Melatonin versus chloral hydrate as the sedating agent in performing electroencephalogram in paediatric patients

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.

Melatonin and Triclofos Sodium to Execute Sleep Electroencephalography in Pediatric Patients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cost-effectiveness between oral sedatives melatonin and triclofos sodium used to perform sleep electroencephalography (EEG) in pediatric patients and develop a criterion for resource allocation by the institution.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted alongside the randomized controlled trial conducted at a tertiary care hospital, wherein pediatric patients arriving for sleep EEG were randomized to receive melatonin dosed at 0.3 mg/kg (< 10 kg), 3 mg (10-15 kg), and 6 mg (> 15 kg) and triclofos at 50 mg/kg (maximum dose 1 g, 6 mo to 11 y; 2 g, 11 to 18 y) after due consent. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the healthcare institution's perspective. Successful EEG and abnormal EEG were the effectiveness parameters.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-eight patients were divided equally between two groups. Melatonin (N = 114) and triclofos (N = 114) recorded successful EEG in 89.4% and 91.2% patients and abnormal EEG in 49% and 42.3% patients, respectively (p > 0.05). The total direct cost incurred was INR 1881.75 (USD 26.6) and INR 2772.5 (USD 39.2) for melatonin and triclofos, respectively (p < 0.05). The cost-effectiveness ratio-1 (CER-1) for melatonin and triclofos per successful EEG recorded was INR 18.45 (USD 0.39) and INR 26.66 (USD 0.58), respectively. The CER-2 for melatonin and triclofos per abnormal EEG detected was INR 37.64 (USD 0.53) and INR 63.01 (USD 0.89), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Melatonin is more cost-effective than triclofos when charged based on individual dose requirements. Hospitals, diagnostic centers, healthcare institutions may consider resource-utilization-based costing system for cost-effective allocation of resources.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of Melatonin vs Triclofos to achieve sleep for pediatric electroencephalography: A single blinded randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare Melatonin with Triclofos for efficacy (proportion of successful EEG, need of augmentation, sleep onset latency (SOL), yield of discharges, duration of sleep, presence and grade of artifacts) and tolerability (adverse effect profile).

METHODS

A randomized trial was performed (block randomization). All children were advised regarding sleep deprivation, EEG technician administered the drug. EEG was labelled successful if at least 30 min of record could be obtained (sleep with or without awake state). Pediatric neurologist reported the EEG findings-sleep onset latency, epileptiform abnormalities and graded the artifacts (excess beta activity and movement artifacts if present). The parents were interviewed telephonically next day by a pediatric resident for any adverse effects. The parents, pediatric neurologist and pediatric resident were blinded for the drug given.

RESULTS

228 children were randomized (114 each received Melatonin and Triclofos). Both the groups were comparable at baseline for age group and demographic data. The proportion of successful EEG was 89.4% in Melatonin and 91.2% in Triclofos. First dose was effective in 64% in Melatonin and 63.15% in Triclofos group. Augmentation dose was needed in 25.4% in Melatonin and 28% in Triclofos group. Mean total sleep duration was 80 min after Melatonin and 82.39 after Triclofos administration. Adverse effects were observed in 6.14% of Melatonin and 8.65% of Triclofos group. None of the results were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between efficacy and tolerability of Melatonin and Triclofos. Melatonin can be safely used to achieve sleep for EEG in children.

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.

Short-term effects of single-dose chloral hydrate on neonatal auditory perception: An auditory event-related potential study

Objective

To study the short-term effects of a single-dose chloral hydrate on neonatal auditory perception by measuring auditory event-related potentials (aERPs).

Methods

Thirty-nine full-term neonates, aged 2–28 days and weighing 2980–4350 g, were divided into two groups including a chloral hydrate group (CH group, n = 17) and a non-chloral hydrate control group (non-CH group, n = 22). The CH group was given single-dose chloral hydrate (30 mg/kg) orally before aERPs measurement. An auditory oddball paradigm was used to elicit aERPs. P2 and N2 components of the ERP were recorded from electrodes at the Fz and Cz locations, and the areas under their curves (P2 and N2 areas) were calculated for the comparison between two groups.

Results

Significant differences was found in the P2 area between the two groups at Fz and Cz (Fz: F (1,37) = 487.75, P < 0.05; Cz: F (1,37) = 1465.94, P < 0.05). Similarly, significant difference was also in the N2 area between the two groups at both locations (Fz: F(1,37) = 153.38, P < 0.05; Cz: F(1,37) = 798.42, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

A single-dose of chloral hydrate impacts neonatal auditory perception in the short-term. Long-term effects will also be studied in future.

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.