delirium was also similar to that of other drugs. The overall evidence suggests that propofol sedation for paediatric procedures should be considered more positively in the context of regulatory decisions.

Propofol with and without Midazolam for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies in Children

PURPOSE

Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.

Preparatory information reduces gastroscopy-related stress in children as confirmed by salivary cortisol

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to determine whether the anxiety levels of pediatric patients who undergo endoscopy are reduced after receiving preparatory information about the endoscopic procedure by monitoring their salivary cortisol (s-cortisol) levels.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 184 children undergoing gastroscopy under sedoanalgesia were included in the study. All the patients received a brief explanation of the endoscopic procedure. Patients were divided into two groups; Group Unexplained did not receive any further information other than a brief explanation of the procedure, Group Explained received more detailed explanation of the procedure. To determine anxiety levels, saliva specimens were taken on the day before the procedure to examine cortisol levels before and after endoscopy. Anxiety scores before endoscopy were calculated by the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale. Patients were monitored throughout sedoanalgesia, including during the endoscopy, sedation and recovery, and total propofol dosages were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine children undergoing gastroscopy (age 11.55 ± 2.52 years; 50.5% girls) constituted Group Explained and 95 children undergoing gastroscopy (age 11.44 ± 2.66 years; 56.8% male) constituted Group Unexplained. The anxiety score, duration of sedation, endoscopy and recovery, propofol dose, pre- and post-endoscopy s-cortisol levels were significantly reduced in Group Explained.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that when endoscopic procedure is explained broadly to a child, the procedural stress is significantly less, as measured by the s-cortisol levels and the anxiety questionnaire. It is important for the attending physician to explain all aspects of examination carefully.

Propofol Sedation by Pediatric Gastroenterologists for Endoscopic Procedures: A Retrospective Analysis

Background: There is a substantial literature on the favorable outcome of propofol administration by non-anesthesiologists for endoscopy in adults; however, very few data are currently available on propofol sedation by pediatric gastroenterologists. Aims: to evaluate the safety of propofol sedation by pediatric gastroenterologists. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all children who were sedated by pediatric gastroenterologists in three Northern Israeli hospitals over a 4 years period Demographic and medical characteristics and any data regarding the procedure were extracted from patient's records. The main outcome measurements were procedure completion and reported adverse events. Results: Overall, 1,214 endoscopic procedures for were performed during this period. Complete data was available for 1,190 procedures. All children sedated by pediatric gastroenterologists were classified as ASA I or II. Propofol dosage (in mg/kg) inversely correlated with patient age. The younger the child the higher the dose needed to reach a satisfactory level of sedation (r = -0.397, p < 0.001). The addition of fentanyl significantly decreased propofol dosage needed to provide optimal sedation, p < 0.001. Nine (0.7%) reversible adverse events were reported. All the procedures were successfully completed and all patients were discharged home. Conclusions: We conclude that our approach is safe in children as it is in adults and can be implemented for children with ASA I, II.

Emergency Physician-Administered Sedation for Pneumatic Reduction of Ileocolic Intussusception in Children: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Ileocolic intussusception is a major cause for intestinal obstruction in early childhood. Reduction of intussusception, in the vast majority of institutions, is performed on awake children, without sedation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to report the course of the first patients who were sedated by emergency physicians for pneumatic reduction of intussusception (PRI).

METHODS

We conducted a case series analysis of prospectively collected data on patients undergoing PRI, using a sedation recording tool. This tool uses standardized definitions from the Quebec guidelines for terminology and reporting adverse events in emergency medicine. Recording of time interval measurements and adverse events was performed by the emergency physician and nurse.

RESULTS

Between February 2016 and March 2018, 11 males and 3 females, with a median age of 11 months (interquartile range [IQR] 6-20 months), underwent sedation for PRI by five attending pediatric emergency physicians. All of the reductions were successful and without complications. Eight patients received ketamine and propofol, 5 received ketamine, and 1 received ketamine and midazolam. Median times for the presedation phase, procedure, sedation, physiologic recovery and emergency department recovery were: 131 min (IQR 79-104 min), 10.5 min (IQR, 9-12 min), 21 min (IQR, 20-30 min), 25 min (IQR, 23-30 min), and 108 min (IQR, 82-161 min), respectively. Four respiratory adverse events that required intervention were recorded. All were effectively treated with airway repositioning, suctioning, oxygen administration, or bag-mask ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

The first series of patients sedated for PRI by emergency physicians is reported. Our initial findings suggest the feasibility of emergency physician-administered sedation for PRI.

Enteroscopy in children

INTRODUCTION

Device-assisted enteroscopy is a new endoscopic technique for the evaluation of small bowel in adults and children. Data in pediatric population are limited. This review aims to identify diagnostic and therapeutic benefits of enteroscopy in children.

METHODS

We have analysed paediatric literature on device-assisted enteroscopy focusing on indications, technical aspects and complications, with attention given to adult publications that may be applicable to the paediatric population.

RESULTS

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, Crohn's disease and small bowel polyps are the main indications of enteroscopy in children. Device-assisted enteroscopy has high diagnostic yield for the main paediatric indications, but MR-enterography and capsule endoscopy should be used beforehand in diagnostic work-up to better identify candidates for enteroscopy and to improve its diagnostic and therapeutic yield. Major complications are rare and mostly related to therapeutic procedures.

CONCLUSION

Despite limited data in the paediatric population, device-assisted enteroscopy represents a useful and safe endoscopic technique in children. Its use, combined with MR-enterography and capsule endoscopy, allows identification and treatment of many of the small bowel paediatric diseases with a low risk of complications.

Safety of Propofol versus Nonpropofol-Based Sedation in Children Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of children who undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy require anesthesia or procedural sedation for comfort, cooperation, and procedure efficiency. The safety profile of propofol is not well established in children but has been studied in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety of propofol-only sedation for GI endoscopy procedures to other anesthetic regimes in the pediatric population.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohorts were included in the study.

RESULTS

No significant difference was noted in total complications between the two cohorts with a pooled OR of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.57-3.04, chi2 = 0.053, I2 = 54.31%). The pooled rate of complications in the studies was 23.4% for those receiving propofol only and 18.2% for those receiving other anesthetic regimens. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing a study with a very different control comparison compared to the rest of the studies included. Once excluded, there was minimal heterogeneity in the remaining studies and a significant difference in overall complications was detected, with more complications seen in the propofol-only group compared to the other anesthetic groups (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09-3.20).

CONCLUSION

Significantly higher incidence of cardiorespiratory complications was noted in the propofol-only versus other anesthetic regimens in pediatric patients undergoing GI endoscopy in this meta-analysis. However, the overall quality of the evidence is very low.

HOW TO APPLY THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR ROUTINE CLINICAL PRACTICE

Clinicians providing sedation to a pediatric population for GI endoscopy should consider there may be increased risks when using a propofol-only regimen, but further study is needed.

Choice of Endoscopic Procedure in Children With Clinically Suspected Gastrointestinal Graft-versus-host Disease

OBJECTIVES

Gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease (GI-GVHD) is a potentially life-threatening complication after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Symptoms indicating GI-GVHD motivates endoscopy with biopsy sampling and histopathological confirmation. Optimal extent of endoscopy in children is, however, presently unknown. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate whether biopsies from the rectosigmoid area versus the rest of the colon/ileocolon with or without biopsies from simultaneous upper endoscopy, were equally reliable for detection of GI-GVHD and relevant differential diagnoses.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter study based on histopathological re-evaluation of biopsies and hospital record data, collected from children with suspected GI-GVHD.

RESULTS

Forty-four children with 51 endoscopic occasions (81 procedures) were included. Thirty-nine of 51 (76.5%) were diagnosed as GI-GVHD, 14 (27.4%) received a differential diagnosis and 7 (13.7%) had normal histology findings. Comorbidity, that is, simultaneous detection of a differential diagnosis and GI-GVHD, was observed in 9 (23.1%) cases. Cytomegalovirus infection was the most frequent differential diagnosis, 6 of 7 were detected in biopsies from rectosigmoid and esophagogastroduodenal areas. Sensitivity for detection of GI-GVHD in biopsies collected from rectosigmoid-ileocolonic-, rectosigmoid-, or esophagogastroduodenal areas were 97.4%, 84.6%, 83.3%, respectively, and 97.4% when the latter 2 were merged. The difference, nondetected GI-GVHD in the rectosigmoid area versus detected elsewhere in the GI tract, was statistically significant (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Biopsies collected from the rectosigmoid area solely were not optimal for detection of pediatric GI-GVHD. When biopsy sampling from rectosigmoid and upper GI tract areas was combined, the sensitivity for GI-GVHD was, however, equally high as for ileocolonoscopy or full upper and lower endoscopy.

Sedation in Pediatric Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has become an established diagnostic and therapeutic modality in pediatric gastroenterology. Effective sedation strategies have been adopted to improve patient tolerance during pediatric EGD. For children, safety is a fundamental consideration during this procedure as they are at a higher risk of severe adverse events from procedural sedation compared to adults. Therefore, a detailed risk evaluation is required prior to the procedure, and practitioners should be aware of the benefits and risks associated with sedation regimens during pediatric EGD. In addition, pediatric advanced life support by endoscopists or immediate intervention by anesthesiologists should be available in the event that severe adverse events occur during pediatric EGD.

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.

Efficacy and safety of midazolam and ketamine in paediatric upper endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Upper endoscopy can be successfully carried out in children under deep sedation and anaesthesia. However, the best method of upper endoscopy for children who require gastrointestinal intervention has yet to be defined. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of the sedation induced by intravenous midazolam and ketamine during upper endoscopy in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included patients ages 3-18years who had undergone upper endoscopy. All subjects received IV midazolam and ketamine. During the intervention, hypoxia, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension, and hypotension were recorded. After the intervention, euphoria, dysphoria, vertigo, visual problems (such as diplopia and nystagmus), and emergencies (such as arrhythmia, convulsion, and hallucination), among other findings, were recorded. Older children who were capable of expressing themselves were questioned to help determine these conditions.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study group was was 11.9±3.42years; 54% of the patients were females, and 46% were males. During the upper endoscopy, hypoxia occurred in 9% of patients, mild hypertension in 14%, hypotension in 5%, tachycardia in 23%, bradycardia in 8%, and flushing-urticaria in 2%. After the upper endoscopy, one of the most common complications was sore throat, which occurred in 24% of patients. Vomiting was observed in 14% of patients, dizziness in 24%, diplopia in 27%, euphoria in 3% (5 patients), dysphoria in 4%, and hallucination in 4%. Of the total patients, 4% required oxygen supply with a face mask.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study showed that the use of IV midazolam and ketamine during upper endoscopy in children was safe and effective.

Does sevoflurane add to outpatient procedural sedation in children? A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence concerning the effect of sevoflurane in outpatient procedural sedation, especially in children. We hypothesised that the addition of sevoflurane to a sedation regimen improves children's behaviour with minimal adverse events.

METHODS

This is a randomised, triple-blind clinical trial conducted on an outpatient basis. Participants were 27 healthy children aged 4 to 6 years, who previously refused dental treatment with non-pharmacologic methods. All participants received oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, maximum 20 mg) and oral ketamine (3 mg/kg, maximum 50 mg) and, in addition: Group MK - 100% oxygen; Group MKS - inhalational sevoflurane at a sedative dose (final expired concentration between 0.3 and 0.4%). Dental appointments were video recorded for assessment of the children's sleep patterns, crying, movements, and overall behaviour during the procedure with the Houpt scale. Intra- and post-operative adverse events were systematically reported. Data were analysed by bivariate analyses in the IBM SPSS v. 19, at a significance level of 5%.

RESULTS

MK (n = 13) and MKS (n = 14) did not differ regarding the Houpt scores (P > 0.05), but 53.8% of children in the MK group showed hysterical and continuous crying at the time of the local anaesthesia injection, compared to 7.1% of children in the MKS group (P = 0.01; phi = 0.5). There was a trend toward less crying and movement over time during the dental appointment in the MKS group (P = 0.48). Minor adverse events were observed in 10 MK children and 4 MKS children (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of sevoflurane to oral midazolam-ketamine improved the children's crying behaviour during local anaesthetic administration, and did not increase the occurrence of adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT02284204 . Registered 5 October 2014.

Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy and Surgical Gastrostomy in Severely Handicapped Children

PURPOSE

Gastrostomy is commonly used procedures to provide enteral nutrition support for severely handicapped patients. This study aimed to identify and compare outcomes and complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and surgical gastrostomy (SG).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 51 patients who received gastrostomy in a single tertiary hospital from January 2000 to May 2016 was performed. We analyzed the patients and the complications caused by the procedures.

RESULTS

Among the 51 patients, 26 had PEG and 25 had SG. Four cases in the SG group had fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. PEG and SG groups were followed up for an average of 29 months and 44 months. Major complications occurred in 19.2% of patients in the PEG group and 20.0% in the SG group, but significant differences between the groups were not observed. Minor complications occurred in 15.4% of patients in the PEG group and 52.0% in the SG group. Minor complications were significantly lower in the PEG group than in the SG group (p=0.006). The average use of antibiotics in the PEG and SG groups was 6.2 days and 15.7 days (p=0.002). Thirteen patients died of underlying disease but not related to gastrostomy, and only one patient died due to complications associated with general anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The duration of antibiotics use and incidence of minor complications were significantly lower in the PEG group than those in the SG group. Early PEG could be recommended for nutritional supports.

Respiratory adverse events during upper digestive endoscopies in children under ketamine sedation

BACKGROUND

There is no evidence of the need for oxygen supplementation during upper digestive endoscopies under ketamine sedation in children, and the latest recommendations specifically state that it is not mandatory for the procedure. The aim of our study is to assess the incidence of respiratory adverse events during upper digestive endoscopies in children under Ketamine sedation when performed without oxygen supplementation, in accordance with the latest recommendations.

METHODS

Eighty-eight children undergoing ketamine sedation for programmed upper digestive endoscopy at our Pediatric Intensive Care Unit were included. Patients needing other sedative agents different from ketamine were excluded. No patients received previous oxygen therapy. Suction equipment, oxygen, a bag-valve-mask, and age-appropriate equipment for advanced airway management were immediately available. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of desaturation episodes (i.e. FiO<inf>2</inf> below 90% requiring an intervention).

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients (62.5%) presented a desaturation episode during the procedure. Most desaturation episodes occurred during the endoscope introduction (78.2%), and 5 episodes were previous to the endoscope introduction (minute 0). Around sixty percent of patients (58.9%) required oxygen therapy and four patients required bag-mask ventilation. Once oxygen therapy was initiated, 34 patients (70.5%) required it during the complete procedure or part of it.

CONCLUSIONS

Desaturation episodes occur frequently early on in the procedure. Our data suggest that the role of oxygen supplementation prior to, and during upper digestive endoscopies under ketamine sedation in children should be thoroughly assessed for future recommendations.

Success rate of pneumatic reduction of intussusception with and without sedation

BACKGROUND

Pneumatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception is often performed without sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success rate of pneumatic reduction of intussusception with and without sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Israel in two tertiary care centers using a similar protocol for pneumatic reduction of intussusception. In one center, patients had pneumatic reduction of intussusception under propofol-based sedation, while in the other, patients had pneumatic reduction of intussusception without any sedation. Children aged 3 months to 8 years who were diagnosed with ileocolic intussusception between January 1, 2008 and July 31, 2015 were included in the study. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for the possible confounders of age, gender, number of cases of intussusception prior to the study period, time period from the beginning of symptoms to emergency department admission (<12 h, >12 h), and time period from emergency department admission to the beginning of pneumatic reduction of intussusception. Secondary outcomes of the study included the proportion of bowel perforations during the procedure, and the proportion of early (within 48 h) recurrence of intussusception.

RESULTS

The sedation and nonsedation cohorts included 124 and 90 patients, respectively. The cohorts were comparable with regard to demographic characteristics, hemodynamic vital signs on admission to the emergency department, blood gases tests during emergency department stay, and time variables prior to reduction of intussusception. Multivariable regression revealed reduction of intussusception success rates of 89.5% and 83.3% for the sedation group and nonsedation group, respectively, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-5.3. Three sedated patients and 0 nonsedated patients developed bowel perforations during the procedure. Rates of early recurrence of intussusception of sedated patients and nonsedated patients were 5.1% (6/117) and 1.3% (1/79), respectively (P = 0.15, RR = 3.9, 95% CI: 0.47 to 31.81).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the pneumatic reduction of intussusception under propofol-based sedation had a slightly higher success rate than the pneumatic reduction of intussusception without sedation; however, the safety of this practice is yet to be determined.

A comparison of sedation with midazolam-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl during endoscopy in children: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam plus ketamine versus fentanyl plus propofol combination administered to children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) and to determine the most appropriate sedation protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-blind study included patients between the ages of 4 and 17 years who underwent UGE for diagnostic purposes. Patients were divided randomly into groups A (midazolam-ketamine combination, n=119) and B (fentanyl plus propofol combination, n=119). The effectiveness of the sedation and complications during the procedure and recovery period were recorded.

RESULTS

The processes started without an additional dose of the drug for 118 patients (99.1%) in group A and for 101 patients (84.8%) in group B (P=0.001). The average dose of ketamine administered to the patients in group A was 1.03±0.15 mg/kg and the average dose of propofol administered to the patients in group B was 1.46±0.55 mg/kg. None of the patients stopped the endoscopic procedure in group A, but one patient (0.8%) had to discontinue the endoscopic procedure in group B. 27 patients in group A (22.7%) and 41 patients (34.5%) in group B developed complications during the procedure (P=0.044). The rate of complications during the recovery of group A (110 patients, 92.4%) was significantly higher than that in group B (48 patients, 40.3%) (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

In children, UGE procedures can be quite comfortable when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.

Paediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines

This guideline refers to infants, children, and adolescents ages 0 to 18 years. The areas covered include indications for diagnostic and therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy and ileocolonoscopy; endoscopy for foreign body ingestion; corrosive ingestion and stricture/stenosis endoscopic management; upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; and endoscopic ultrasonography. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and endoscopy specific to inflammatory bowel disease has been dealt with in other guidelines and are therefore not mentioned in this guideline. Training and ongoing skill maintenance are to be dealt with in an imminent sister publication to this.

Complications in pediatric endoscopy

The experience of the "endoscopic community" in pediatric patients is limited, but during recent years increased skills of the endoscopists and technological improvements lead to a standardization of pediatric endoscopy and the development of specialized pediatric endoscopy unit. Adverse events related to diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in children are usually rare. Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of complications in pediatric endoscopy is crucial when dealing with benign diseases in children. The complication rate of diagnostic EGD and colonoscopy in children are extremely low. Therapeutic procedures have obviously an increased rate of adverse events. Esophageal dilations are the most common indication for endoscopic therapy in children and can lead to perforations which requires prompt diagnosis and management. Complications of ERCP in pediatric age are similar to those reported in adults. The experience in pediatric emergency endoscopy (mainly foreign body removal) is consolidated and related adverse events extremely rare. Sedation of children during endoscopy maybe needs further evaluation and standardization, to reduce the rate of specific complications.

Interfaces in Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Who Should Do It?

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is one of the most frequently performed diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in children nowadays.

METHODS

Since the size of endoscopes has been adapted to pediatric patients, endoscopic procedures are performed almost routinely in pediatric gastrointestinal patients. However, this is an invasive procedure done under deep sedation, and procedure-related or sedation-related complications can occur more easily in pediatric patients. The endoscopist must consider various aspects (e.g., indications and contraindications for endoscopy, monitoring during and after the procedure) to ensure the procedure is performed successfully and safely.

RESULTS

In our opinion, pediatric endoscopy should be carried out by pediatric endoscopists at specialized pediatric clinics. In Germany, there are regulatory demands dictating that in order to become a pediatric gastroenterologist, further education is necessary. Experienced centers which offer this education including training programs for pediatric endoscopy can be found on www.gpge.de.

CONCLUSION

Provided these preconditions are adhered to, gastrointestinal endoscopy is a safe and efficient technique with minimal complications even in children and infants.

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.

Evaluation of the Explorer Endoscopy Mask(©) for esogastroduodenoscopy in children: a retrospective study of 173 cases

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability and safety of the Explorer Endoscopy Mask(®) (EM) as an alternative to endotracheal intubation in children undergoing elective esogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under general anesthesia (GA).

METHODS

This study was a retrospective observational study. The study was undertaken at the pediatric digestive endoscopy suite in the Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium. We retrospectively analyzed the occurrence of minor and major airway-related adverse effects during pediatric EGD procedures performed under GA with the EM between June 2014 and March 2015.

RESULTS

During the study period, 173 patients underwent EGD. Their mean age was 8.4 years (median: 9.1 years, range 4 months to 16 years). Mean duration of endoscopy (from insertion to removal of the endoscope) was 12.6 min (median: 12 min, range 3-47 min). The use of EM was uneventful in 159 (92%) cases. There were 24 airway-related adverse events in 14 children. Hypoxemia (SpO2 <90%) (13 events, 7.5%) was the most commonly encountered complication followed by laryngo- or bronchospasm (five events, 2.89%), cough (five events, 2.89%), and intubation (one event, 0.58%). No cases of regurgitation/aspiration were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the EM use in pediatric EGD. There were few transient respiratory adverse events which were easily solved with minor interventions.