Efficacy of the Sequential Administration of Melatonin, Hydroxyzine, and Chloral Hydrate for Recording Sleep EEGs in Children

Melatonin vs. dexmedetomidine for sleep induction in children before electroencephalography

Background and objectives

In children requiring electroencephalography (EEG), sleep recording can provide crucial information. As EEG recordings during spontaneous sleep are not always possible, pharmacological sleep-inducing agents are sometimes required. The aim of the study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of melatonin (Mel) and dexmedetomidine (Dex; intranasal and sublingual application) for sleep induction prior to EEG.

Methods

In this prospective randomized study, 156 consecutive patients aged 1-19 years were enrolled and randomized by draw into melatonin group (Mel; n = 54; dose: 0.1 mg/kg), dexmedetomidine (Dex) sublingual group (DexL; n = 51; dose: 3 mcg/kg) or dexmedetomidine intranasal group (DexN; n = 51; dose: 3 mcg/kg). We compared the groups in several parameters regarding efficacy and safety and also carried out a separate analysis for a subgroup of patients with complex behavioral problems.

Results

Sleep was achieved in 93.6% of participants after the first application of the drug and in 99.4% after the application of another if needed. Mel was effective as the first drug in 83.3% and Dex in 99.0% (p < 0.001); in the subgroup of patients with complex developmental problems Mel was effective in 73.4% and Dex in 100% (p < 0.001). The patients fell asleep faster after intranasal application of Dex than after sublingual application (p = 0.006). None of the patients had respiratory depression, bradycardia, desaturation, or hypotension.

Conclusions

Mel and Dex are both safe for sleep induction prior to EEG recording in children. Dex is more effective compared to Mel in inducing sleep, also in the subgroup of children with complex behavioral problems.

Clinical Trial Registration

Dexmedetomidine and Melatonin for Sleep Induction for EEG in Children, NCT04665453.

Melatonin versus chloral hydrate on sleep induction for recording electroencephalography in children: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Electroencephalography (EEG) plays an essential role in the diagnosis of seizures. EEG recording in children is done with partial sleep deprivation and sedative drugs. To compare the effectiveness of melatonin and chloral hydrate on sleep induction and EEG recording in children.

Materials and methods

In a parallel blinded randomized clinical trial study, 78 patients (6 months-5 years) were included to record EEG. Patients were randomly divided into two groups to receive melatonin (0.4 mg/kg) or chloral hydrate (0.5 ml/kg). After receiving the sedative drug, the start and duration of sedation, recovery time, side effects, and epileptiform waves in the EEG were recorded. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 16, and the significance level was determined to be less than 0.05.

Results

A total of 78 children, including 34 girls (43.6%) and 44 boys (56.4%) (average age of 27.15±17.15 months), were examined. Success in the induction of sedation was reported by melatonin in 36 patients (92%) and chloral hydrate in 37 patients (95%), which was similar between the two drugs (P=0.5). The start time (P=0.134) and the duration of sedation (P=0.408) were alike between the two drugs. However, compared to the chloral hydrate, the recovery time in the melatonin group was significantly shorter (P<0.001). Side effects were not seen in melatonin, while six children (15%) using chloral hydrate had mild side effects (P=0.013). Epileptiform waves in EEGs were reported to be similar and positive for melatonin in 18 children (50%) and chloral hydrate in 16 children (43%) (P=0.410).

Conclusion

The findings show that using melatonin in the dose prescribed in this study had similar effects to success in inducing sedation with the minimum quantity of chloral hydrate. Regardless of the start time and duration of sedation, the shorter recovery time and the absence of side effects are the advantages of using melatonin.

Safety and efficacy of pediatric sedation protocol for diagnostic examination in a pediatric emergency room: A retrospective study

Pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic tests in the pediatric emergency room are frequently sedated. Although efforts are made to prevent adverse events, no sedation protocol has specified the optimal regimen, dosage, and interval of medication to prevent adverse events. This study analyzed the safety and efficacy of sequential pediatric sedation protocols for pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic tests in the pediatric emergency room of a single tertiary medical center. The medical records of patients aged < 18 years who visited the pediatric emergency room of Seoul Asan Medical Center between January and December 2019 for diagnostic testing were retrospectively reviewed. Sedation protocols consisted of 50 mg/kg and 25 mg/kg chloral hydrate, 0.1 mg/kg and 0.1 mg/kg midazolam, and 1 mg/kg and 0.5 to 1 mg/kg ketamine, administered sequentially at intervals of 30, 20, 10, 10, and 10 minutes, respectively. Patients were assessed prior to sedation, and adverse events were investigated. Of the 289 included patients, 20 (6.9%) experienced adverse events, none serious, and nine (3.1%) failed to reach the depth of sedation required to complete the test. The regimen (P = .622) and dosage (P = .777) of the sedatives were unrelated to the occurrence of adverse events when sedation was performed according to protocol. The sedation protocol used in these patients, consisting of sequential administration of minimum dosages, achieved a sufficient depth of sedation with relatively few adverse events, indicating that this protocol can be used safely and effectively for painless sedation in pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic testing.

Efficacy of Melatonin for Inducing Sleep in Pediatric Electroencephalogram Recordings: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Objective To compare the efficacy of melatonin, melatonin with sleep deprivation, and chloral hydrate with sleep deprivation on sleep induction in Asian children. Methods: For this randomized single-blind controlled trial, we recruited 45 children aged 1-5 years and older who were not cooperative on electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings, randomly allocated to three groups: melatonin (group A), melatonin and sleep deprivation (group B), or chloral hydrate and sleep deprivation (group C). Between-group comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Stage II sleep was achieved in 92.8%, 100%, and 100% of participants in groups A, B, and C, respectively. Sleep latency was significantly shorter in Group C than in Groups A (p  =  .022) and B (p  =  .027), while Group C had better sleep efficacy than Groups A (p  =  .02) and B (p  =  .04). Conclusion: Melatonin with sleep deprivation is less effective at inducing sleep than combined chloralhydrate and sleep deprivation.

Efficacy of Liposomal Melatonin in sleep EEG in Childhood: A Double Blind Case Control Study

Electroencephalography (EEG) is pivotal in the clinical assessment of epilepsy, and sleep is known to improve the diagnostic yield of its recording. Sleep-EEG recording is generally reached by either partial deprivation or by administration of sleep-inducing agents, although it is still not achieved in a considerable percentage of patients. We conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled study, involving a hundred patients between 1 and 6 years old, randomized into two groups: Group 1 received liposomal melatonin (melatosome) whereas Group 2 received a placebo. Sleep latency (SL), defined as the time span between the onset of a well-established posterior dominant rhythm, considered as a frequency of 3 to 4 Hz, increasing to 4-5 Hz by the age of 6 months, to 5-7 Hz by 12 months, and finally to 8 Hz by 3 years, and the first EEG sleep figures detected, were measured for each patient. A significant difference in SL was observed (10.8 ± 5 vs. 18.1 ± 13.4 min, p-value = 0.002). Within each group, no differences in sleep latency were detected between genders. Furthermore, no difference in EEG abnormality detection was observed between the two groups. Our study confirmed the efficacy and safety of melatonin administration in sleep induction. Nonetheless, liposomal melatonin presents a greater bioavailability, ensuring a faster effect and allowing lower dosages. Such results, never before reported in the literature, suggest that the routine employment of melatonin might improve clinical practice in neurophysiology, reducing unsuccessful recordings.

Melatonin Versus Chloral Hydrate for Sleep Electroencephalography Recording in Children: A Comparative Study Using Bispectral Index Monitoring Scores and Electroencephalographic Sleep Stages

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of chloral hydrate and melatonin on sleep EEG recordings in children by using standard EEG sleep stages and the bispectral index scores (BIS).

METHODS

A total of 86 children were randomly assigned to two groups: (1) melatonin group (n = 43) and (2) chloral hydrate group (n = 43). BIS monitoring scores and sleep EEGs were recorded simultaneously. The effect of two drugs on sleep EEG recording was evaluated with sleep stages of EEG and BIS.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with regard to time to sleep onset and the need for a second drug ( P = 0.432; P = 1.000). Eight patients (18.6%) in chloral hydrate group reported side effects while there were no reported side effects in the melatonin group ( P = 0.006). Mean BIS values during EEG recordings were similar in both groups (59.72 ± 18.69 minutes and 66.17 ± 18.44 minutes, respectively, P = 1.000). The average time to achieve N2 sleep was 32.38 minutes in the chloral hydrate group and 43.25 minutes in the melatonin group ( P < 0.001). Both "time spent in wakefulness" and "N1 sleep" were found to be significantly higher in the melatonin group ( P < 0.001 and P = 0.005). BIS scores higher than 75 were found to be suggestive for wakefulness; 75 to 66 for N1, 65 to 46 for N2, and values lower than 46 were found to be indicative for N3 sleep with a good strength of agreement in weighted Kappa analysis (95% confidence interval; weighted Kappa = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Melatonin is reliable and at least as effective as chloral hydrate for sleep EEG acquisition in children.

Use of a single dose of 70mg/kg chloral hydrate as a hypnotic in nuclear magnetic resonance. A prospective study of 3132 cases

OBJECTIVE

To assess the mean time to hypnosis, hemodynamic stability, and incidence of complications associated with the administration of 70mg/kg oral chloral hydrate in children scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective study conducted from January 2000 to January 2020 in which 3132 patients aged between one day and 5 years underwent MRI under anaesthesia in an outpatient setting. The study population was divided into 4 subgroups: A) aged between one and 30 days; B) aged between one month and one year; C) aged between one and 3 years, and D) aged between 3 and 5 years. Study variables were: sex, age, type of examination, mean imaging time, mean time to awakening, heart rate before and after MRI, SatO₂, and incidence of complications such as respiratory depression (SatO₂ below 90%), agitation during the MRI or on awakening (intense crying lasting more than 2min), prolonged sedation measured on the Steward scale, and nausea and/or vomiting during the MRI, on awakening, or at home.

RESULTS

No notable hemodynamic alterations were observed. The incidence of desaturation was .41%, awakening during the test was .16%, prolonged sedation was 1.08%, and agitated awakening was 1.46%. Nausea and vomiting at the end of the test had an incidence of .73%. The P value in all cases was <.05%.

CONCLUSIONS

Chloral hydrate at a dose of 70mg/kg continues to be suitable in sedation lasting no more than one hour for non-invasive procedures in children, and is associated with adequate haemodynamic stability with practically no side effects.

Melatonin for non-operating room sedation in paediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The literature on melatonin as a sedative agent in children is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of studies assessing the efficacy and safety of melatonin for non-operating room sedation in children.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health were searched until 9 April 2020 for studies using melatonin and reporting one of the prespecified outcomes of this review. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility, risk of bias and extracted the data. Studies with a similar study design, comparator and procedure were pooled using the fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

25 studies (clinical trials=3, observational studies=9, descriptive studies=13) were included. Melatonin was used for electroencephalogram (EEG) (n=12), brainstem evoked response audiometry (n=8) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n=5). No significant differences were noted on meta-analysis of EEG studies comparing melatonin with sleep deprivation (SD) (relative risk (RR) 1.06 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.12)), melatonin with chloral hydrate (RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.05)) and melatonin alone with melatonin and SD combined (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.10)) for successful procedure completion. However, significantly higher sedation failure was noted in melatonin alone compared with melatonin and SD combined (RR 1.55 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.33)) for EEG. Additionally, meta-analysis showed lower sleep latency for melatonin compared with SD (mean difference -10.21 (95% CI -11.53 to -8.89) for EEG. No major adverse events were reported with melatonin.

CONCLUSION

Although several studies were identified, and no serious safety concerns were noted, the evidence was not of high quality to establish melatonin's efficacy for non-operating room sedation in children.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Melatonin and Triclofos for Inducing Adequate Sedation for Sleep Electroencephalogram in Children

Introduction Triclofos and melatonin are commonly used oral sedatives in children for obtaining a sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) record. There has been no systematic review till now to compare the efficacy and safety of these two medications.

Objectives The review intended to compare the efficacy of oral triclofos and melatonin in children <18 years of age for inducing adequate sedation for obtaining a sleep EEG record. We also attempted to compare the adverse effects, impact on EEG record, the yield of epileptiform abnormalities, and sleep onset latency in both groups.

Methods A systematic search was conducted on “MEDLINE/PUBMED, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar” till November 30, 2020, with the following keywords/the Medical Subject Headings (MESH) terms while searching: “sleep EEG,” “electroencephalogram,” “triclofos,” “melatonin” OR “ramelteon” AND “epilepsy,” “seizure,” OR “convulsion.” ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool was used to determine the risk of bias. To assess heterogeneity in studies, Higgins and Thompson's I 2 method was utilized. When I 2 was more than 50%, a random effects model was utilized and a fixed-effect model was used for other parameters. To assess the presence of publication bias, Egger's test was used.

Results For describing the efficacy of triclofos in 1,284 and melatonin in 1,532 children, we selected 16 articles. The indirect comparison between the pooled estimate of all children receiving individual medications revealed comparable efficacy in obtaining successful sleep EEG record with a single dose (90 vs. 76%, p = 0.058) and repeat dose (p = 0.054), detection of epileptiform abnormalities (p = 0.06), and sleep onset latency (p = 0.06), but more proportion of children receiving triclofos had adverse effects (p = 0.001) and duration of sleep was also higher with triclofos (p = 0.001).

Conclusion Efficacy of triclofos and melatonin are comparable in inducing sleep for recording EEG in children, although triclofos is more likely to cause adverse effects. However, the level of evidence is low for this conclusion and the weak strength of recommendation for the results of this review is likely to change in the future after completion of controlled trials exploring these two medications.

Effectiveness of Chloral Hydrate on Brain MRI in Children with Developmental Delay/Intellectual Disability Comparing with Normal Intelligence: Single Tertiary Center Experience

Neurodiagnostic investigation requirements are expanding for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in children, especially in those with developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID). Thus, determination of optimal sedatives to achieve successful sedation and immobility without further neurological compromise is important in children with DD/ID. The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness and adverse reactions of chloral hydrate (CH) for brain magnetic resonance imaging (B-MRI) in children with DD/ID compared to those with normal intelligence (NI). We performed a retrospective chart review of children aged from 1 day to 12 years who required elective sedation using CH for B-MRI. About 730 cases (415 with DD/ID and 315 with NI) of CH sedation were conducted for B-MRI. Children with DD/ID showed a higher failure rate (22%) than did those with NI (6%); additional CH and prolonged sedation time were required. There was no difference in incidence of adverse reactions between DD/ID and NI groups (p = 0.338). Older or heavier children with DD/ID (p = 0.036 and p = 0.013, respectively), as well as those diagnosed with epilepsy or neuropsychiatric disorders showed higher risk of sedation failure (p < 0.001 for each). In conclusion, CH was a suboptimal sedative drug for children with DD/ID compared with those with NI. Other alternative or supplementary sedatives should be taken into consideration especially for those vulnerable groups.

Use of a single dose of 70mg/kg chloral hydrate as a hypnotic in nuclear magnetic resonance. A prospective study of 3,132 cases

OBJECTIVE

To assess the mean time to hypnosis, hemodynamic stability, and incidence of complications associated with the administration of 70mg/kg oral chloral hydrate in children scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective study conducted from January 2000 to January 2020 in which 3,132 patients aged between one day and 5 years underwent MRI under anaesthesia in an outpatient setting. The study population was divided into 4 subgroups: A) aged between one and 30 days; B) aged between one month and one year; C) aged between one and 3 years, and D) aged between 3 and 5 years. Study variables were: sex, age, type of examination, mean imaging time, mean time to awakening, heart rate before and after MRI, SatO2, and incidence of complications such as respiratory depression (SatO2 below 90%), agitation during the MRI or on awakening (intense crying lasting more than 2min), prolonged sedation measured on the Steward scale, and nausea and/or vomiting during the MRI, on awakening, or at home.

RESULTS

No notable hemodynamic alterations were observed. The incidence of desaturation was 0.41%, awakening during the test was 0.16%, prolonged sedation was 1.08%, and agitated awakening was 1.46%. Nausea and vomiting at the end of the test had an incidence of 0.73%. The P value in all cases was<.05%.

CONCLUSIONS

Chloral hydrate at a dose of 70mg/kg continues to be suitable in sedation lasting no more than one hour for non-invasive procedures in children, and is associated with adequate haemodynamic stability with practically no side effects.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.

Rectal chloral hydrate sedation for computed tomography in young children with head trauma

Children evaluated in the emergency department for head trauma often undergo computed tomography (CT), with some uncooperative children requiring pharmacological sedation. Chloral hydrate (CH) is a sedative that has been widely used, but its rectal use for child sedation after head trauma has rarely been studied. The objective of this study was to document the safety and efficacy of rectal CH sedation for cranial CT in young children.We retrospectively studied all the children with head trauma who received rectal CH sedation for CT in the emergency department from 2016 to 2019. CH was administered rectally at a dose of 50 mg/kg body weight. When sedation was achieved, CT scanning was performed, and the children were monitored until recovery. The sedative safety and efficacy were analyzed.A total of 135 children were enrolled in the study group, and the mean age was 16.05 months. The mean onset time was 16.41 minutes. Successful sedation occurred in 97.0% of children. The mean recovery time was 71.59 minutes. All of the vital signs were within normal limits after sedation, except 1 (0.7%) with transient hypoxia. There was no drug-related vomiting reaction in the study group. Adverse effects occurred in 11 patients (8.1%), but all recovered completely. Compared with oral CH sedation, rectal CH sedation was associated with quicker onset (P < .01), higher success rate (P < .01), and lower adverse event rate (P < .01).Rectal CH sedation can be a safe and effective method for CT imaging of young children with head trauma in the emergency department.

A solution based on melatonin, tryptophan, and vitamin B6 (Melamil Tripto©) for sedation in newborns during brain MRI

INTRODUCTION

Melatonin has been studied and used for several years as a sleep-wake cycle modulator in patients with sleep disorders. Experimental evidence has demonstrated the multiple neuroprotective benefits of this indoleamine secreted by the pineal gland. Melatonin is also used in neurological investigations, for its ability to induce sleep in children. In fact, it favors falling asleep during electroencephalogram, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and during brainstem auditory evoked potentials. Previous studies are focused on infants and children. No investigation have been performed in neonates, before or during instrumental assessments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred ten newborns (term and preterm) undergoing brain MRI were enrolled in the study. Thirty minutes before the planned time for the examination, we administered a single dose solution of melatonin- tryptophan-vitamin B6. Twenty minutes after the initial administration of 2 mg, a second dose of 1 mg was administered, if the baby was still awake. If after further 15 min the baby was still not sleeping, an additional dose of 1 mg was administered.

RESULTS

In 106 patients we obtained adequate sedation without adverse events, allowing us to perform an adequate quality MRI, with a median time of 25 min to reach sleeping. Only in three patients MRI could not be performed. In patients having a large weight, higher doses of melatonin were necessary to reach sleeping. Considering the pro kg dose of melatonin, the average dose that induced sleepiness in neonates was 0,64 ± 0.16 mg/Kg.

CONCLUSION

A solution based on Melatonin- tryptophan-vitamin B6 can be a helpful sedative to administer to neonates undergoing brain MRI, avoiding the use of anesthetics and achieving adequate assessments.

The pearls of pediatric sedation: polish the old and embrace the new

Over the past decade, as the complexity and breadth of pediatric procedures increases, the actual choices of approved sedatives have remained relatively stagnant. Since the introduction of midazolam, there has not been a sedative approved for pediatric labelling until December 2018. This December, the European approval of ADV6209 (Ozalin) for pediatric usage marked the newest addition to the pediatric sedative armamentarium in over a decade. This review is timely and significant because it will provide a balanced evaluation of the most common sedatives in use today, the most recent sedative to be approved and, most importantly, a critical look at the literature supporting the latest approaches to the most commonly performed procedures.

Should Melatonin Be Used as an Alternative Sedative and Anxiolytic Agent in Mandibular Third Molar Surgery?

PURPOSE

Melatonin is a natural hormone that regulates circadian rhythms. The aim of this study was to compare the anxiolytic effects of oral melatonin and oral midazolam in patients undergoing third molar surgery. The study also sought to investigate the effects of these drugs on cognitive and psychomotor functions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a double-blinded, prospective, randomized clinical study. Patients scheduled for impacted third molar surgery were included in the study. Anxiety was evaluated with the visual analog scale (VAS). To measure psychomotor and cognitive functions before the procedure, all patients were asked to complete the digit symbol substitution test (DSST) and the trail making test (TMT parts A and B). Then, all patients were allocated to 1 of 3 groups to receive oral midazolam 0.2 mg/kg (group MD), oral melatonin 0.4 mg/kg (group M), or an oral multivitamin tablet as placebo (group P). After 60 minutes, patients were reassessed using the same 3 tests. The difference between the pre- and post-drug VAS values was calculated and the anxiolytic effects of the drugs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ninety patients participated in the study. No relevant differences were observed among groups for age, gender, or duration of operation. The results suggested that anxiety decreased most in group MD (P < .001), but anxiety in group M also decreased significantly compared with group P (P = .016). Similarly, the greatest increase in TMT-A and -B score differences was in group MD compared with the other groups (P < .001), whereas there was no significant difference between groups M and P for TMT-A and -B scores (P = .913 and P = .964, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Melatonin showed sufficient anxiolytic effect in third molar surgery without affecting cognitive and psychomotor functions.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children

BACKGROUND

Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to July 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2017), Embase (1980 to July 2017), and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (via CENTRAL) using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo for children undergoing non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2390 children. The studies were all conducted in hospitals that provided neurodiagnostic services. Most studies assessed the proportion of sedation failure during the neurodiagnostic procedure, time for adequate sedation, and potential adverse effects associated with the sedative agent.The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed, as reflected by a wide variation in their 'Risk of bias' profiles. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 13 studies had high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in single small studies.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had lower sedation failure when compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a higher risk of sedation failure after one dose compared to those who received intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study, low-quality evidence), but after two doses there was no evidence of a significant difference between the two groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study, very low-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared to have more sedation failure when compared with music therapy, but the quality of evidence was very low for this outcome (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study). Sedation failure rates were similar between oral chloral hydrate, oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to achieve adequate sedation when compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), and rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study, low-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence).No data were available to assess the proportion of children with successful completion of neurodiagnostic procedure without interruption by the child awakening. Most trials did not assess adequate sedation as measured by specific validated scales, except in the comparison of chloral hydrate versus intranasal midazolam and oral promethazine.Compared to dexmedetomidine, chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 12.04 95% CI 1.58 to 91.96). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate (including behavioural change, oxygen desaturation) although there was an increased risk of adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was very variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine for children undergoing paediatric neurodiagnostic procedures. The sedation failure was similar for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. When compared with intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy, oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate. However, it must be noted that the evidence for the outcomes for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy was of very low to low quality, therefore the corresponding findings should be interpreted with caution.Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially the risk of major adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation.