Sedation of the pediatric and adolescent patient for GI procedures

Efficacy and safety of intravenous thiamylal in sedation for colonoscopy in children

Objectives

Since a standard sedation protocol for pediatric colonoscopy (CS) has not been established, evidence on optimal sedative agents is needed. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of thiamylal in sedation for pediatric CS compared to midazolam.

Methods

Children from 7 to 16 years of age who underwent CS under sedation with intravenous thiamylal or midazolam at our hospital between June 2010 and March 2024 were included in this retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was the efficacy (success rate of CS without mid-awakening) of the drugs. Meanwhile, the secondary outcomes were the sedation level during CS, procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events related to sedation.

Results

Sixty children were included in the study. The success rate of CS without mid-awakening was significantly higher in the thiamylal group (90.6%) than in the midazolam group (64.3%; p = 0.03). The two groups had no significant differences in median sedation depth, procedure time, or recovery time. Adverse events related to sedation in thiamylal group (22%) and midazolam group (25%) were similar. No severe adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Intravenous thiamylal provides effective and safe sedation in children requiring CS, with little or no mid-awakening during the procedure.

Advances in Pediatric Endoscopy

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures in children are fundamental to the subspecialty of pediatric gastroenterology. This review highlights significant advancements and trends in pediatric endoscopy, emphasizing the transformative impact of technological innovations in the field. The advent of ultra-thin endoscopes and the development of minimally-invasive techniques have markedly enhanced both diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities, leading to safer and more effective procedures for pediatric patients. Key advancements include transnasal endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, and per-oral endoscopic myotomy.

The Evolution of Sedation for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Sedation for pediatric endoscopy has evolved from an endoscopist-administered component of procedures to an almost entirely anesthesiologist-supported endeavor. Nevertheless, there are no ideal endoscopist or anesthesiologist-administered sedation protocols, and wide practice variation exists in both models. Furthermore, sedation for pediatric endoscopy, whether administered by endoscopists or anesthesiologists, remains the highest risk to patient safety. This underscores the importance of both specialties identifying best sedation practices together that can safeguard patients while maximizing procedural efficiency and minimizing costs. In this review, the authors discuss specific levels of sedation for endoscopy and the risks and benefits of various regimens.

Effects of anxiety on sedation among pediatric patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy

We investigated whether the severity of anxiety among children undergoing endoscopy could affect sedation. We prospectively recruited patients under 18 years of age who were scheduled to undergo esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Baseline anxiety was evaluated using the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale (SCAS). Our analysis considered the type and dose of sedative drugs, degree of sedation, and complications associated with sedation according to the scale score. The mean total SCAS T-scores and each subscale score were significantly higher in the 6-12-year age group. The mean T-score among patients who exhibited irritability during EGD was higher than that among other patients, with significant differences in the Total, Obsessive Disorder, Panic Agoraphobia and General Anxiety subscales. The midazolam doses of children exhibiting irritability were more likely to need higher (p = 0.006). Other sedation-related complications were not associated with the T-scores in each subscale. Total sleep time was not associated with any T-score subscales. Anxiety levels were significantly higher among 6-12-year-olds and children exhibiting irritability. Anxiety was often associated with irritability, difficulties achieving adequate sedation during EGD, and additional sedative drug administration. We recommend higher doses or more potent drugs to facilitate endoscopy for children with high anxiety levels.

A comparison of ketamine-midazolam combination and propofol-fentanyl combination on procedure comfort and recovery process in pediatric colonoscopy procedures

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-propofol combination in pediatric diagnostic colonoscopy.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 68 children undergoing diagnostic gastroenterology with midazolam-ketamine combination (Group-K) or with fentanyl-propofol combination (Group-P) in the pediatric gastroentology department at a Turkish tertiary hospital between January 2015 and June 2017. An intravenous midazolam was administered one minute before ketamine administration in Group K. Intravenous fentanyl was given to Group P, followed by intravenous propofol.

Results

There were statistically no significant differences between the groups as for age, gender, weight, duration of colonoscopy and complications observed during procedure. Ramsay sedation score was significantly higher in Group K. Recovery time and the rate of complications during the recovery of Group-K (23 patients, 65.7%) was significantly higher than that of Group P (8 patients, 24.2%) (p= 0.001).

Conclusions

Colonoscopy procedures can be quite comfortable in children when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.

Outcomes of Non-anesthesiologist-Administered Propofol in Pediatric Gastroenterology Procedures

Background and Aims: Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) has been found to have an acceptable safety profile in adult endoscopy, but its use remains controversial and pediatric data is limited. Our aim was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists in pediatric endoscopy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 929 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and combined EGD/colonoscopy cases in children aged 5-20 years between April 2015 and December 2016 at a large children's hospital. We analyzed the data for adverse events in relation to demographics and anthropometrics, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification score, presence of a trainee, comorbid conditions, and procedure time. Results: A total of 929 cases were included of which 496 (53%) were completed with NAAP. Seventeen (3.4%) of NAAP cases had an adverse event including the following: 12 cases of hypoxia, 2 cardiac, and 3 gastrointestinal adverse events. General anesthesia cases had 62 (14.3%) adverse events including the following: 54 cases of hypoxia, 1 cardiac, 7 gastrointestinal, and 1 urologic adverse event. No adverse events in either group required major resuscitation. NAAP vs. general anesthesia had a lower overall adverse event rate (3.4 vs. 14.3%, p < 0.0004) and respiratory adverse event rate (2.4% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.0004). Overall, cardiac and gastrointestinal adverse event rates between the two groups were comparable. When accounting for all captured factors via logistic regression, both younger age (P < 0.001) and general anesthesia (P < 0.0001) remained risk factors for an adverse event. Conclusion: The overall adverse event rate of NAAP was low (3.4%) with none requiring major resuscitation or hospitalization. This is comparable to studies of NAAP in adult endoscopy and suggests that NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists has an acceptable safety profile.

A 3-Year Review of an Outpatient Burn Sedation Program in a Tertiary Burn Care Centre: Is It Safe and Does It Work?

Introduction

The burn treatment room at our tertiary-care centre is run by a multidisciplinary team, providing care to primarily burn patients who require moderate to deep sedation to undergo dressing changes in a monitored setting outside the operating room. There is little literature on the safety, efficacy, and logistics of treating outpatient pediatric burn patients in this manner. This study reviews the safety of deep sedation in the burn treatment room.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients with burns treated in the burn treatment room from 2013 to 2015 was conducted. Patient demographics, diagnosis, procedure details, sedation, and adverse events were recorded. Data were analyzed descriptively.

Results

Sevety-four patients with burns had a total of 308 visits in the burn treatment room for burn bath and/or dressing changes. Scald burns were the most common mechanism of injury (n = 56). Most burns were superficial and mid-dermal (54%), initially estimated at 5% to 10% TBSA (50%). Of the 308 visits, 304 required sedation. Adverse events were recorded in 11 (3.6%) of 304 sedated procedures. None of these events were critical: 7 patients required intravenous conversion due to inadequate oral sedation, 2 experienced brief apnea episodes but recovered spontaneously, and 2 had delayed discharge of more than 2 hours due to residual sedation.

Conclusion

The burn treatment room is a safe and effective setting for treating pediatric burn patients, bypassing what might historically require operating suite inpatient management.

[Remifentanil-ketamine vs. propofol-ketamine for sedation in pediatric patients undergoing colonoscopy: A randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pediatric patients frequently require deep sedation or general anesthesia for colonoscopy. This study was designed to compare the sedative efficacy of remifentanil–ketamine combination with propofol–ketamine combination in children undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

Seventy patients, between 2 and 16 years of age, scheduled for diagnostic colonoscopy were randomly allocated into two groups. Remifentanil–ketamine group received intravenous ketamine 2 mg.kg−1 and remifentanil 0.25 μg.kg−1 combination, followed by 0.1 μg.kg−1.min−1 remifentanil infusion. Propofol–ketamine group received intravenous propofol 1 and 2 mg.kg−1 ketamine combination, followed by 1 mg.kg−1.h−1 propofol infusion. In the case of children discomfort (cry, movement, and cough), remifentanil 0.1 μg.kg−1 in the remifentanil–ketamine group or propofol 0.5 mg.kg−1 in the propofol–ketamine group were administered to improve children discomfort. Despite the therapy given above, if children still experience discomfort, 1 mg.kg−1 of ketamine was administered as a rescue drug, regardless of the group. Ramsay sedation score, hemodynamic variables, drug requirements, gastroenterologists’ satisfaction, colonoscopy duration, recovery time, and side effects were recorded throughout the procedure and the recovery period.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with a Ramsay sedation score of 4 or higher during the procedure was 73.5 and 37.1% in remifentanil–ketamine and propofol–ketamine groups, respectively (p = 0.02). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure variables were significantly higher only after induction in the remifentanil–ketamine group than in the propofol–ketamine group (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

Coadministration of ketamine with either remifentanil or propofol effectively and safely provides sedation and analgesia in children undergoing colonoscopy. Sedation scores were significantly better in remifentanil–ketamine group than in propofol–ketamine group.

Remifentanil–ketamine vs. propofol–ketamine for sedation in pediatric patients undergoing colonoscopy: A randomized clinical trial

Background and objectives

Pediatric patients frequently require deep sedation or general anesthesia for colonoscopy. This study was designed to compare the sedative efficacy of remifentanil–ketamine combination with propofol–ketamine combination in children undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

Seventy patients, between 2 and 16 years of age, scheduled for diagnostic colonoscopy were randomly allocated into two groups. Remifentanil–ketamine group received intravenous ketamine 2 mg.kg⁻¹ and remifentanil 0.25 μg.kg⁻¹ combination, followed by 0.1 μg.kg⁻¹.min⁻¹ remifentanil infusion. Propofol–ketamine group received intravenous propofol 1 and 2 mg.kg⁻¹ ketamine combination, followed by 1 mg.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹ propofol infusion. In the case of children discomfort (cry, movement, and cough), remifentanil 0.1 μg.kg⁻¹ in the remifentanil–ketamine group or propofol 0.5 mg.kg⁻¹ in the propofol–ketamine group were administered to improve children discomfort. Despite the therapy given above, if children still experience discomfort, 1 mg.kg⁻¹ of ketamine was administered as a rescue drug, regardless of the group. Ramsay sedation score, hemodynamic variables, drug requirements, gastroenterologists’ satisfaction, colonoscopy duration, recovery time, and side effects were recorded throughout the procedure and the recovery period.

Results

The percentage of patients with a Ramsay sedation score of 4 or higher during the procedure was 73.5 and 37.1% in remifentanil–ketamine and propofol–ketamine groups, respectively (p = 0.02). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure variables were significantly higher only after induction in the remifentanil–ketamine group than in the propofol–ketamine group (p = 0.015).

Conclusion

Coadministration of ketamine with either remifentanil or propofol effectively and safely provides sedation and analgesia in children undergoing colonoscopy. Sedation scores were significantly better in remifentanil–ketamine group than in propofol–ketamine group.

Sedation and Monitoring in the Pediatric Patient during Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Sedation is a fundamental component of pediatric gastrointestinal procedures. The 2 main types of sedation for pediatric endoscopy remain general anesthesia and procedural sedation. Although anesthesiologist-administered sedation protocols are more common, there is no ideal regimen for endoscopy in children. This article discusses specific levels of sedation for endoscopy as well as various regimens that can be used to achieve each. Risks and considerations that may be specific to performing gastrointestinal procedures in children are reviewed. Finally, potential future directions for sedation and monitoring that may change the practice of pediatric gastroenterology and ultimately patient outcomes are examined.

Propofol for pediatric colonoscopy: the experience of a large, tertiary care pediatric hospital

Successful colonoscopy includes full visualization of the terminal ileum, especially in inflammatory bowel disease when ileal biopsy is essential. In children, higher levels of anxiety and lack of cooperation often necessitate a deeper level of sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of propofol compared with midazolam and fentanyl for colonoscopy, and in accomplishing ileal and cecal intubation in particular. This was a retrospective cohort study comparing the rates of successful colonoscopy in patients receiving propofol with those receiving midazolam/fentanyl. Complete, successful, colonoscopy to the terminal ileum was achieved in 78% of propofol patients compared with 66% of the midazolam/fentanyl group (P=0.004). Endoscopy reaching the cecum, but not the terminal ileum, was achieved in 78% of propofol patients and 66% of midazolam/fentanyl patients. The use of propofol was associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of successful colonoscopy reaching the terminal ileum.

The safety of general anaesthesia in paediatric patients undergoing the application of Biobrane® for small scalds

BACKGROUND

Each year more than 5000 children present to English and Welsh hospitals for the management of scalds; 60% of these are small scalds of less than 10% body surface area. There are no agreed UK care pathways for this injury. One method of management is to use a biosynthetic wound dressing after thorough wound cleaning. In children, this usually utilises general anaesthesia. This study investigates the incidence of adverse events during anaesthesia for the application of biosynthetic dressings in children with small-area scalds.

METHODS

The medical records of 500 consecutive admissions to a tertiary care paediatric burn centre between July 1st 2007 and June 30th 2012 were analysed. The primary outcome was any patient-related adverse event incurred as a result of the general anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included delays in discharge and any recovery sequelae to the adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 21 (4.2%) documented adverse events associated with 500 episodes of anaesthesia. Of these, the majority (52%) were documented as self-resolving laryngospasm. All episodes were temporary with no recovery sequelae and did not delay discharge from the post-anaesthetic recovery area.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of general anaesthesia in this setting for the application of biosynthetic dressings in children with small-area scalds has a low incidence of anaesthesia-related complications with no associated long-term sequelae. This incidence is similar to that quoted for adverse events related to anaesthesia for other procedures and is lower than that reported for procedures using sedation.

A Pilot Study of Ketamine versus Midazolam/Fentanyl Sedation in Children Undergoing GI Endoscopy

Background. Ketamine sedation has been found superior by physician report to traditional sedation regimens for pediatric endoscopy. Goal. To objectively compare sedation with ketamine versus midazolam/fentanyl for children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Study. Patients received one of two regimens and were independently monitored using a standardized rating scale. Results. There were 2 episodes of laryngospasm during ketamine sedation. Univariate analyses showed patients sedated with ketamine (n = 17) moved more (median 25% of procedure time versus 8%, P = .03) and required similar low levels of restraint (0.83% versus 0.25%, P = .4) as patients sedated with midazolam/fentanyl (n = 20). Age-adjusted analyses suggested that patients sedated with ketamine were comparably more quiet (P = .002). Conclusions. A pilot trial of ketamine at our institution was associated with episodes of laryngospasm. In addition, children sedated with ketamine moved and required restraint similarly to patients sedated with midazolam/fentanyl. Physician perceptions may be affected by the fact that children who received ketamine were less likely to vocalize distress.

Endoscopic sedation in pediatric practice

Best sedation practices for pediatric endoscopy involve the consideration of many patient factors, including age, medical history, clinical status, and anxiety level, as well as physician access to anesthesia support. A recent survey of pediatric gastroenterologists suggests that endoscopist-administered intravenous (iv) sedation and anesthesiologist-administered propofol represent common sedation regimens in children. Technical advances in ventilatory monitoring are contributing to increased patient safety for all children undergoing gastrointestinal procedures, regardless of sedation type.