One hundred times the intended dose of caudal clonidine in three pediatric patients

Preventing Medication Errors in Pediatric Anesthesia: A Systematic Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Preventing medication errors and improving patient safety in pediatric anesthesia are top priorities. This systematic scoping review was conducted to identify and summarize reports on medication errors in pediatric anesthesia. The study also aimed to qualitatively synthesize medication error situations in pediatric anesthesia and recommendations to eliminate/minimize them.

METHODS

The databases: Cochrane, MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, CINAHL through EBSCO, and PsycINFO were extensively searched from their inception to March 3, 2020. Error situations in pediatric anesthesia and recommendations to minimize/reduce these errors were synthesized qualitatively. Recommendations were graded by level of evidence using the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 39 publications. Dosing errors were the most commonly reported. Scenarios representing medication (n = 33) error situations in pediatric anesthesia and recommendations to eliminate/minimize medication errors (n = 36) were qualitatively synthesized. Of the recommendations, 2 (5.6%) were related to manufacture, 4 (11.1%) were related to policy, 1 (2.8%) was related to presentation to user, 1 (2.8%) was related to process tools, 17 (47.2%) were related to administration, 3 (8.3%) were related to recording/documentation, and 8 (22.2%) recommendations were classified as others. Of those, 29 (80.6%), 3 (8.3%), 3 (8.3%), and 1 (2.8%) were graded as evidence level 1, 2, 3, and 5, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Medication error situations that might occur in pediatric anesthesia and recommendations on how to eliminate/minimize medication errors were also qualitatively synthesized. Adherence to recommendations might reduce the incidence of medication errors in pediatric anesthesia.

Clonidine versus other adjuncts added to local anesthetics for pediatric neuraxial blocks: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Clonidine is a common adjunct to local anesthetics for pediatric neuraxial block; however, the pros and cons between clonidine and other adjuncts remain unclear. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and adverse effects between clonidine and other adjuncts added to local anesthetics.

Materials and methods

The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled analysis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Randomized controlled studies were searched in Cochrane (to present), Medline (1946 to present), Embase (1974 to present), and Biosis (1995 to present). Relative risks (RRs), standard mean difference (SMD), and associated CIs were calculated using RevMan statistical software to assess continuous and dichotomous data. Heterogeneity in studies was measured by forest plots and I² values. Subgroup analysis was performed for continuous and dichotomous variables, while meta-regression was applied for continuous data with high I² values.

Results

A total of 15 randomized controlled studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a longer duration of postoperative analgesia in the clonidine group than for other adjuncts (SMD=1.54, p=0.005, I²=96%). The number of patients requiring rescue analgesia was lower in the clonidine group without the addition of epinephrine (RR=0.55, p=0.0002, I²=0), while the RR for the comparison with epinephrine was significant (p=0.62, I²=95%). The duration of motor block was longer in the clonidine group (mean difference [MD]=1.06, p<0.00001, I²=0). The clonidine group also had a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV; RR=0.49, p<0.00001, I²=0). Postoperative bradycardia, hypotension, and urinary retention were not significantly different between clonidine and other adjuncts (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Clonidine, compared with other adjuncts, added to local anesthetics for neuraxial block, provides a longer duration of postoperative analgesia with lower incidence of PONV. However, the duration of motor block may also be prolonged by clonidine.

Prospective multicentre randomised, double-blind, equivalence study comparing clonidine and midazolam as intravenous sedative agents in critically ill children: the SLEEPS (Safety profiLe, Efficacy and Equivalence in Paediatric intensive care Sedation) study

BACKGROUND

Children in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) require analgesia and sedation but both undersedation and oversedation can be harmful.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of intravenous (i.v.) clonidine as an alternative to i.v. midazolam.

DESIGN

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised equivalence trial.

SETTING

Ten UK PICUs.

PARTICIPANTS

Children (30 days to 15 years inclusive) weighing ≤ 50 kg, expected to require ventilation on PICU for > 12 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

Clonidine (3 µg/kg loading then 0-3 µg/kg/hour) versus midazolam (200 µg/kg loading then 0-200 µg/kg/hour). Maintenance infusion rates adjusted according to behavioural assessment (COMFORT score). Both groups also received morphine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary end point Adequate sedation defined by COMFORT score of 17-26 for ≥ 80% of the time with a ± 0.15 margin of equivalence. Secondary end points Percentage of time spent adequately sedated, increase in sedation/analgesia, recovery after sedation, side effects and safety data.

RESULTS

The study planned to recruit 1000 children. In total, 129 children were randomised, of whom 120 (93%) contributed data for the primary outcome. The proportion of children who were adequately sedated for ≥ 80% of the time was 21 of 61 (34.4%) - clonidine, and 18 of 59 (30.5%) - midazolam. The difference in proportions for clonidine-midazolam was 0.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.21], and, with the 95% CI including values outside the range of equivalence (-0.15 to 0.15), equivalence was not demonstrated; however, the study was underpowered. Non-inferiority of clonidine to midazolam was established, with the only values outside the equivalence range favouring clonidine. Times to reach maximum sedation and analgesia were comparable hazard ratios: 0.99 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.82) and 1.18 (95% CI 0.49 to 2.86), respectively. Percentage time spent adequately sedated was similar [medians clonidine 73.8% vs. midazolam 72.8%: difference in medians 0.66 (95% CI -5.25 to 7.24)]. Treatment failure was 12 of 64 (18.8%) on clonidine and 7 of 61 (11.5%) on midazolam [risk ratio (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.88]. Proportions with withdrawal symptoms [28/60 (46.7%) vs. 30/58 (52.6%)] were similar (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.28), but a greater proportion required clinical intervention in those receiving midazolam [11/60 (18.3%) vs. 16/58 (27.6%) (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31)]. Post treatment, one child on clonidine experienced mild rebound hypertension, not requiring intervention. A higher incidence of inotropic support during the first 12 hours was required for those on clonidine [clonidine 5/45 (11.1%) vs. midazolam 3/52 (5.8%)] (RR 1.93 95% CI 0.49 to 7.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Clonidine is an alternative to midazolam. Our trial-based economic evaluation suggests that clonidine is likely to be a cost-effective sedative agent in the PICU in comparison with midazolam (probability of cost-effectiveness exceeds 50%). Rebound hypertension did not appear to be a significant problem with clonidine but, owing to its effects on heart rate, specific cardiovascular attention needs to be taken during the loading and early infusion phase. Neither drug in combination with morphine provided ideal sedation, suggesting that in unparalysed patients a third background agent is necessary. The disappointing recruitment rates reflect a reluctance of parents to provide consent when established on a sedation regimen, and reluctance of clinicians to allow sedation to be studied in unstable critically ill children. Future studies will require less exacting protocols allowing enhanced recruitment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02639863.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bradycardia in perspective-not all reductions in heart rate need immediate intervention

According to Wikipedia, the word 'bradycardia' stems from the Greek βραδύς, bradys, 'slow', and καρδία, kardia, 'heart'. Thus, the meaning of bradycardia is slow heart rate but not necessarily too slow heart rate. If looking at top endurance athletes they may have a resting heart rate in the very low thirties without needing emergent intervention with anticholinergics, isoprenaline, epinephrine, chest compressions or the insertion of an emergency pacemaker (Figure 1). In fact, they withstand these episodes without incident, accommodating with a compensatory increase in stroke volume to preserve and maintain cardiac output. With this in mind, it is difficult for the authors to fully understand and agree with the general sentiment amongst many pediatric anesthesiologists that all isolated bradycardia portends impending doom and must be immediately treated with resuscitative measures.

Adjuncts should always be used in pediatric regional anesthesia

A number of different adjuncts to local anesthetics can be used to prolong and optimize postoperative pain relief following regional anesthesia in children. The present text provides a slightly opinionated but evidence-based argument in favor of this practice.

Adjuvants in pediatric regional anesthesia

SUMMARY Local anesthetics have a limited duration of action. Adjuvants are used to prolong the duration of action and to augment analgesia allowing lower concentrations of local anesthetic to be used. Adjuvants have been used more extensively with neuraxial blocks, particularly caudal epidural blocks, but more recently to supplement peripheral nerve blocks. Intrathecal adjuvants are not covered in this review since spinal anesthesia is not widely used in children except in ex-premature infants. Morphine is the historical gold-standard with which other adjuvants are compared. Clonidine is most useful and is becoming increasingly popular, while the side-effect profile of other agents reduces their utility. Concerns with regard to the neurotoxicity of ketamine in animal models has led to its withdrawal in some countries.

[Dexmedetomidine and clonidine: a review of their pharmacodynamy to define their role for sedation in intensive care patients]

Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ("alpha-2 agonists") present multiple pharmacodynamic effects: rousable sedation, decreased incidence of delirium in the setting of critical care, preservation of respiratory drive, decreased whole body oxygen consumption, decreased systemic and pulmonary arterial impedance, improved left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, preserved vascular reactivity to exogenous catecholamines, preserved vasomotor baroreflex with lowered set point, preserved kidney function, decreased protein catabolism. These pharmacodynamic effects explain the interest for these drugs in the critical care setting. However, their exact role for sedation in critically ill-patients remains open for further studies. Given the few double-blind randomized multicentric trials available, the present non exhaustive analysis of the literature aims at presenting the utilization of alpha-2 agonists as potential first-line sedative agents, in the critical care setting. Suggestions regarding the use of alpha-2 agonists as sedatives are detailed.

Onset time for pharmacologic premedication with clonidine as a nasal aerosol: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial

OBJECTIVES/AIM

To investigate whether nasal aerosol clonidine can reduce the onset time of preoperative sedation.

BACKGROUND

Premedication is common in the pediatric population, but the optimal agent and administration route is still a matter of debate. Clonidine has many beneficial effects in the perioperative period. Clonidine nasal drops produce a similar sedative effect as after oral administration but do not reduce the onset time. Nasal aerosol administration of drugs is generally more effective than drops and an option to decrease the onset time of clonidine.

METHODS

Pediatric ASA status 1 and 2 patients were randomized to receive placebo (P), clonidine 3-4 μg kg(-1) (C4), or clonidine 7-8 μg kg(-1) (C7) as a nasal aerosol. Acceptance of administration, pre- and postoperative sedation, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were enrolled with a median age of 3.5 years (range 0.7-6.9) and median weight of 14.8 kg (range 10-25). In the C7 group, 55% of the children were found adequately sedated at 30 min as compared to 32% in the C4 group (P = 0.1202). At 45 min, adequate sedation was seen in 65% of the patients in both C4 and C7 groups, which were both found to be significantly higher compared with the placebo control group (14%) (P-values = 0.0027 and 0.0013, respectively). The postoperative sedation profile did not differ between the three study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Clonidine administered as nasal aerosol (3-8 μg kg(-1)) was not found to achieve adequate preoperative sedation within 30 min of administration. Despite its sedative properties, no prolongation of postoperative sedation was noted compared with placebo.

Pediatric pain management

Regional anesthesia has become an integral part of adult anesthesia. Although not routinely used in children because of the need for general anesthesia that is necessary to keep the patients from moving and cooperating with the operator, regional anesthesia has been gaining immense popularity in the last decade. Although there is not much objective evidence, large prospective databases and expert opinion have favored administering regional anesthesia in the asleep child safely because major neural damage has not been reported in children. This review discusses a comprehensive approach to acute pain management in infants, children, and adolescents using regional anesthesia.

Addition of clonidine in caudal anesthesia in children increases duration of post-operative analgesia

Background:

Pain in infancy is a developmental process. Due to the underdeveloped pain pathways in the spinal cord, the threshold of stimulation and sensation of pain is low at birth and has potential impacts on increasing the central effects of pain. Primary trauma during infancy can cause long term changes in structure and function of pain pathways that continue until adulthood. Lack of pain management in children can result in morbidity and mortality.

Objectives:

In this study we examined the duration of post-operative analgesia in children when clonidine is added to bupivacaine in caudal anesthesia.

Materials and Methods:

In this clinical trial, 40 children aged 1-8 years who were candidates for elective inguinal hernia repair were studied. Induction and maintenance of anesthesia were achieved using sodium thiopenthal, halothane and nitrous oxide. Children were randomly divided into 2 groups in a double-blind fashion, and were given caudal anesthesia with 0.125% bupivacaine (1ml/kg) alone or b bupivacaine plus 2 μg/kg clonidine. Blood pressure and heart rate were recorded peri-operatively. Analgesia was evaluated using objective pain scale (OPS) and sedation was assessed using Ramsay sedation scale (RSS). Acetaminophen was administered rectally for cases with OPS score greater than five.

Results:

Duration of analgesia was found to be significantly longer in the group given bupivacaine plus clonidine (mean 417.50 min vs. 162.00 min).

Peri-operative hypotension or bradycardia, post-operative respiratory depression, nausea or vomiting were not recorded in any patient.

Conclusions:

We concluded that addition of clonidine to bupivacaine prolongs the duration of post-operative analgesia without any respiratory or hemodynamic side-effects.

Efficacy and safety of clonidine as additive for caudal regional anesthesia: a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is still the most popular additive for caudal regional anesthesia. Aim of the present quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of the combined use of clonidine and local anesthetics in comparison with caudal local anesthetics alone.

METHODS

The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal and pooled analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. The systematic search included the Central register of controlled trials of the Cochrane Library (to present), MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present) and CINAHL (1981 to present). Relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Revman(®) statistical software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials (published between 1994 and 2010) including 993 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a longer duration of postoperative analgesia in children receiving clonidine in addition to local anesthetic (MD: 3.98 h; 95% CI: 2.84-5.13; P < 0.00001). Furthermore, there was a lower number of patients requiring rescue analgesics in the clonidine group (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.57-0.90; P = 0.003). The incidence of complications (e.g., respiratory depression) remained very low and was not different to caudal local anesthetics alone.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable evidence that caudally administered clonidine in addition to local anesthetics provides extended duration of analgesia with a decreased incidence for analgesic rescue requirement and little adverse effects compared to caudal local anesthetics alone.