Sedation Strategies for Procedures Outside the Operating Room

Intravenous esketamine as an adjuvant for sedation/analgesia outside the operating room: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous esketamine as an adjuvant for sedation or analgesia outside the operating room in adults and children.

Method

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for potential randomized controlled studies randomized controlled trials comparing drug combinations of esketamine to any other single or combination drug regimens for sedation or analgesia outside the operating room.

Results

Twenty-five studies with a total of 3,455 participants were included in this review. The pooled results of adults showed that compared with drug regimens of the control group, intravenous esketamine combinations were significantly associated with decreased risk of oxygen desaturation (RR = 0.49, 95% CI = [0.34, 0.70]); hypotension (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = [0.31, 0.46]); bradycardia (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = [0.12, 0.43]); injection pain (RR = 0.37, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.53]); body movement (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = [0.41, 0.88]); and propofol consumption (SMD = -1.38, 95% CI = [-2.64, -0.11]), but an increased risk of psychiatric symptoms (RR = 3.10, 95% CI = [2.11, 4.54]) (RR = relative risk; CI = confidence intervals; SMD = standardized mean difference). Subgroup analysis showed that only the combination of esketamine and propofol significantly reduced the above incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events in adults. In addition, the pooled results of children showed that compared with drug regimens of the control group, esketamine and propofol co-administration significantly reduced the risk of hypotension (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = [0.37, 0.95]) but increased the risk of visual disturbance (RR = 6.62, 95% CI = [2.18, 20.13]) and dizziness (RR = 1.99, 95% CI = [1.17, 3,37]). Subgroup analysis indicated that esketamine>0.5 mg/kg significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension, but increased the risk of dizziness in children.

Conclusion

Intravenous use of esketamine, particularly in combination with propofol, may improve the safety and efficacy of sedation and analgesia outside the operating room, although the potential for psychiatric side effects warrants attention. Future research is recommended to investigate the role of esketamine with agents other than propofol.

A study of patient-reported pain during bone marrow aspiration and biopsy using local anesthesia alone compared with local anesthesia with intravenous midazolam coadministration at a tertiary academic hospital in South Africa

Introduction

During the bone marrow aspiration and biopsy (BMAB) procedure, patients report pain of widely variable intensity. There is limited literature on the factors associated with the pain. The use of local anesthesia (LA) only is still widespread although it does not abolish the pain. Midazolam is the most commonly used benzodiazepine for conscious sedation. Our center introduced universal midazolam sedation unless there is a contraindication to its use, 4 years ago. This study assessed the impact of the universal use of intravenous midazolam for BMAB compared to use of LA only. The factors associated with the pain of BMAB, were analyzed.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on adult patients who had a BMAB procedure from July 1, 2018 to March 30, 2019. A questionnaire incorporating a visual analog pain scale, was used for data collection.

Results

A total of 182 BMAB procedures were included in the study. Pain was reported in all procedures performed under LA and only in 29.1% of procedures performed with midazolam. Age, sex, race, level of education, body mass index (BMI), indication and diagnosis had no influence on pain. Patients who had previous BMAB experienced less pain. Experience of operator had a significant effect on pain. Midazolam dose showed a negative correlation with pain.

Conclusion

LA only is not enough to abolish pain of BMAB. Midazolam conscious sedation used with LA reduces pain to acceptable levels. Patients with previous experience of BMAB under midazolam premedication reported less pain. Furthermore, the experience of operator reduced the pain significantly.

Comparison of clinical safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol in patients who cannot tolerate non-invasive mechanical ventilation: A prospective, randomized, cohort study

Background and objectives

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is used in intensive care units (ICUs) to treat of respiratory failure. Sedation and analgesia are effective and safe for improving compliance in patients intolerant to NIV. Our study aimed to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol on the clinical outcomes in NIV intolerant patients.

Methods

This prospective randomized cohort study was conducted in a tertiary ICU, between December 2018 and December 2019. We divided a total of 120 patients into five groups (DEXL, DEXH, REML, REMH, PRO). IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA) was used to conduct the statistical analyses.

Results

The DEXL, DEXH, REML, and REMH groups consisted of 23 patients each while the PRO group consisted of 28 patients. Seventy-five patients (62.5%) became tolerant of NIV after starting the drugs. The NIV time, IMV time, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, intubation rate, side effects, and mortality were significantly different among the five groups (P = 0.05). In the groups that were given dexmedetomidine (DEXL, and DEXH), NIV failure, mortality, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were lower than in the other groups.

Conclusion

In this prospective study, we compared the results of three drugs (propofol, dexmedetomidine, and remifentanil) in patients with NIV intolerance. The use of sedation increased NIV success in patients with NIV intolerance. NIV failure, mortality, ICU LOS, IMV time, and hospital LOS were found to be lower with dexmedetomidine.

Foreign body aspirations in dental clinics: a narrative review

Foreign body aspiration can produce a medical emergency. Obstruction of the airways can be life-threatening, and complications may develop in less-severe cases if it is left untreated. Although it is more prevalent in children by approximately three times, adults can still experience it, and it is more frequently related to healthcare in adults. Objects used in dental treatment are usually placed in the oral cavity and can be ingested or inhaled by accident. Dental treatment has been identified as an important cause of the misplacement of foreign bodies in the airway. However, few reports have been published on dentistry-related foreign body aspiration. This paper discusses the disease course, management, and clinical outcomes of foreign body aspiration, especially those associated with dentistry. The patient must be examined for respiratory distress. If the patient is unstable, urgent airway management and the maneuvers for removal should be performed. Radiographs and computed tomography can help identify and locate the object. The treatment of choice is often bronchoscopy, and both flexible and rigid endoscopes can be used depending on the situation. Preventive measures need to be implemented to avoid inhalation accidents given the potential consequences. Though the incidence is rare, healthcare levels need to be enhanced to avert morbidity and mortality. Radiological evaluation and bronchoscopy are vital for management.

A case report of arthroscopic surgery under extended spinal anesthesia for 402 minutes, assisted by monitored anesthesia care

Introduction

Surgical spinal anesthesia is usually maintained for approximately 3 h with bupivacaine, but it is difficult to accurately predict the duration of surgery for each case. When an operation continues for an extended duration, regression of spinal anesthesia often leads to general anesthesia. Here we present a case of extended spinal anesthesia assisted by monitored anesthesia care.

Case presentation

A 32-year-old male who suffered from persistent pain of the right knee was diagnosed with rupture of the right anterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopic surgery of the right knee was conducted with spinal anesthesia. A local anesthetic mixture of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 12 mg with 50 μg of epinephrine was used. The surgery took longer than expected with a total anesthesia time of 402 minutes. In the final 30 minutes of surgery, spinal anesthesia regressed and the procedure was completed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

Clinical discussion

When spinal anesthesia is on regression during the final stage of surgery, the application of MAC safely secures additional operation time. By adopting MAC, the patient avoided general anesthesia and had minimal physiological distress and a rapid recovery. Another benefit of MAC is the reduced consumption of resources. Further, by avoiding endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation, the risk of transmission of infectious agents is minimized.

Conclusion

In situations where spinal anesthesia is regressing close to the end of a surgical procedure, the application of MAC has potential benefits over general anesthesia. These benefits are particularly relevant during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

•

The duration of spinal anesthesia is difficult to predict in each surgical patient.

•

In this case, spinal anesthesia had lasted for 402 minutes, eventually on regression.

•

Instead of conversion into general anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care is adopted.

•

The patient had rapid recovery and there was a minimal physiologic disturbance.

•

There are additional benefits of monitored anesthesia care for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pediatric Deep Sedation for Ophthalmology Procedures in an Outpatient Setting, Risk Evaluation

Background:

Pediatric deep sedation (PDS) performed by a dedicated pediatric sedation service has been found to be safe, convenient, and efficient for minor procedures. Major complications such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, and death are rare. However, minor complications such as desaturation, apnea, suctioning, or laryngospasm can occur infrequently. To date, little data exist evaluating PDS use for minor ophthalmology procedures.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of complications for subjects receiving PDS for minor ophthalmology procedures.

Setting:

Pediatric children's hospital sedation service.

Materials and Methods:

This was a review of a prospectively collected database between 2018 and 2020. A hundred and thirty-four subjects aged 0–18 years, who underwent PDS for minor ophthalmology procedures, were compared to 1119 subjects who received PDS for other procedures (e.g., lumbar puncture, bone marrow aspirate/biopsy, and Botox).

Statistical Analysis:

SAS software, version 9.4, was used to determine variables associated with deep sedation that were predictive of complications. A multiple logistic regression procedure was conducted. Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level.

Results:

Subjects receiving PDS for ophthalmology procedures had a higher rate of minor complications than the control group (n = 18, 13.4%, vs. n = 58, 5.7%; P < 0001). No major complications occurred in any of the studied subjects. The ophthalmology group had a higher rate of bag-mask ventilation, airway positioning, and suctioning.

Conclusions:

Ophthalmology procedures using PDS have a greater occurrence of minor complications compared to other painful procedures. No major complications were noted in either group, providing evidence that PDS can be performed safely for ophthalmology procedures using the sedation team model.

Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of sedation to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients remains controversial, however, for intolerant patients who are uncooperative, administration of analgesics and sedatives may be beneficial before resorting to intubation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of remifentanil (REM) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) for treatment of cardiac surgery (CS) patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study of CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance was conducted between January 2018 and March 2019. Patients were treated with either REM or DEX, decided by the bedside intensivist. Depending on the treatment regimen, the patients were allocated to one of two groups: the REM group or DEX group.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study (52 in the REM group and 38 in the DEX group). The mitigation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who were relieved from the initial moderate to severe intolerant status, was greater in the REM group than DEX group at 15 min and 3 h (15 min: 83% vs. 61%, P=0.029; 3 h: 92% vs. 74%, P=0.016), although the mean mitigation rate (81% vs. 85%, P=0.800) was comparable between the two groups. NIV failure, defined as reintubation or death over the course of study, was comparable between the two groups (19.2% vs. 21.1%, respectively, P=0.831). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other clinical outcomes, including tracheostomy (15.4% vs. 15.8%, P=0.958), in-hospital mortality (11.5% vs. 10.5%, P=0.880), ICU length of stay (LOS) (7 vs. 7 days, P=0.802), and in-hospital LOS (17 vs. 19 days, P=0.589).

CONCLUSIONS

REM was as effective as DEX in CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance. Although the effect of REM was better than that of DEX over the first 3 h, the cumulative effect was similar between the two treatments.