Incidence and risk factors of bradycardia in pediatric patients undergoing intranasal dexmedetomidine sedation

Current sedation practices for non-invasive procedures in tertiary maternity and children's hospitals in China: a 5-year update

BACKGROUND

Sedation techniques can ease anxiety during medical procedures for children. Our previous report on Chinese sedation practices for non-invasive procedures in 2018 is outdated due to the rapid development of sedation services. This study provides an updated report on sedation practices for non-invasive procedures in China.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study. Questionnaires were sent to tertiary maternity and children's hospitals nationwide through the WeChat Mini Program. The survey questioned the location and caseloads of hospitals providing sedation services, support facilities, contraindications, fasting practices, sedation regimens, monitoring practices, staff structure, certification requirements for sedation providers and quality control data.

RESULTS

Procedural sedation for non-invasive procedures were provided in 88 of 114 hospitals. These hospitals are located across the country except Heilongjiang province and the Tibet Autonomous Region. Compared with previous reports, significant increases were found in the number of hospitals providing sedation services, dedicated sedation rooms and recovery rooms and full-time sedation providers. Most hospitals advocated the 2-4-6 rule for pre-sedation fasting. Dexmedetomidine was the most used first-choice sedative. Anaesthesiologists remain the primary sedation providers, but nurses are also important. The most mentioned qualification requirements for sedation providers were a professional title of attending doctor, ≥5 years of working experience in paediatric anaesthesia and paediatric advanced life support certification. Sedation service records were used in 83 hospitals, but only 42 and 39 recorded success rates and adverse events, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation services for non-invasive procedures are available in most areas of China. More hospitals now provide sedation services and full-time sedation providers. Supporting facilities and sedation regimens have improved. Non-anaesthesiologist sedation providers are important at current stage, developing training programmes for them may be necessary. Attention should be focused on quality control and improvement of sedation services.

Scoping review finds insufficient evidence on potential risks of procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine in children

AIM

Dexmedetomidine is commonly used in hospitals for sedation during procedurals. It has been considered safe even though studies have shown that it may cause bradycardia and hypotension. The aim of this study was to map the current evidence regarding potential risks of sedation of children with dexmedetomidine.

METHODS

Two database searches were conducted to gather all articles published through 30 January 2024 that matched the inclusion criteria. PubMed and Embase were chosen for the initial search. Search terms were chosen to create a broad systematic search that would include articles reporting adverse events during procedural sedation on children. From the included articles, data on type of sedation, administration, patient characteristics, endpoints and number of adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

After the initial search, 357 individual papers were screened and 41 papers were included. The most common adverse event reported was bradycardia. In almost 40% of the articles that measured oxygen saturation, one or more incidents of desaturation occurred. 27% reported that interventions to prevent further harm were preformed, most of the interventions were to improve oxygenation.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for further investigation regarding adverse events, especially respiratory adverse events during sedation with dexmedetomidine.

Four-year review of safe and effective procedural sedation in neonates and young infants

Objectives

Newborns and small infants are unable to cooperate actively during diagnostic procedures; therefore, sedation is often employee to maintain immobilization and obtain high-quality images. However, these procedures are often indicated in sick, vulnerable, or hemodynamically unstable neonates and young infants, which raises the associated risks of sedation. This study summarizes our 4-year of experience with safe and effective procedural sedation in this vulnerable population.

Study design

This retrospective study analyzed data on neonates and young infants who underwent non-painful diagnostic procedures from December 2019 to November 2023. Patients were categorized into the neonate (aged≦ 28 days) and the young infant (29 days ≦ aged ≦ 90 days) groups.

Results

Non-pharmacological strategies, including sleeping naturally, swaddling/facilitated tucking, non-nutritive sucking, and skin-to-skin care, can achieve a success rate for sedation about 98.4%. In terms of pharmacological methods, our institution primarily utilizes chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in neonates and young infants undergoing non-painful diagnostic procedures. Midazolam serves as an alternative sedative. Chloral hydrate alone demonstrated a 92.5% success rate on the first attempt, compared to midazolam alone, with an 85.11% success rate. Neonates experienced a higher incidence of adverse events during sedation compared to young infants.

Conclusion

This study reviews our 4-year experience with procedural sedation in neonates and young infants. Chloral hydrate demonstrated a high degree of safety and efficacy in this population. However, supervision by skilled medical personnel and extended observation is required. In our institution, the experience with midazolam is limited in this population, and further research is warranted to establish its safety and efficacy. Non-pharmacological strategies can achieve an acceptable rate of sedation success, which can be used based on patient's tolerance.

Dexmedetomidine and Perioperative Arrhythmias

The highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist dexmedetomidine is a commonly used sedative drug for patients undergoing anesthesia and intensive care treatment. Several studies have indicated that dexmedetomidine may have a potential role in preventing and treating perioperative tachyarrhythmias. However, the specific effect and mechanism of action of dexmedetomidine in this context remain unclear. Dexmedetomidine is known to regulate the electrophysiologic function of the myocardium by inhibiting the function of the sinus node and atrioventricular node, as well as affecting myocardial repolarization. This paper aims to provide a theoretical basis for the prevention and treatment of perioperative arrhythmias by summarizing the effects of dexmedetomidine on myocardial electrophysiologic function and its impact on different types of arrhythmias.

Comparison of the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine versus intranasal atomised ketamine as a premedication for sedation and anxiolysis in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anxiety leads to adverse clinical outcomes and long-term maladaptive behavioural changes. The role of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine and atomised ketamine as premedication to produce sedation and anxiolysis in paediatric neurosurgical patients has not been extensively studied.

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine and intranasal atomised ketamine as premedication in producing sedation and facilitating smooth induction in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective randomised double-blind trial.

SETTING

A tertiary teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty-four children aged 1 to 10 years undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery.

METHODS

Children were randomised to receive intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine 2.5 μg kg -1 (Group D, n  = 32) and intranasal atomised ketamine 5 mg kg -1 (Group K, n  = 32) 30 min before surgery.

OUTCOMES MEASURED

The primary outcome was to compare the level of sedation in both groups using the University of Michigan Sedation Score (UMSS). The secondary outcomes included an assessment of the ease of parental separation, intravenous cannulation and satisfactory mask acceptance along with perioperative vitals (heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation). The incidence of emergence agitation and time to discharge were also noted.

RESULTS

The degree of sedation was significantly better in Group D as compared to Group K at 20 min (UMSS, 1.55 ± 0.51 versus 1.13 ± 0.34, difference, -0.406; 95% CI, -0.621 to -0.191; P  = 0.0001) and 30 min (2.32 ± 0.6 versus 1.94 ± 0.50, difference, -0.374; 95% CI, -0.650 to -0.100; P  = 0.007). The ease of parental separation, venous cannulation and mask acceptance ( P  = 0.83, 0.418 and 0.100 respectively) were comparable in both groups. The heart rate was lower in group D at 10, 20 and 30 min post-drug administration but was clinically insignificant. The incidence of emergence agitation and time to discharge was also similar with no adverse events reported.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine produces greater sedation as compared to intranasal atomised ketamine with comparable ease of parental separation, venous cannulation and mask acceptance with no adverse effects.

Combined sedation in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging: determination of median effective dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam

BACKGROUND

The exact median effective dose (ED50) of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination in children remains unknow and the aim of this study was to determine the ED50 of their combination.

METHODS

This is a prospective dose-finding study. A total of 53 children aged from 2 months to 6 years scheduled for MRI examination from February 2023 to April 2023 were randomly divided into group D (to determine the ED50 of intranasal dexmedetomidine) and group M (to determine the ED50 of oral midazolam). The dosage of dexmedetomidine and midazolam was adjusted according to the modified Dixon's up-and-down method, and the ED50 was calculated with a probit regression approach.

RESULTS

The ED50 of intranasal dexmedetomidine when combined with 0.5 mg∙kg- 1 oral midazolam was 0.39 µg∙kg- 1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.46 µg∙kg- 1] while the ED50 of oral midazolam was 0.17 mg∙kg- 1 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.29 mg∙kg- 1) when combined with 1 µg∙kg- 1 intranasal dexmedetomidine. The sedation onset time of children with successful sedation in group D was longer than in group M (30.0[25.0, 38.0]vs 19.5[15.0, 35.0] min, P < 0.05). No other adverse effects were observed in the day and 24 h after medication except one dysphoria.

CONCLUSION

This drug combination sedation regimen appears suitable for children scheduled for MRI examinations, offering a more precise approach to guide the clinical use of sedative drugs in children.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300068611(24/02/2023).

A randomized double-blind trial of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus intranasal esketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in young children

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation and analgesia are commonly used in the Emergency Departments. Despite this common need, there is still a lack of options for adequate and safe analgesia and sedation in children. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether intranasal dexmedetomidine could provide more effective analgesia and sedation during a procedure than intranasal esketamine.

METHODS

This was a double-blind equally randomized (1:1) superiority trial of 30 children aged 1-3 years presenting to the Emergency Department with a laceration or a burn and requiring procedural sedation and analgesia. Patients were randomized to receive 2.0 mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine or 1.0 mg/kg intranasal esketamine. The primary outcome measure was highest pain (assessed using Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale (FLACC)) during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were sedation depth, parents' satisfaction, and physician's assessment. Comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test (continuous variables) and Fisher's test (categorical variables).

RESULTS

Adequate analgesia and sedation were reached in 28/30 patients. The estimated sample size was not reached due to changes in treatment of minor injuries and logistical reasons. The median (IQR) of highest FLACC was 1 (0-3) with intranasal dexmedetomidine and 5 (2-6.75) with intranasal esketamine, (p-value 0.09). 85.7% of the parents with children treated with intranasal dexmedetomidine were "very satisfied" with the procedure and sedation compared to the 46.2% of those with intranasal esketamine, (p-value 0.1). No severe adverse events were reported during this trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was underpowered and did not show any difference between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal esketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in young children. However, the results support that intranasal dexmedetomidine could provide effective analgesia and sedation during procedures in young children aged 1-3 years with minor injuries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Eudra-CT 2017-00057-40, April 20, 2017. https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/.

Efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam for sedation in infant with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a great challenge to sedation for infants with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan, because there is the younger age and no consensus on the type, dosage, and route of drug administration.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam as a sedative option for infants with cleft lip and palate under imaging procedures.

METHODS

Infants scheduled for cleft lip and palate repair surgery were randomly assigned to the IND group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg alone) and the INDM group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg combined with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of infants underwent successful computed tomography (CT) scans under intranasal sedation. The secondary outcomes included onset time and duration of sedation, recovery time, Ramsay sedation scale, hemodynamic parameters during sedation, and adverse events. Data analyses involved the unpaired t-test, the repeated-measures analysis of variance test, and the continuity correction χ2 test.

RESULTS

One hundred five infants were included in the analysis. The proportion of infants underwent successful CT scans under sedation was significantly greater in the INDM group than in the IND group (47 [95.9%] vs. 45 [80.4%], p = 0.016). Additionally, the INDM group had a shorter onset time and a longer duration of sedation statistically (12 [8.5, 17] min vs. 16 [12, 20] min, p = 0.001; 80 [63.6, 92.5] min vs. 68.5 [38, 89] min, p = 0.014, respectively), and their recovery time was significantly longer (43 [30, 59.5] min vs. 31.5 [20.5, 53.5] min, p = 0.006). The difference in Ramsay sedation scale values 20 min after administration was statistically significant between the groups. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in changes in heart rate and respiratory rate.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam resulted in higher sedation success in comparison with sole dexmedetomidine. However, it has a relatively prolonged duration of sedation and recovery time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2100049122, Clinical trial first registration date: 21/07/2021.

Clinical Use of Adrenergic Receptor Ligands in Acute Care Settings

In this chapter, we review how ligands, both agonists and antagonists, for the major classes of adrenoreceptors, are utilized in acute care clinical settings. Adrenergic ligands exert their effects by interacting with the three major classes of adrenoceptors. Adrenoceptor agonists and antagonists have important applications, ranging from treatment of hypotension to asthma, and have proven to be extremely useful in a variety of clinical settings of acute care from the operating room to the critical care environment. Continued research interpreting the mechanisms of adrenoreceptors may help the discovery of new drugs with more desirable clinical profiles.

Predictors of pediatric sedation failure with initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam

BACKGROUND

To assess the sedative failure rate over different dose combinations of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for procedural sedation.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. Four groups were established according to the initial dose of sedatives. The primary outcome was the sedative failure rate for different doses of the two-drug combination. The risk factors associated with sedation failure were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2165 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, 394 children were classified as sedation failure after the initial dose of a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. Although the initial doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam administered to patients varied widely, no significant differences were detected in the sedation outcomes among the groups. Multivariate analysis showed that sedation history, a history of sedation failure, and echocardiography were independent risk factors for sedation failure after an initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. In contrast, patients undergoing lung function and MRI were more likely to be successfully sedated.

CONCLUSION

A combination of low-dose intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam provides adequate sedation efficacy without any increase in side effects, especially for patients undergoing MRI or lung function examination.

IMPACT

This is an original article about the risk factors of sedation failure with an initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for procedure sedation. For patients undergoing echocardiogram, it is better to choose other sedatives, while a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam is a good option for patients undergoing MRI or lung function. The selection of sedative drugs should be personalized according to different procedures.

Dexmedetomidine-Oxycodone combination for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in obese patients: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Obesity is a risk factor for sedation-related respiratory depression during colonoscopy. In a colonoscopy, propofol is frequently used because of its strong sedative and hypnotic properties. However, propofol is associated with marked respiratory depression. The objective of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in obese patients.

Methods

A total of 120 patients had colonoscopies, and they were divided into two groups at random: Dexmedetomidine and oxycodone were used to sedate group Dex + oxy; while group Pro + oxy received anesthesia with propofol plus oxycodone. Parameters including blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, blood oxygen saturation, injection pain, and recovery time were recorded for both groups.

Results

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in group Dex + oxy compared with group Pro + oxy (4.9% vs 20.3%, P = 0.011). Blood pressure was lower, and heart rate was higher in group Pro + oxy compared with group Dex + oxy (P < 0.05). In addition, group Dex + oxy showed a significantly shorter caecal insertion time, recovery time to orientation, and recovery time to walking than group Pro + oxy (P < 0.05). Endoscopist satisfaction scores were significantly higher in group Dex + oxy compared with group Pro + oxy (P = 0.042).

Conclusion

For obese patients, dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone effectively sedate them with few adverse effects, while also reducing colonoscopy operation difficulty by allowing obese patients to reposition. Thus, dexmedetomidine plus oxycodone could be used safely as a conscious sedation method for colonoscopy in obese patients.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1800017283, July 21, 2018).

Median effective dose of esketamine for intranasal premedication in children with congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Esketamine is commonly used as a premedication for its sedation effect. However, the proper dosage for intranasal use in children with congenital heart disease (CHD) has not been determined. This study aimed to estimate the median effective dose (ED₅₀) of esketamine for intranasal premedication in children with CHD.

METHODS

Thirty-four children with CHD who needed premedication in March 2021 were enrolled. Intranasal esketamine was initiated at a dose of 1 mg/kg. Based on the outcome of sedation in the previous patient, the dose for the subsequent patient was either increased or reduced by 0.1 mg/kg, which was adjusted between each child. Successful sedation was defined as a Ramsay Sedation Scale score ≥ 3 and Parental Separation Anxiety Scale score ≤ 2. The required ED₅₀ of esketamine was calculated using the modified sequential method. Non-invasive blood pressure, heart rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen, sedation onset time, and adverse reactions were recorded at 5 min intervals after drug administration.

RESULTS

The 34 children enrolled had a mean age of 22.5 ± 16.4 (4-54) months and a mean weight of 11.2 ± 3.6 (5.5-20.5) kg; American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-III. The ED₅₀ of intranasal S(+)-ketamine (esketamine) required for preoperative sedation in pediatric patients with CHD was 0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.86) mg/kg, and the mean sedation onset time was 16.39 ± 7.24 min. No serious adverse events, such as respiratory distress, nausea, and vomiting were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The ED₅₀ of intranasal esketamine was 0.7 mg/kg, which was safe and effective for preoperative sedation in pediatric patients with CHD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Network (ChiCTR2100044551) on 24/03/2021.

Dose Escalation Pharmacokinetic Study of Intranasal Atomized Dexmedetomidine in Pediatric Patients With Congenital Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Atomized intranasal dexmedetomidine is an attractive option when sedation is required for pediatric patients as either premedication or the sole agent for noninvasive, nonpainful procedures. While intranasal dexmedetomidine is used frequently in this population, it is still unclear what dose and time of administration relative to the procedure will result in the optimal effect. Knowledge regarding the maximum concentration (C max ) and time to reach maximum concentration (T max ) of intranasally administered dexmedetomidine is the first step toward this. The risk of hemodynamic instability caused by increasing doses of dexmedetomidine necessitates a greater understanding of the pharmacokinetics in children.

METHODS

Sixteen pediatric patients 2 to 6 years of age undergoing elective cardiac catheterization received 2 or 4 μg/kg dexmedetomidine intranasally. Plasma concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with a validated assay. Descriptive noncompartmental analysis provided estimates of peak concentrations and time to reach peak concentrations. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Simulations were performed using the final model to assess dose concentrations with an alternative dosing regimen of 3 µg/kg.

RESULTS

A median peak plasma concentration of 413 pg/mL was achieved 91 minutes after 2 μg/kg dosing, and a median peak plasma concentration of 1000 pg/mL was achieved 54 minutes after 4 μg/kg dosing. A 1-compartment pharmacokinetic model adequately described the data. Three subjects in the 4 μg/kg dosing cohort achieved a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), defined as a plasma dexmedetomidine concentration >1000 pg/mL. None of these subjects had any significant hemodynamic consequences. Simulations showed that no subjects would experience a level >1000 pg/mL when using a dose of 3 µg/kg.

CONCLUSIONS

Concentrations associated with adequate sedation can be achieved with intranasal dexmedetomidine doses of 2 to 4 µg/kg in children 2 to 6 years of age. However, 50% of our evaluable subjects in this cohort reached a plasma concentration >1000 pg/mL. Doses of 3 µg/kg may be optimal in this population, with simulated concentrations remaining below this previously established toxicity threshold. Further studies correlating concentrations with efficacy and adverse effects are needed.

Combined use of intranasal Dexmedetomidine and an oral novel formulation of Midazolam for sedation of young children during brain MRI examination: a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different dosages of intranasal Dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with oral midazolam for sedation of young children during brain MRI examination.

METHODS

Included in this prospective single-blind randomized controlled trial were 156 children aged from 3 months to 6 years and weighing from 4 to 20 Kg with ASA I-II who underwent brain MRI examination between March 2021 and February 2022. Using the random number table method, they were divided into group A (using 3 ug/kg intranasal DEX plus 0.2 mg/Kg oral midazolam) and group B (using 2 ug/kg intranasal DEX plus 0.2 mg/Kg oral Midazolam). The one-time success rate of sedation, sedation onset time, recovery time, overall sedation time, and occurrence of adverse reactions during MRI examination were compared between the two groups. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and percutaneous SpO₂before and after drug administration were observed in both groups. Differences in sedation scores between the two groups were compared before intranasal drug administration (T0), 10 min after drug administration (T1), at the time of falling asleep (T2), at the end of examination (T3), and at the time of recovery (T4).

RESULTS

The one-time success rate of sedation in group A and B was 88.31% and 79.75% respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The sedation onset time in group A was 24.97±16.94 min versus 27.92±15.83 min in group B, and the recovery time was 61.88±22.18 min versus 61.16±28.16 min, both showing no significance difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Children in both groups exhibited good drug tolerance without presenting nausea and vomiting, hypoxia, or bradycardia and hypotension that needed clinical interventions. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of abnormal HR, MAP or other adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

3 ug/kg or 2 ug/kg intranasal DEX in combination with 0.2 mg/kg oral Midazolam both are safe and effective for sedation of children undergoing MRI examination with the advantages of fast-acting and easy application.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

It was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1800015038 ) on 02/03/2018.

Efficacy of different doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine in preventing emergence agitation in children with inhalational anaesthesia: A prospective randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Emergence agitation is a common paediatric complication after inhalational anaesthesia. Intranasal dexmedetomidine can prevent emergence agitation effectively, but the optimal dose is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to investigate the 95% effective dose (ED 95 ) of intranasal dexmedetomidine for the prevention of emergence agitation after inhalational anaesthesia for paediatric ambulatory surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial.

SETTING

The study was conducted in Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center in China from August 2017 to December 2018.

PATIENTS

Three hundred and eighteen children scheduled for ambulatory surgery were enrolled into two age groups of less than 3 years and at least 3 years.

INTERVENTIONS

The children in each age group were randomised into five equal subgroups to receive either intranasal dexmedetomidine 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 μg kg -1 (Groups D 0.5 , D 1.0 , D 1.5 and D 2.0 ), or intranasal isotonic saline (group C) after induction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the ED 95 dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine for preventing emergence agitation after inhalational anaesthesia for paediatric ambulatory surgery.

RESULTS

The incidences of emergence agitation for Groups C, D 0.5 , D 1.0 , D 1.5 and D 2.0 were 63, 40, 23, 13 and 3% in children less than 3 years, and 43, 27, 17, 7 and 3% in children at least 3 years. The ED 95 of intranasal dexmedetomidine for preventing emergence agitation was 1.99 μg kg -1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.83 to 3.80 μg kg -1 ] in children less than 3 years, and 1.78  μg kg -1 (95% CI, 0.93 to 4.29 μg kg -1 ) in children at least 3 years. LMA removal time for groups D 1.5 and D 2.0 was 9.6 ± 2.2 and 9.7 ± 2.5 min, respectively, for children less than 3 years, and 9.4 ± 2.0 and 9.9 ± 2.7 min in children at least 3 years, respectively. Length of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit for Groups D 1.5 and D 2.0 was 34.3 ± 9.6 and 37.1 ± 11.2 min, respectively, in children less than 3 years, and 34.7 ± 10.2 and 37.3 ± 8.3 min in children at least 3 years, respectively. These times were longer in the D 1.5 and D 2.0 subgroups than in the control subgroup in the two age groups of less than 3 years and at least 3 years, respectively: 7.2 ± 1.9 min in children less than 3 years and 7.3 ± 2.5 min in children at least 3 years for LMA removal time, 22.2 ± 7.9 min in children less than 3 years and 22.0 ± 7.7 min in children at least 3 years for PACU stay time in control subgroup, respectively ( P  < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intranasal dexmedetomidine prevented emergence agitation after paediatric surgery in a dose-dependent manner. The optimal dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine for preventing emergence agitation was higher in younger children.

TRIAL REGISTRY

chictr.org.cn: ChiCTR-IOR-17012415.

Association of Pentachlorophenol with Fetal Risk of Prolonged Bradycardia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study explored the systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of different concentrations of PCP on the risk of long-term bradycardia in fetuses.

Methods

Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, China Biomedical Literature Service, CNCNKI, and Wanfang database were computerized to collect all case-control studies on the association between variety classes and different concentrations of environmental pollutant gas to fetal of prolonged bradycardia. After evaluating the quality of the inclusion study and extracting valid data, meta-analysis was performed using Stata15 software. Relative hazards were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method and the random effect model, and P values and I 2 values were used for heterogeneity evaluation. When heterogeneity occurs, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to explore the sources.

Results

A total of 15 studies were included, including 1202 patients with fetal of prolonged bradycardia and 1380 in the control population. Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in PCP < 0.1 mg/L between the experimental group and control group (OR = 1.03, 95% CI (0.62, 1.72), P=0.90, I 2 = 0%, Z = 0.13), but there was a statistical difference in PCP > 5 mg/L (OR = 1.73, 95% CI (1.15, 2.58), P=0.008, I 2 = 0%, Z = 2.65), PCP > 10 mg/L (OR = 1.75, 95% CI (1.19, 2.57), P=0.004, I 2 = 14%, Z = 2.85), and PCP >15 mg/L (OR = 2.02, 95% CI (1.38, 2.95), P=0.0003, I 2 = 77%, Z = 3.61).

Conclusion

In this study, we found that different concentrations of PCP increased the risk of long-term bradycardia in fetuses, and the risk coefficient increased with the increase of PCP concentration.

A Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine, Esketamine or a Dexmedetomidine-Esketamine Combination for Induction of Anaesthesia in Children: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Trial

Objective: To compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, esketamine or combined intranasal administration on the induction of inhalation anaesthesia in children.

Methods: Ninety children aged 1–6 years were randomly allocated into three equal groups to be premedicated with either intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg (Group D), esketamine 1 mg/kg (Group S), or dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg combined with esketamine 0.5 mg/kg (Group DS). The primary endpoint was the Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC) Scale. Secondary outcomes included the sedation success rate; the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale score; the time of reaching up to two points on the University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS); Parental Separation Anxiety Scale; anaesthesiologist satisfaction with induction based on the visual analogue scale; emergence agitation scale score; and adverse effects.

Results: The children in the DS group showed a high degree of cooperation with inhalation anaesthesia induction, and their ICC score was significantly lower than that of the D and S groups (p = 0.001), but there was no difference between the D and S groups. The success rate of sedation was higher in Group DS (90%) than in Group D (70%) and Group S (53.3%) (p = 0.007). Anaesthesiologist satisfaction with induction was significantly higher in Group DS than in Groups D and S (p = 0.001). The incidence of emergence agitation and the Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) score in the DS group were lower than those in the D and S groups.

Conclusions: Preoperative intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine combined with esketamine can significantly improve the cooperation of children with inhalation anaesthesia masks. It is a sedation method that has a high success rate and reduces the incidence and degree of emergence agitation.

Paediatric preoperative sedation practices in tertiary maternity and children's hospitals in China: a questionnaire survey

Background

Preoperative anxiety is a common problem in the paediatric population, and several studies have reported that it is related to adverse events such as emergence delirium and postoperative psychological and behavioural changes. In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to paediatric preoperative anxiety in China. A variety of strategies, including sedatives, parental presence, and audio-visual interventions, have been used to relieve paediatric preoperative anxiety, but there is no well-recognised procedure for paediatric preoperative sedation. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate current paediatric preoperative sedation practices in tertiary children’s hospitals in China.

Methods

All tertiary maternity and children’s hospitals registered with the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China were invited to participate in an electronic survey, which included information on the preoperative sedation caseload, sites where preoperative sedation was performed, preoperative sedation methods used in different age groups, choice of sedatives, contraindications for premedication, staff structure for sedative administration and monitoring, and patient-monitoring practices.

Results

All 81 hospitals participating in our study completed the survey, and 38 hospitals (46.9 %) provided their preoperative sedation protocols. Twenty-four hospitals performed fewer than 5,000 preoperative sedation cases annually, and 9 hospitals performed more than 10,000 cases annually. Preoperative sedation was performed in preoperative preparation areas, preoperative holding areas, and operation rooms in 47.4 %, 26.3 %, and 13.2 % of hospitals, respectively. Sedatives were the most used interventions for paediatric preoperative sedation in all age groups, and the most widely used sedatives were propofol (intravenous) and dexmedetomidine (intranasal). The most common contraindications were American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ 3, emergency operation, and airway infection within 2 weeks. Sedatives were administered mainly by anaesthesiologists (63.2 %), and children were monitored mainly by anaesthesiologists (44.7 %) and nurses (39.5 %) after administration. Pulse oximetry was the most widely used monitoring device.

Conclusions

Fewer than half of the tertiary maternity and children’s hospitals in China provide paediatric preoperative sedation service, and the service practices vary widely. Further improvements are required to ensure the quality of paediatric preoperative sedation services and establish standard operating procedures.

The Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine for Procedural Sedation and Postoperative Behaviors in Pediatric Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation and postoperative behaviors in a pediatric population as well as whether the results met the information required to draw conclusions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy evaluation of dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation and postoperative behaviors in a pediatric population.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science and Ovid MEDLINE were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with control medicine and comparing different doses of dexmedetomidine.

RESULTS

There were a total of 16 RCTs for a total of 3240 patients. Dexmedetomidine slowed down the heart rate (HR; mean difference: -13.27; 95% CI: -16.41 to 10.14; P < 0.001) and reduced postoperative delirium (risk ratio [RR]: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.20-0.50; P < 0.001), the number of pain patients (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30-0.75; P = 0.002), and desaturation (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.13-0.89; P = 0.03) compared with the control group. The limitation was that it was difficult to determine the range of low- and high-dose dexmedetomidine.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Dexmedetomidine slowed down intraoperative HR within the normal range, which might reduce myocardial oxygen consumption. It reduced postoperative pain and postoperative complications: delirium and desaturation. Dexmedetomidine showed no dose-dependent increase in the procedural sedation time of pediatric patients. Clinically, dexmedetomidine can improve pediatric procedural sedation and postoperative behavior, and it can be considered as a related medicine for safety in pediatric surgery.

Sleep deprivation did not enhance the success rate of chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedural sedation in pediatric patients

Study objective

In Asian countries, oral chloral hydrate is the most commonly used sedative for non-invasive procedures. Theoretically, mild sleep deprivation could be considered as one of assisted techniques. However, there is no consensus on sleep deprivation facilitating the sedation during non-painful procedures in children. The aim of our study is to analyze the clinical data of children undergoing non-invasive procedural sedation retrospectively and to evaluate the association between mild sleep deprivation and sedative effects in non-invasive procedures.

Measurements

Consecutive patients undergoing chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedures between December 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 were included in this study. The propensity score analysis with 1: 1 ratio was used to match the baseline variables between patients with sleep deprivation and non-sleep deprivation. The primary outcome was the failure rate of sedation with the initial dose. The secondary outcomes included the failure rate of sedation after supplementation of chloral hydrate, the incidence of major and minor adverse events, initial and supplemental dose of chloral hydrate, and the length of sedation time.

Main results

Of the 7789 patients undergoing chloral hydrate sedation, 6352 were treated with sleep deprivation and 1437 with non-sleep deprivation. After propensity score matching, 1437 pairs were produced. The failure rate of sedation with initial chlorate hydrate was not significantly different in two groups (8.6% [123/1437] vs. 10.6% [152/1437], p = 0.08), nor were the failure rates with supplemental chlorate hydrate (0.8% [12/1437] vs. 0.9% [13/1437], p = 1) and the length of sedation time (58 [45, 75] vs. 58 [45, 75] min; p = 0.93).

Conclusions

The current results do not support sleep deprivation have a beneficial effect in reducing the pediatric chloral hydrate sedation failure rate. The routine use of sleep deprivation for pediatric sedation is unnecessary.