The Effect of Midazolam on Decreasing the Duration of Intussusception Hydrostatic Reduction in Children

Practice variation in the management of pediatric intussusception: a narrative review

Ileocolic intussusception, a major cause of acute intestinal obstruction in young children, necessitates rapid diagnosis and a multidisciplinary treatment approach. A recent large study identified variations in pain management, sedation, and non-operative reduction methods in these patients. We aimed to explore variability within the diagnostic and treatment pathways of ileocolic intussusception. A narrative review of the literature was conducted for peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2004 and 2024. We searched the electronic databases Ovid, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database. Google Scholar was searched using the search terms "intussusception," "triage," "diagnosis," emergency department," "radiology," "ultrasound," "POCUS," "reduction," "air-enema," "fluid-enema," "pneumatic," "hydrostatic," "pain," "sedation," "operating-room," "laparoscopy," and "surgery" to identify articles published in electronic journals, books, and scientific websites. Data were analyzed by a multidisciplinary team of specialists in pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric radiology, and pediatric surgery. Fifty-six papers were included in this review. Six areas of practice variation were found: pain management in triage, the use of point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department, the use of pneumatic versus hydrostatic technique for the reduction procedure, performing the reduction procedure under sedation, patient observation after an uncomplicated reduction, and the use of open surgery or laparoscopy for patients who underwent unsuccessful reduction.

CONCLUSION

This review has identified practice variations in several key areas of ileocolic intussusception management. The findings underscore the need for further research in these areas and the establishment of uniform standards aimed at improving the care of children with ileocolic intussusception.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Ileocolic intussusception necessitates rapid diagnosis and a collaborative treatment approach involving emergency medicine, radiology, surgery, and often anesthesia. • A previous study reported variations in the practice of pain management and sedation among these patients.

WHAT IS NEW

• This narrative review identified practice variations in several key areas within the diagnostic and treatment pathways of ileocolic intussusception.

Predictors of Failure in Ultrasound-Guided Hydrostatic Reduction of Intussusception in Children: Retrospective Analysis in a Specialized Center in Ethiopia

Purpose

To identify factors predicting the failure of ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception in children.

Patients and Methods

The medical records of 174 children who underwent ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception over four years were reviewed at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital. Patient's demography, clinical data, and sonography findings (type of intussusception, length of intussusception, presence of lead point, trapped fluid, lymph node, and free peritoneal fluid) were entered into SPSS 25 (IBM) and analyzed using logistic regression.

Results

The overall success rate of ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction was 81.6%. The sex, presence of abdominal cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, trapped lymph nodes on ultrasound, or history of upper respiratory tract infection had no association with hydrostatic reducibility. Currant jelly stool (OR 0.128; 95% CI, 0.27-0.616; P=0.01), Ileo-ileo colic intussusception (OR 0.055; 95% CI, 0.005-0.597; P=0.017), pathologic lead point (OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.01-0.447; P=0.005) and abdominal distention (OR 0.209; 95% CI, 0.044-0.998; P=0.048) showed significant association with failed hydrostatic reduction.

Conclusion

The presence of currant jelly stool, ileo-ileo colic type intussusception, pathologic lead point, and abdominal distention are the most important predictors for failed ultrasound ultrasound-guided reduction intussusception in children.

Midazolam premedication in ileocolic intussusception: a retrospective multicenter study

Ileocolic intussusception is a common cause of bowel obstruction. When spontaneous reduction does not occur, non-operative management through enema reduction is necessary. Despite the evidence indicating that sedatives favor success in the reduction, their use is still not a common practice. To determine if midazolam (MDZ) before enema improves the rate of procedure success, we retrospectively reviewed charts of patients admitted to two Italian pediatric emergency departments. Outcome measures were the success rate of the enema, recurrence, and need for surgery. Patients were grouped according to the use of MDZ or not, before hydrostatic reduction attempt. We included 69 and 37 patients in the MDZ and non-MDZ groups, respectively. The two groups did not differ in demographics, clinical characteristics, and ultrasound findings. Intussusception reduction after the first enema attempt occurred in 75% (MDZ group) and 32.4% (non-MDZ group) of patients (P < .001); 27.9% (MDZ group) and 77.8% (non-MDZ group) of patients underwent surgery (P < .001). Among them, spontaneous reduction of intussusception during the induction of general anesthesia occurred in 31.6% and 42.9% of patients, respectively (P .43). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only MDZ had a positive effect on the result of the enema (OR 7.602, 95%CI 2.669-21.652, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Procedural sedation with MDZ for enema reduction of intussusception can increase the success rate and lead to a better management of patients.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Despite the evidence of the usefulness of sedatives in the reduction of intussusception, their use is still not a common practice.

WHAT IS NEW

• Midazolam during enema reduction of intussusception can increase the success rate and consequently lead to better management of patients.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures in adults and children: a systematic review update

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2016, which aimed to determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure in adults and children.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to May 2020 together with reference checking to identify additional studies. We imposed no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials of midazolam in comparison with placebo or other medications used for sedation were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study.

RESULTS

Eight new trials were included in this update, which resulted in changed conclusions for the intravenous midazolam versus placebo, oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate and oral midazolam versus placebo comparisons. Effect estimates for all outcomes within the intravenous midazolam versus placebo (7 trials; 633 adults and 32 children) are uncertain due to concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Midazolam resulted in a higher level of sedation than placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.69 to 1.41; 1 study; 100 adults). There was no difference in anxiety (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.99; I² = 75%; 2 studies; 123 adults). Risk of difficulty performing procedures was lower in the midazolam group (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; I² = 45%; 3 studies; 191 adults and 32 children). There was no difference in discomfort (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 190 adults). Five trials with 336 children were included in the oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate comparison. Midazolam was less likely to result in moderate sedation (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82; I² = 64%; 2 studies, 228 participants). This effect estimate is highly uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. There was no difference in ratings of anxiety (SMD - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.75 to 0.23; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 68 participants). Midazolam increased risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 268 participants). This effect estimate is uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias. There were four trials with 359 adults and 77 children included in the oral midazolam versus placebo comparison. Midazolam reduced ratings of anxiety (SMD - 1.01; 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.16; I² = 92%; 4 studies; 436 participants). It is unclear if midazolam has an effect on difficulty performing procedures. Meta-analysis was not performed because there was only one incomplete procedure in the midazolam group in one of the trials. Midazolam reduced pain in one study with 99 adults (MD - 2; 95% CI - 2.5 to - 1.6; moderate quality). The effect estimate is uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The additional evidence arising from inclusion of new studies in this updated review has not produced sufficient high-quality evidence to determine whether midazolam produces more effective sedation than other medications or placebo in any specific population included in this review. For adults, there was low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam did not reduce the risk of anxiety or discomfort/pain in comparison to placebo, but the sedation level was higher. By combining results from adults and children, there was low-quality evidence of a large reduction in the risk of procedures being difficult to perform with midazolam in comparison to placebo. The effect estimates for this comparison are uncertain because there was concern about risk of bias and imprecision. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less-effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures. Ratings of anxiety were not different between oral midazolam and chloral hydrate. The extent to which giving oral midazolam to adults or children decreases anxiety during procedures compared with placebo is uncertain due to concerns about risk of bias and imprecision. There was moderate-quality evidence from one study that oral midazolam reduced the severity of discomfort/pain for adults during a brief diagnostic procedure in comparison with placebo.

Sedative reduction method for children with intussusception

Intussusception is common emergency condition in children. Pneumatic or hydrostatic reduction (HR) is considered the first-choice management strategy in cases lacking indications for surgical intervention. Generally, sedatives are not used in children undergoing interventional radiology procedures. Surgical management is associated with long hospitalization durations and high costs, unlike nonsurgical reduction. To avoid surgery, reduction procedures are repeated despite initial treatment failure. However, in cases involving repeated failures, children should be referred for surgery.To ensure good response to reduction, we planned HR under sedation during the third reduction attempt. Sedative reduction (SR) was performed with the administration of ketamine, midazolam, and atropine. All patients with contraindications against HR underwent laparoscopic reduction (LR) without HR.During 3 years, SR was performed in 43 patients, and in 28 (65.1%), the treatment was successful. Among the 15 patients in whom the procedure failed, 14 underwent LR without intestinal resection. There was no significant risk factor contributing to failed reduction under sedation.During the second or third HR attempt, successful reduction may be ensured with the SR procedure with intravenous ketamine, midazolam, and atropine; this procedure may further reduce surgery rates in pediatric intussusception.

Atropine Premedication Facilitates Ultrasound-Guided Reduction by Saline Enema in Children With Intussusception

Background and Objective: Intussusception is the most frequent pediatric abdominal emergency. Intestinal spasm, ischemia, necrosis and even death may occur without prompt diagnosis and treatment. The ultrasound-guided reduction by saline enema is a preferred non-surgical procedure for intussusception. Muscular relaxants can relieve the intestinal spasm and edema by relaxing the intestinal smooth muscle, which may facilitate the treatment of intussusception. However, controversy persists on whether muscular relaxants are effective in the procedure. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to assess the efficacy of atropine known as a muscular relaxant in ultrasound-guided reduction by saline enema in children with intussusception. Methods: All patients with intussusception diagnosed and treated in our department from July 2016 to February 2018 were included. Four hundred and thirty-seven children were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups: an atropine group and a control group. Intramuscular atropine at a dose of 0.02 mg per kilogram of body weight was administrated 15 min before ultrasound-guided reduction by saline enema in the atropine group. In the control group, the ultrasound-guided reduction was performed without using any muscular relaxants. The success rate, duration of the reduction, volume of saline, maximum intra-rectal pressure and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: The success rate was 95.9% (212 out of 221) and 94.9% (205 out of 216) in the atropine group and the control group, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the success rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The duration of reduction was significantly lower in the atropine group than in the control group (P < 0.01). The volume of saline was also significantly lower in the atropine group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The maximum intra-rectal pressure showed no difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Atropine premedication can facilitate ultrasound-guided reduction by saline enema in children with intussusception, by reducing the duration of reduction and the volume of saline in the procedure.

A new enema for treatment of intussusception with hydrostatic reduction: Olive oil

OBJECTIVES

Intussusception is routinely treated using ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction (USGHR) with normal saline in our paediatric surgery department. With this study, olive oil was added to normal saline in ultrasound-guided reduction of intussusception.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients who were diagnosed and treated for intussusception in Van Yuzuncu Yıl University Faculty of Medicine Pediatric Surgery Department from March 2017 to May 2017 were included in the study. During this retrospective study, randomly chosen 20 patients that treated with USGHR using normal saline were marked as Group 1. Moreover, 20 patients that treated with USGHR using a mixture of olive oil and saline (10% olive oil 90% normal saline) were marked as Group 2. Patients' age, gender, symptoms, treatment techniques, complications and hospitalisation periods were retrospectively noted.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the study. In Group 1, 14 patients were treated in the first session, 4 patients were treated in the second session and 2 patients required laparotomy. Mean reduction time in this group was 15 min mean fluid volume used in each reduction was 80 ml/kg and mean hospitalisation period was 38 h. In Group 2, 19 patients were treated in the first session, and only 1 patient required a second session. Mean reduction time was 12 min, used fluid volume was 58 ml/kg for each reduction and hospitalisation period was 24 h.

CONCLUSION

The average volume of fluid used for reduction, average reduction time, numbers of recurrent reductions and hospitalisation were less when a mixture of olive oil and normal saline were used in comparison with when normal saline was used alone to reduction the intussusception under ultrasound guidance. Using olive oil mixed with normal saline as a new enema fluid is likely to increase the success rate of ultrasound-guided reduction of intussusception.