High dose chloral hydrate sedation for children undergoing CT

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.

Chloral Hydrate Sedation in a Dexmedetomidine Era

Brief Overview: The use of chloral hydrate as the primary sedation agent has declined across the nation after commercial production of the liquid formulation ceased. Although alternative sedatives have gained popularity, some pharmacies have continued to provide oral chloral hydrate by compounding it from raw ingredients. Thus, oral chloral hydrate use has continued in children despite the availability of alternative effective agents. Objective: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate institutional chloral hydrate utilization as the primary agent for procedural sedation. Design/Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients given chloral hydrate for procedural sedation from October 2010 to December 2016. The hospital pharmacy database of chloral hydrate use at our 2 free-standing children's hospitals was reviewed and matched to procedure billing data. Results: There were 5874 chloral hydrate administrations for procedural sedation during the study period. The highest rates of use occurred in 2014, when there were 1420 chloral hydrate orders within our hospital. The large majority of sedations were for cardiac studies/procedures (n = 4250, 72.4%). Conclusions: Despite significant declines in use of chloral hydrate for procedural sedation across the country, local utilization of oral chloral hydrate remains high. Recent declines may be due to high-use clinical sites transitioning to alternative sedatives such as intranasal dexmedetomidine.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with chloral hydrate as sedatives for pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (Dex) and chloral hydrate (CH) are the most frequently used sedative agents in pediatric patients. We aimed to systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of Dex and CH for sedation in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and 3 clinical trial registry platforms were searched for articles published prior to October 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of Dex versus CH for sedation in children were examined by 2 reviewers. The extracted information included the success rate of sedation, sedation latency, sedation duration, sedation recovery time, and adverse events. Moreover, the extracted data included 5 subgroups: the effects of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 μg/kg doses of Dex were compared with the effect of CH on the success rate of sedation. We also formed separate subgroups for different types of adverse events (incidence of vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, etc). The outcomes were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software and are expressed as relative risks (RR) or the mean difference (MD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I-squared (I) statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs involving 2128 children with Dex versus CH for sedation were included in the meta-analysis. The dose range of Dex ranged from 1 to 3 μg/kg. Compared with CH, the Dex group had a significantly higher success rate of sedation (RR = 1.14, 95% CI [1.05, 1.25], I = 79%, P = .003). Additionally, subgroup analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the success rate of sedation between the CH group and the 1, 1.5, 2.5, and 3 μg/kg Dex groups; only the 2 μg/kg Dex group had a significantly higher success rate than the CH group (RR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.03, 1.29], I = 80%, P = .02). There was no significant difference in the number of subjects who required 2 doses or the duration of sedation between the CH and Dex groups. Furthermore, compared with the Dex group, the CH group had a significantly longer sedation latency (MD = -3.54, 95% CI [-5.94, -1.15], I = 95%, P = .004), sedation recovery time (MD = -30.08, 95% CI [-46.77, -13.39], I = 99%, P = .0004), and total time from sedative administration to discharge (MD = -12.73, 95% CI [-15.48, -9.97], I = 0%, P < .05), as well as a higher number of adverse events in total (RR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.11, 0.61], I = 89%, P = .002). Moreover, the subgroup analysis of adverse events revealed that CH was associated with higher risks of vomiting (RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.03, 0.17], I = 0%, P < .0001), crying or resisting (RR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07, 0.71], I = 60%, P = .01), and cough (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.05, 0.44], I = 0%, P = .0006); there was no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, supplemental oxygen, or respiratory events between CH and Dex. However, Dex was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 4.08, 95% CI [1.63, 10.21], I = 0%, P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Dex is an appropriate effective alternative to CH for sedation in pediatrics. However, considering the possibility of bradycardia, Dex should be used with caution.

Triclofos Sodium for Pediatric Sedation in Non-Painful Neurodiagnostic Studies

AIM

Triclofos sodium (TFS) has been used for many years in children as a sedative for painless medical procedures. It is physiologically and pharmacologically similar to chloral hydrate, which has been censured for use in children with neurocognitive disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of TFS sedation in a pediatric population with a high rate of neurocognitive disability.

METHODS

The database of the neurodiagnostic institute of a tertiary academic pediatric medical center was retrospectively reviewed for all children who underwent sedation with TFS in 2014. Data were collected on demographics, comorbidities, neurologic symptoms, sedation-related variables, and outcome.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 869 children (58.2% male) of median age 25 months (range 5-200 months); 364 (41.2%) had neurocognitive diagnoses, mainly seizures/epilepsy, hypotonia, or developmental delay. TFS was used for routine electroencephalography in 486 (53.8%) patients and audiometry in 401 (46.2%). Mean (± SD) dose of TFS was 50.2 ± 4.9 mg/kg. Median time to sedation was 45 min (range 5-245), and median duration of sedation was 35 min (range 5-190). Adequate sedation depth was achieved in 769 cases (88.5%). Rates of sedation-related adverse events were low: apnea, 0; desaturation ≤ 90%, 0.2% (two patients); and emesis, 0.35% (three patients). None of the children had hemodynamic instability or signs of poor perfusion. There was no association between desaturations and the presence of hypotonia or developmental delay.

CONCLUSION

TFS, when administered in a controlled and monitored environment, may be safe for use in children, including those with underlying neurocognitive disorders.

Chloral Hydrate Administered by a Dedicated Sedation Service Can Be Used Safely and Effectively for Pediatric Ophthalmic Examination

PURPOSE

To determine safety and efficacy of oral chloral hydrate sedation (CHS) for outpatient pediatric ophthalmic procedures.

DESIGN

Prospective, interventional case series.

METHODS

Setting: King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital.

SUBJECTS

Children aged 1 month to 5 years undergoing CHS for ocular imaging/evaluation.

PROCEDURES

Details on chloral hydrate dose administered, sedation achieved, vital signs, and adverse events were recorded.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was percentage of patients with a sedation level ≥ 4 at 45 minutes post chloral hydrate administration. Secondary outcomes were time from sedation to discharge and adverse events, including changes in vital signs following chloral hydrate administration.

RESULTS

A total of 324 children were recruited with a mean age of 2.2 (SD: 1.3) years and mean weight of 10.9 (SD: 3.3) kg. Adequate sedation was obtained with a mean chloral hydrate first dose of 77.4 (SD: 14.7) mg/kg in 306 (94.4%) patients, with an additional 6 patients (1.9%) achieving adequate sedation with a second dose (overall adequate sedation: 96.3%). Mean reductions in heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen (O₂) saturation from pre-sedation to 25 minutes post-sedation were 11.7 (SD: 14.3) beats per minute, 1.2 (SD: 2.4) breaths per minute, and 0.81% (SD: 1.2%), respectively (P < .001 for all). In multivariable regression, odds of remaining sedated 45 minutes after chloral hydrate administration were 2.53 times higher for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II or III patients than for ASA class I (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-5.78, P = .03), 1.03 times higher per mg increase in initial dose of chloral hydrate (95% CI: 1.01-1.06, P = .006), and 2.70 times higher per unit increase in number of planned procedures (95% CI: 1.63-4.47, P < .001). Three patients developed minor adverse events: 2 cases of O₂ desaturation and 1 paradoxical reaction, none requiring significant intervention. Patients were discharged a median of 90 minutes after chloral hydrate administration.

CONCLUSION

Chloral hydrate administered by a dedicated sedation service, as in this prospective assessment, can be used safely and effectively for outpatient pediatric ophthalmic procedures.

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.

The alternative of oral sedation for pediatric dental care

In pediatric dentistry, chloral hydrate is habitually selected for sedation of uncooperative children. Although chloral hydrate has been used for decades, various adverse effects are reported and necessity for new alternative drugs has increased. Dexmedetomidine was approved by FDA for sedation at intensive care units (ICU) in 1999. Compared to conventional sedative drugs, dexmedetomidine has not only analgesic and sedative effects but also it barely suppresses the respiratory system. Due to these characteristics, dexmedetomidine is known as safe sedative drug for children and elderly patients. Furthermore, approved by KFDA in 2010 in Korea, the frequency of sedation using dexmedetomidine is increasing. However, due to its intravenous administration method, it was difficult to apply in pediatric dentistry. Recently, intranasal administration method was introduced which might be a new possible alternative of oral sedation.

In this study, we compare the mechanisms, pros and cons of chloral hydrate and dexmedetomidine, introducing new possibilities.

Analysis of procedural sedation provided by pediatricians

BACKGROUND

Pediatric procedural sedation outside of the operating room is performed by a variety of pediatric specialists. Using the database from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC), patient demographics, medications used, diagnoses, complications, and procedures involved when pediatricians provided sedation in this cohort, were described. 'Pediatrician' was defined as a general pediatrician, cardiologist, endocrinologist, gastroenterologist, hematologist/oncologist, neurologist, pulmonologist or hospitalist.

METHODS

Data were collected by the PSRC, a group of 35 institutions dedicated to improving sedation care for children. Members prospectively enrolled consecutive patients who received sedation or anesthesia for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Data on demographics, primary diagnoses, procedures, medications, interventions, and complications were collected and stored on a Web-based data collection tool.

RESULTS

A total of 12 113 sedations performed by pediatricians were submitted from 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2008, compared to 119 665 cases performed by non-pediatricians. Pediatrician patients were more frequently non-emergency American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II, aged 2-8 years old, with a neurologic primary diagnosis, being sedated for a radiologic procedure with a sedative. Distraction techniques were used more frequently in the pediatrician group (11.9% vs 3.1%). The most common complication encountered was inadequate sedation, which occurred 2.2% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatricians sedate for a variety of patients within the PSRC, but the patients tended to be younger, predominately ASA class I or II, non-emergency, and undergoing non-painful procedures when compared to non-pediatrician providers. The patient demographics, medications used, diagnoses, complications, and procedures involved varied between the groups significantly. Complication rates were similar between the groups.

Psychological and behavioral effects of chloral hydrate in day-case pediatric surgery: a randomized, observer-blinded study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

This prospective, randomized, and observer-blinded study was performed to evaluate the effects of oral chloral hydrate on perioperative psychological and behavioral phenomena in children.

METHODS

In total, 100 boys (age, 1-5 years) scheduled for day-case unilateral orchiopexy were randomly allocated into 2 groups and orally administered either 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate (CH group) or placebo (control group) 30 minutes before surgery, followed by assessment of anxiety, induction compliance, emergence delirium, postoperative pain, and maladaptive behavioral changes.

RESULTS

Anxiety scores were significantly lower in the CH group compared with the control group (45.7 vs 28.8). The induction compliance of the CH group was better than that of the control group (3.2 vs 4.8). Postoperative sedation was more frequent (62.7% vs 20.4%); however, the incidence of vomiting was lower (2.0% vs 14.3%) in the CH group than in the control group. Postoperative emergence delirium and maladaptive behavior changes were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Decreasing preoperative anxiety with oral chloral hydrate improves induction compliance and reduces postoperative pain intensity without delaying recovery in young boys. However, chloral hydrate had little impact on emergence delirium and postoperative maladaptive behavior.

Clinical implications of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of procedural sedation agents in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Procedural sedation has become the standard of care for managing pain and anxiety in children in the emergency department.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous articles have been published on pediatric procedural sedation with, however, little in-depth discussion of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the sedation agents utilized.

SUMMARY

We review the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the pediatric procedural sedation pharmacopeia from a clinical perspective with emphasis on the practical implications for drug titration and dosing.

Sedation trends in the 21st century: the transition to dexmedetomidine for radiological imaging studies

Sedation for radiological imaging studies encompasses the majority of all sedation-related procedures outside of the intensive care unit. This review will follow the evolution of pediatric sedation for radiological imaging studies in North America as well as the transition of sedation services from the oversight of radiologists to those of other providers. The evolving options for sedation agents will be reviewed, with attention given to examining the advantages, limitations, and risks of replacing the standard sedatives with dexmedetomidine.

Midazolam as a sole sedative for computed tomography imaging in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of i.v. midazolam as a sole agent for sedation in children for computed tomography (CT) imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective clinical trial in which 516 children under ASA classification II-IV (273 boys and 243 girls) in the age group of 6 months to 6 years for elective CT scan were enrolled over a 17-month period. Patients were administered i.v. midazolam 0.2 mg x kg(-1) and further boluses of 0.1 mg x kg(-1) (total 0.5 mg x kg(-1)) if required. Measurements included induction time, efficacy, side effects, complications, and degree of sedation. Sedation was graded on the basis of Ramsay sedation score (RSS) as over sedated (RSS 5-6), adequately sedated (AS, RSS 3-4), under sedated (RSS 1-2), or failed if the procedure could not be completed or another agent had to be administered.

RESULTS

Of the 516 procedures, 483 brains, 16 chests, and 17 abdomens were scanned with a mean duration of 4.75 +/- 1.75 min with a mean dose of 0.212 mg x kg(-1) of i.v. midazolam. Four hundred and sixty-five (90.12%) patients were AS in 5.9 +/- 0.7 min while 40 (7.75%) patients required additional boluses. Of these 40 patients, 24 (4.65%) required a single bolus, 12 (2.32%) required two boluses, whereas the remaining four (0.78%) required three boluses. In 11 (2.13%; P < 0.0001) patients, the scan could not be completed satisfactorily. Side effects were seen in 46 (9.11%) patients in the form of desaturation, hiccups (seven patients, 1.38%), and agitation (four patients, 0.79%). Desaturation (SpO2 90-95%) was seen in 35 (6.93%) patients, which was corrected by topical application of oxygen. None of the patients exhibited any complications such as pulmonary aspiration or need to maintain airway. The patients were kept under observation for 1 h after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

The level of sedation achieved in children with midazolam 0.2 mg x kg(-1) is adequate for imaging with minimal side effects, no airway complications, and fast recovery. It can be recommended as the sole agent for sedation in pediatric patients for CT imaging.

Dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation in children with autism and other behavior disorders

Dexmedetomidine has been increasingly in use for pediatric noninvasive procedural sedation. This retrospective study examined experience in children with autism and other neurobehavioral disorders, populations often difficult to sedate. Records of children with autism or neurobehavioral disorders sedated with dexmedetomidine at Chris Evert Children's Hospital and Kosair Children's Hospital were reviewed. Demographic and sedation-related data were collected, including sedative doses, time to sedation, efficacy, and complications. Comparisons of sedative doses, efficacy between autism and neurobehavioral patients, and analysis of age-related factors were performed. In all, 315 patients were sedated, most commonly for magnetic resonance imaging. Mean induction and total dexmedetomidine doses were 1.4 +/- 0.6 and 2.6 +/- 1.6 microg/kg, respectively, with no differences between autism and neurobehavior patients. Most patients (90%) patients received concomitant midazolam. There was an age-related decrease in dexmedetomidine dose, independent of midazolam use. Seven patients required intervention for hypotension, bradycardia, or both, and only one adverse respiratory event (obstruction requiring nasopharyngeal airway placement) occurred. There were two episodes of overt recovery-related agitation. All but four procedures were successfully completed (4/315, or 98.7%). Dexmedetomidine with or without midazolam was an effective sedative in this population. The regimen appeared to be well tolerated with few adverse events, including recovery-related agitation, and appears to be an attractive option for this population.

Dexmedetomidine for Pediatric Sedation for Computed Tomography Imaging Studies

Dexmedetomidine is a sedative with limited experience in the pediatric population. This is the first study that prospectively evaluates the sedation profile of a dexmedetomidine pilot program for pediatric sedation for radiological imaging studies. In March 2005, our hospital sedation committee approved the replacement of IV pentobarbital with dexmedetomidine as the standard of care for CT imaging. Detailed Quality Assurance (QA) data sheets collect relevant information on each patient, which is then logged into a computerized sedation database. After IRB approval, all QA data was accessed. Sixty-two patients with a mean age of 2.8 years (SD = 1.8, range 0.5-9.7) received IV (IV) dexmedetomidine administered as a 2 mcg/kg loading dose over 10 minutes, followed by repeat boluses of 2 mcg/kg over 10 minutes until target of Ramsay Sedation Score 4 (RSS) achieved. Patients were then maintained on 1 mcg/kg/hr infusion until imaging is completed. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that compared to pre-sedation values, the heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure decreased an average of 15% during bolus, infusion and recovery (P < 0.01). No significant changes were observed in respiratory rate or end-tidal CO2. Mean recovery time was 32 +/- 18 minutes. Based on our pilot results, dexmedetomidine may provide a reliable and effective method of providing sedation.

Adverse cardiovascular and respiratory events during sedation of pediatric patients for imaging examinations

PURPOSE

To retrospectively identify factors associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular or respiratory events during sedation of pediatric patients for imaging examinations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This HIPAA-compliant study was institutional review board approved; the requirement for informed consent was waived. All sedation information--including patient demographics, medications (doses and routes of administration), time required to sedate and before discharge, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, adverse events, and failed sedations--was maintained in a computerized database. A review of the data on all patients sedated between 1997 and 2003 for magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and interventional radiology revealed associated adverse respiratory events in 70 patients. Adverse respiratory event was defined as oxygen desaturation of at least 5%, pulmonary aspiration, and need for airway resuscitation. Adverse cardiovascular events were defined as cardiac arrest and hemodynamic changes requiring medical therapy. Adverse events were compared between sedation regimens--which included fentanyl, chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, and midazolam hydrochloride--by using the Fisher exact test. Multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to identify potential predictors of adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 16,467 sedations performed, 70 (0.4%) were associated with adverse respiratory events: 58 cases of oxygen desaturation, two pulmonary aspirations, 10 cases of airway resuscitation, and no cardiovascular events. Nearly 30% (n = 20) of the 70 patients who had an adverse event had a history of serious respiratory illness. Logistic regression analysis revealed that neither patient age, weight, or sex nor type of imaging procedure was associated with an increased risk of an adverse event. Use of a single sedation agent was associated with lower adverse event risk than was use of multiple agents (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Consideration should be given to using single agents, avoiding the use of multidrug sedation regimens, and recognizing that a history of pulmonary disease could be associated with an increased risk of adverse respiratory events despite a currently stable respiratory state.

Review of pediatric sedation

Sedating children for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures remains an area of rapid change and considerable controversy. Exploration of this topic is made difficult by the fact that the reports of techniques and outcomes for pediatric sedation appear in a wide range of subspecialty publications and rarely undergo comprehensive examination. In this review article, we will touch on many aspects of the topic of pediatric sedation from the perspective of the anesthesiologist. We begin with a review of the historical role of anesthesiologists in the development of the current standards for pediatric sedation. We also examine the current status of pediatric sedation as reflected in published studies and reports. A specific review of the issues surrounding safety of sedation services is included. Current trends in sedation practice, including the expanding role of potent sedative hypnotic drugs outside the field of anesthesiology, are noted. Finally, we suggest future areas for research and clinical improvement for sedation providers.

Infant sedation for MR imaging and CT: oral versus intravenous pentobarbital

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of oral (PO) versus intravenous (IV) pentobarbital sedation for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) in infants younger than 12 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved the review of medical records and determined informed consent to be unnecessary. All parents gave informed consent for patient sedation. Prior to MR imaging or CT, infants younger than 12 months were sedated with PO pentobarbital (4-8 mg per kilogram body weight) or IV pentobarbital (2-6 mg/kg), depending on the presence of an IV catheter or need for IV contrast medium. A computer database used to record sedation data was reviewed for data from January 1997 to September 2003. PO and IV sedation groups were compared for mean age, weight, dose, time to sedation, time to discharge, and duration of sedation with a two-sample Student t test. Multivariate analysis of covariance was used to determine whether differences in sedation time, time to discharge, and duration of sedation between groups were independent of age, weight, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, dose, and type of procedure. Sedation effectiveness (outcome) was determined as the percentage of sedation failures in each group. Safety was determined separately for other adverse events as a total and for respiratory adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 2164 infants received 2419 (1264 PO, 1155 IV) doses of pentobarbital for sedation. Weight and sex were comparable between groups. Time to sedation was significantly longer with PO than with IV pentobarbital (18 minutes +/- 11 vs 7 minutes +/- 7; P < .01), but time to discharge was similar, at approximately 108 minutes +/- 35. Total adverse events rate during sedation was not significantly different (0.8% [PO] vs 1.3% [IV]), but incidence of abnormal oxygen saturation (5% decrease from baseline, >1 minute duration) differed significantly (0.2% [PO] vs 0.9% [IV]; P = .02). Sedation effectiveness was comparable (failure rate, 0.5% [PO] vs 0.3% [IV]; P = .76).

CONCLUSION

PO pentobarbital has comparable effectiveness and a lower rate of respiratory complications compared with IV pentobarbital in infants younger than 12 months; its use should be considered, regardless of presence of an IV catheter.

Superiority of Pentobarbital versus Chloral Hydrate for Sedation in Infants during Imaging

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of oral pentobarbital and oral chloral hydrate for sedation in infants younger than 1 year during magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A computerized database was used to collect information about all cases in which sedation was used. Outcomes of all infants who received oral pentobarbital or oral chloral hydrate for sedation between 1997 and 2002 were reviewed. Two study groups were compared for sedation and discharge times by using Student t test and for adverse events by using Fisher exact test and multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Infants (n = 1,316) received an oral medication for sedation. Mean doses were 50 mg/kg chloral hydrate and 4 mg/kg pentobarbital. Student t test demonstrated no difference in mean time to sedation and in time to discharge between groups. Overall adverse event rate during sedation was lower with pentobarbital (0.5%) than with chloral hydrate (2.7%) (P <.001). There were fewer episodes of oxygen desaturation with pentobarbital (0.2%) than with chloral hydrate (1.6%) (P <.01). Both medications were equally effective in providing successful sedation.

CONCLUSION

Although oral pentobarbital and oral chloral hydrate are equally effective, the incidence of adverse events with pentobarbital was significantly reduced.

Comparison of oral pentobarbital sodium (nembutal) and oral chloral hydrate for sedation of infants during radiologic imaging: preliminary results

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of oral cherry-flavored pentobarbital sodium (Nembutal) and oral chloral hydrate to sedate infants undergoing radiologic imaging.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We prospectively recorded data for all infants sedated with oral cherry-flavored pentobarbital sodium and oral chloral hydrate for imaging examinations between January 1997 and August 1999. The parameters recorded were each patient's age, weight, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification; the time required to sedate; the total length of sedation time; the time required to discharge from the recovery room; and adverse events. The two-sample Student's t test and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Oral pentobarbital sodium was administered to 317 infants. These infants had a mean age +/- SD of 6.9 +/- 3.1 months and a mean weight of 7.8 +/- 4.8 kg; they received a median dose of 4 mg/kg of body weight. Oral chloral hydrate was administered to 358 infants. These infants had a mean age of 5.9 +/- 3.3 months and a mean weight of 7.3 +/- 4.9 kg; they received a median dose of 50 mg/kg of body weight. The mean time required to sedate was 19 +/- 14 min for infants receiving oral pentobarbital sodium and 16 +/- 11 min for infants receiving oral chloral hydrate (p = 0.02); the mean time required to discharge was 100 +/- 35 min for infants in the oral pentobarbital sodium group and 103 +/- 36 min for infants in the oral chloral hydrate group (p = 0.31); the mean length of sedation was 81 +/- 34 min for the oral pentobarbital sodium group and 86 +/- 36 min for the oral chloral hydrate group (p = 0.07); and median American Society of Anesthesiologists classification for both groups was P1. Oral pentobarbital sodium was inadequate for sedation in one patient (0.3%) and chloral hydrate was inadequate for sedation in another (0.3%) (p = 1.00). Adverse events were recorded for five patients (1.6%) in the oral pentobarbital sodium group and for six patients (1.7%) in the chloral hydrate group (p = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Oral pentobarbital sodium is as safe and efficacious as oral chloral hydrate for sedating infants.

Pediatric anesthesia in dermatologic surgery: when hand-holding is not enough

BACKGROUND

Dermatologic procedures in children may require the use of topical and local anesthetics, sedatives, and general anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To review developments in topical and local anesthetics, sedatives, and general anesthesia relevant to dermatologic procedures in children.

METHODS

Review of the medical literature.

RESULTS

Topical anesthetics, including EMLA and liposome-encapsulated lidocaine cream, amethocaine, cetacaine, and benzocaine products may be useful for decreasing the pain of cutaneous procedures including intra-lesional lidocaine infiltration. A variety of sedative and hypnotic agents may be utilized for pediatric dermatology procedures, and guidelines for their appropriate use have been published. General anesthesia for dermatologic procedures in the pediatric population is appropriate for a variety of procedures including laser treatment of capillary malformations.

CONCLUSION

A variety of anesthetic, analgesic, and sedatives may be useful for pediatric cutaneous surgery.

Sedation/Analgesia for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in children

Sedation/analgesia for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in children has been associated with life-threatening adverse events. Reports of adverse events and recognition of wide variability in sedation practices has led to the development of guidelines and standards of care to ensure the safety of sedated children. The safety of sedated children can be enhanced by detailed presedation evaluation, careful patient selection, and the use of drugs with a wide margin of safety that are carefully titrated to desired depth of sedation by trained personnel. Once sedative drugs are administered, stringent monitoring, including continuous pulse oximetry and frequent assessment of vital signs and sedation depth, will permit early recognition of untoward drug effects and permit early intervention. Children with underlying medical conditions, such as airway abnormalities, may not be suitable subjects for sedation and may require consideration for general anesthesia to aid their procedure. Although significant strides have been made in recognition of the risks of sedation and in development of guidelinesfor safe sedation practices, further work must focus on development of newer sedation regimens with shorter-acting drugs and wider margins of safety.

The management of pain in the emergency department

The challenge for emergency medicine physicians in the new millennium is to use these drugs and drug combinations to make ED visits pain-free and safe experiences. With dedication to research, a willingness to take the time to explore new options, and expansion of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, physicians can make this lofty dream a reality.

Neuroimaging in hyperkinetic children and adults: an overview

The application of brain imaging techniques to children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders is reviewed, stressing methodological aspects. Findings are still provisional, but suggest minor structural changes in frontal and candate areas, especially on the right side. Functional studies suggest reduced activation in these and other areas. The techniques do not yet contribute to individual diagnosis.

Chloral hydrate versus midazolam for sedation of children for neuroimaging: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The comparative safety and efficacy of chloral hydrate and midazolam for sedation of children has not been adequately studied.

METHODS

In a double-blind randomized trial, at a single university hospital, we enrolled 40 children, ages 2 months to 8 years, in an out-patient neuroimaging study. Children judged to require sedation were enrolled during a 14-month period ending August 1995. They received identically appearing liquids of equal volume of either chloral hydrate (75 mg/kg, maximum 2 g) or midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, maximum 10 mg) by mouth. Children were monitored for changes in arterial blood pressure, oxygen saturation, pulse, respiration and anxiety. Efficacy was judged by evaluating the child's ability to complete the intended scan. Supplemental dosing was administered to children who were judged inadequately sedated 30 minutes after the initial medication.

RESULTS

Interim analysis demonstrated a significant sedation failure rate. Of 40 enrolled children, 33 completed the protocol. Efficacy was significantly improved for the chloral hydrate group for both ability to perform the scan, chloral hydrate = 11/11 (100%, 95% CI = 72-100) vs. midazolam = 11/22 (50%, 95% CI = 29-71), and the need for supplementary dosing, chloral hydrate = 1/11 (9%, 95% CI = 0-26) vs midazolam = 12/22 (55%, 95% CI = 34-76), P<0.05. Mean duration of sedation was not significantly different. No physiological deterioration occurred and no oxygen administration was required.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that, in these doses, oral chloral hydrate may provide more effective sedation than midazolam for brief neuroimaging studies in young children.

Structured sedation programme for magnetic resonance imaging examination in children

One thousand, eight hundred and fifty-seven patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging following the establishment of a structured sedation programme. Forty-eight of these patients came from the intensive care unit with a secure airway and were therefore excluded from any further analysis. Oral sedation was to be given to children aged 5 years and below. For children >/= 6 years old, oral sedation could be given only if their level of co-operation was judged to be inadequate by the referring physician. Oral sedation consisted of chloral hydrate 90 mg x kg-1 (maximum 2.0 g) orally with or without rectal paraldehyde 0.3 ml x kg-1. All magnetic resonance imaging requests for children who failed oral sedation as well as those referred for general anaesthesia from the outset were reviewed by a consultant anaesthetist who then allocated patients to undergo the procedure with either general anaesthesia or intravenous sedation. Scans requiring intravenous sedation or general anaesthesia were performed in the presence of a consultant anaesthetist. Intravenous sedation consisted of either a propofol 0.5 mg x kg-1 bolus followed by an infusion (maximum 3 mg x kg-1 x h-1) or midazolam 0.2-0.5 mg x kg-1 boluses. General anaesthesia was given using spontaneous ventilation with a mixture of 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen and isoflurane following either inhalation (sevoflurane) or intravenous (propofol) induction. One thousand and thirty-nine (57.4%) of the scans were done without sedation whereas 93 scans were performed during the consultant anaesthetist supervised sessions. Oral sedation failed in 50 out of 727 patients (6.9%). Eighty-seven per cent of children aged 5 years and below needed sedation compared with 4.5% of those aged over 10 years. Two patients who had only received chloral hydrate developed significant respiratory depression. This structured sedation programme has provided a safe, effective and efficient use of limited resources.

Adverse events of procedural sedation and analgesia in a pediatric emergency department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the adverse event and complication rate for the use of procedural sedation and analgesia for painful procedures and diagnostic imaging studies performed in a pediatric emergency department.

METHODS

This prospective case series was conducted in the ED of a large, urban pediatric teaching hospital. Subjects were patients younger than 21 years seen between August 1997 and July 1998, who required intravenous, intramuscular, oral, rectal, intranasal, or inhalational agents for painful procedures or diagnostic imaging. All patients who underwent procedural sedation and analgesia were continually monitored. Adverse events and complications were recorded. The ED controlled substance log was checked weekly and all sedations were reviewed. Adverse events were defined as follows: oxygen desaturation less than 90%, apnea, stridor, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, cardiovascular instability, paradoxical reactions, emergence reactions, emesis, and aspiration. Complications were defined as adverse events that negatively affected outcome or delayed recovery.

RESULTS

Of 1,180 patients who underwent procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED, 27 (2.3%) experienced adverse events, which included oxygen desaturation less than 90% requiring intervention (10 patients) [supplemental oxygen (9), bag-mask ventilation (1)], paradoxical reactions (7), emesis (3), paradoxical reaction and oxygen desaturation requiring supplemental oxygen (2), apnea requiring bag-mask ventilation (1), laryngospasm requiring bag-mask ventilation (1), bradycardia (1), stridor and emesis (1) and oxygen desaturation requiring bag-mask ventilation with subsequent emesis (1). There was no statistically significant difference in mean doses for all procedural sedation and analgesia medication regimens between those children who experienced adverse events and those who did not. No single drug or drug regimen was associated with a higher adverse event rate. In addition, there was no significant difference in the adverse event rate between males and females, among the different ages, or among the different indications for procedural sedation and analgesia. No patient required reversal of sedation with naloxone or flumazenil, endotracheal intubation, or hospital admission because of complications from procedural sedation and analgesia.

CONCLUSION

The adverse event rate for procedural sedation and analgesia performed by pediatric emergency physicians was 2.3% with no serious complications noted.

Adverse events and risk factors associated with the sedation of children by nonanesthesiologists

After implementation of hospital-wide monitoring standards, a quality assurance (QA) tool was prospectively completed for 1140 children (aged 2.96 +/- 3.7 yr) sedated for procedures by nonanesthesiologists. The tool captured data regarding demographics, medications used, adequacy of sedation, monitoring, adverse events, and requirement for escalated care. The medical records of children who experienced adverse events were reviewed. Most (99%) children were monitored with pulse oximetry. Chloral hydrate was the most frequently used sedative (74.9% of cases). Of the children, 239 (20.1%) experienced adverse events related to sedation, including inadequate sedation in 150 (13.2%) and decrease in oxygen saturation in 63 (5.5%). Five of these children experienced airway obstruction and two became apneic. No adverse event resulted in long-term sequelae. Of the 854 children who received chloral hydrate, 46 (5.4%) experienced decreased oxygen saturation (> or = 90% of baseline). Children experienced desaturation after the use of chloral hydrate had received the recommended doses of chloral hydrate (38-83 mg/kg). ASA physical status III or IV and age < 1 yr were predictors of increased risk of sedation-related adverse events. These data underscore the importance of appropriate monitoring that includes pulse oximetry to permit early detection of adverse events.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality assurance study highlights the risks associated with the sedation of children and emphasizes the importance of appropriate monitoring by trained personnel. Children with underlying medical conditions and those who are very young are at increased risk of adverse events, which indicates that a greater degree of vigilance may be required in these patients.

Safe Pediatric Outpatient Sedation: The Chloral Hydrate Debate Revisited

Diagnostic imaging in the pediatric patient frequently requires sedation. The use of chloral hydrate, the standard agent for many years, has recently come under severe scrutiny. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published guidelines for the elective sedation of pediatric patients; however, compliance with the AAP guidelines is not compulsory. A review of the medical literature shows a wide range of medications used for pediatric sedation, along with a diversity in the protocols available for monitoring the cardiopulmonary status of the patient. When ordering computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans, pediatric otolaryngologists indirectly are exposing their patients to the sedation practices and monitoring protocols of their referral imaging center. A questionnaire regarding the sedation protocol for routine, outpatient, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans in children aged 5 years or younger was sent to staff radiologists at 36 pediatric medical centers throughout the United States. A variety of sedation practices were elicited. The complete survey results are presented, including monitoring practices, complication, and success rates. Despite concerns about its safety, chloral hydrate remains a frequently used and safe method of pediatric outpatient sedation.

Comparison of chloral hydrate and midazolam for sedation of neonates for neuroimaging studies

In a crossover study of seven term neonates who had neuroimaging studies, chloral hydrate (75 mg/kg administered orally) was more efficacious (p<0.05) but similar with regard to toxic effects than midazolam (0.2 mg/kg administered intravenously). Thus newer drugs are not necessarily better, and monitoring is essential even after a single oral sedative dose.

Comparative review of the adverse effects of sedatives used in children undergoing outpatient procedures

Children often fear medical procedures and interventions. Sedative agents enhance the care of these children who undergo outpatient procedures by decreasing anxiety, increasing cooperativity, and providing amnesia. Although higher dosages and intravenous administration of sedatives often produce improved sedation, adverse effects and complications are more frequent. The goals of therapeutic efficacy and safety must be balanced in all patients. The presence or anticipation of anxiety and pain helps in deciding whether to use a sedative alone, or a regimen also providing analgesia. The patient's clinical cardiorespiratory or neurological status, other relative contraindications, the duration of the intended procedure, and the presence or absence of an intravenous line will help in choosing specific drugs. Drug complications are a common cause of adverse events in patients. The combination of a sedative and analgesic, especially a benzodiazepine and an opioid given intravenously, is associated with a higher risk of serious complications. The practitioner responsible for the administration of a sedative to a child must be competent in its use and have the ability to detect and manage complications. Patients who are deeply sedated should be continuously monitored and observed by an individual dedicated to this task. Vital signs and oxygen saturation should be documented at frequent intervals and the patient should be appropriately monitored until discharge criteria have been met. The risk of serious complications with these agents may be reduced with vigorous monitoring and a judicious choice of dosage.

Chloral hydrate toxicity from oral and intravenous administration

BACKGROUND

Overdose from enteric chloral hydrate results in cardiovascular and central nervous system symptoms.

CASE REPORTS

This case series compares and contrasts two cases of oral chloral hydrate overdose with two cases of accidental i.v. administration. Whereas ingestion of 219 mg/kg of chloral hydrate resulted in transient bigeminy, ingestion of up to 960 mg/kg caused torsades de pointes and ventricular fibrillation which were effectively treated with defibrillation and a beta blocker. I.V. administration in humans does not appear previously documented. Two cases of i.v. administration of a therapeutic chloral hydrate dose resulted in central nervous system depression and minimal local effects at the injection site.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high bioavailability of oral chloral hydrate the major determinant of cardiotoxicity may be the dose rather than the route of administration. Cardiac arrhythmias due to chloral hydrate appear to be responsive to beta blocker therapy.

An audit of adverse events in children sedated with chloral hydrate or propofol during imaging studies

We examined records of sedations provided by the paediatric anaesthesiology staff for 455 children (ages 1 mo-17 yr) undergoing MRI or CT scans at our institution over a twelve-month period with regard to the monitoring of adverse events: excessive sedation, agitation, vomiting, hypoxaemia, and major airway compromise. One hundred-and-thirty-one patients (29%) received chloral hydrate; 324 patients (71%) received propofol. All patients were monitored with continuous noninvasive pulse oximetry and received supplemental oxygen via nasal cannulae. Of the patients who received chloral hydrate, 64 (49%) were over one year of age; of the patients who received propofol, 318 (98%) were one year of age or older. In the chloral hydrate group, 23 patients (19%) were deemed excessively sedated and four patients (3%) were agitated; no patients in the propofol group experienced any of the adverse outcomes reviewed. Furthermore, no patients in either group had significant airway compromise and none was admitted to the hospital as a result of the sedation.

Radiographic imaging studies in pediatric chronic sinusitis

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of chronic sinusitis is dependent on the radiographic evidence of sinus disease.

METHODS

We evaluated the performance of radiographs and computed tomographic (CT) scans for the examination of the paranasal sinuses of 91 patients of both sexes, ranging in age from 2 to 17 years, who had chronic upper respiratory tract symptoms for at least 3 months. The CT scan findings were categorized as no disease; minimal disease, and mild, moderate, and severe sinusitis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients (63%) had chronic sinusitis: CT scan abnormalities were minimal in 17%, mild in 19%, moderate in 21%, and severe in 43%. There was a statistically significant correlation between rhinorrhea (r = 0.25, p = 0.01), cough (r = 0.27, p = 0.009), and the severity of sinus abnormality as determined by CT scan. Clinical presentation in the mild, moderate, and severe sinusitis groups (p < 0.05) was significantly different from that of the no disease group, whereas the minimal disease group had subclinical presentation (p = 0.11). Clinically significant chronic sinusitis often occurred at multiple sites: 44% of patients had pansinusitis, 50% had disease involvement of at least two sinuses, and 6% had disease in a single sinus. When sinus radiographs were compared with CT scans (n = 70 cases), radiographs could not identify minimal disease. For clinically significant sinusitis, sinus radiographs detected disease in 1 of 5 (20%) frontal sinuses, 0 of 12 (0%) sphenoidal sinuses, and 17 of 31 (54%) ethmoidal sinuses. With the minimal criteria of 40% to 50% opacification or fluid level filling of the maxillary antrum, radiographs detected disease in 37 of 49 (75%) cases. The sensitivity and specificity for a Waters view to confirm clinically significant chronic sinusitis without specifying the sites and severity were acceptable at 76% and 81%, respectively. When limited sinus CT scans were compared with full CT evaluation (n = 49 cases), limited studies detected 5 of 5 (100%) frontal, 9 of 11 (82%) sphenoidal, 14 of 19 (73%) ethmoidal, and 39 of 40 (97%) cases of maxillary sinusitis. The overall agreement was 88%.

CONCLUSIONS

A single Waters view is an acceptable part of the initial evaluation of pediatric chronic sinusitis; however, a limited CT scan is a better alternative.

Oral chloral hydrate provides effective and safe sedation in paediatric magnetic resonance imaging

Sedation is routinely required for successful Magnetic Resonance imaging in infants and children. Five hundred and ninety-six paediatric patients (270 female and 326 male, age (mean +/- SD) 41 +/- 30 months and weight 14.8 +/- 6.5 kg) entered an open, non-comparative, prospective study to assess oral chloral hydrate sedation in a large and homogeneous paediatric population undergoing Magnetic Resonance imaging. Chloral hydrate syrup 70 mg/ml was administered 20-40 min prior to the procedure. Effective sedation was reached in 94.1% with a total dose (mean +/- SEM) of 68 +/- 1 mg/kg (range 20-170 mg/kg). Statistical analysis of sedation failures vs. successful examinations after the total dose showed significant differences for dose (62 +/- 4 vs. 69 +/- 1 mg/kg; P < 0.05), age (64 +/- 7 vs. 40 +/- 1 months; P < 0.001) and weight (19.8 +/- 1.5 vs. 14.5 +/- 0.0 kg; P < 0.001). Effectiveness fell to around 80% in children with encephalic white matter alterations, medullary tumours or syringohydromyela (P = 0.07). The mean time of onset of sedation was 26 +/- 1 min, and the mean time to spontaneous awakening after the completion of the Magnetic Resonance examination was 38 +/- 2 min. Fifty-nine children (9.9%) experienced adverse reactions, with nausea and vomiting being the most common (n = 41), followed by nervousness and unusual excitement (n = 6). Discriminant function analysis identified age and total dose as the quantitative variables helping to differentiate between sedation failures and satisfactory examinations (sensitivity = 0.73, and specificity = 0.61; r = 0.20, P < 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Pediatric analgesia and sedation

Sedation and analgesia are essential components of the ED management of pediatric patients. Used appropriately, there are a number of medications and techniques that can be used safely in the emergency care of infants and children. Emergency physicians should be competent in the use of multiple sedatives and analgesics. Adequate equipment and monitoring, staff training, discharge instructions and continuous quality management should be an integral part of the ED use of these agents.

Sedation for the pediatric patient. A review

Safe sedation of a pediatric patient requires a thorough knowledge of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs used to sedate the patient and the skills necessary to deal effectively with potential adverse events as a result of the sedation. The Sedation Guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics are reviewed. Emphasis is placed on monitoring and appropriate selection of drugs.

Effect of oral chloral hydrate sedation on the intraocular pressure measurement

We measured the intraocular pressure (IOP) of 50 normal, cooperative, awake children below 6 years of age and 10 glaucoma patients with the Perkins' hand-held applanation tonometer (Perkins) and the Digilab pneumatonographer-tonometer (Pneuma). The measurements were repeated after oral chloral hydrate administration in the dose of 100 mg/kg body weight for the first 10 kg plus 50 mg/kg for every additional kg. There were no clinically or statistically significant changes in IOP measured before and after chloral hydrate in the 50 normal children (Pneuma: mean = 14.74 +/- 1.27 mm Hg vs 14.74 +/- 0.96 mm Hg; P > .05; Perkins: mean = 5.86 +/- 1.69 mm Hg vs 5.61 +/- 1.50 mm Hg; P > .05) or in the 15 glaucomatous eyes (Pneuma: mean = 28.93 +/- 5.26 vs 28.47 +/- 4.42 mm Hg; Perkins: mean = 20.27 +/- 5.36 vs 19.53 +/- 4.49 mm Hg; P > 0.05). Although some children did resist swallowing the bitter-tasting medicine, no significant side effects were encountered. The high-dose oral chloral hydrate protocol resulted in efficient sedation in children below the age of 6 years, without any alteration of the IOP levels in both normal and glaucomatous eyes.