Propofol versus midazolam plus meperidine for sedation during ambulatory esophagogastroduodenoscopy

The Evolution of Sedation for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

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

Propofol Alone versus Propofol in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Endoscopy in Patients with Paradoxical Reactions to Midazolam

Background/Aims

The efficacy of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients with midazolam-induced paradoxical reactions remains unclarified. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol-based sedation in patients who previously experienced paradoxical reactions.

Methods

This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled pilot study. Participants with a history of paradoxical reactions to midazolam during a previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to group I (propofol monosedation) or group II (combination of propofol and midazolam). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a paradoxical reaction.

Results

A total of 30 participants (mean age, 54.7±12.6 years; male, 19/30) were randomly assigned to group I (n=16) or group II (n=14). There were no paradoxical reactions in group I, but there were two in group II, without a significant difference (p=0.209). The mean dose of propofol was higher in group I than in group II (p=0.002). Meanwhile, the procedure and recovery times did not differ between groups.

Conclusions

Propofol-based sedation was safe and effective for patients who experienced paradoxical reactions to midazolam. However, caution is needed because few cases of paradoxical reaction again can happen in group II in which midazolam was readministered.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in children and adults: How do they differ?

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has grown dramatically over the past century, and with subsequent improvements in technology and anaesthesia, it has become a safe and useful tool for evaluation of GI pathology in children. There are substantial differences between paediatric and adult endoscopy beyond size, including: age-related patho-physiology and the different spectrum of diseases in children. Literature on endoscopic procedures in children is sparse but significant. The present review aims at describing the current knowledges on paediatric endoscopy practice and highlights the main areas of differences between paediatric and adult practice.

Procedural Sedation for Pediatric Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Korea

BACKGROUND

Sedative upper endoscopy is similar in pediatrics and adults, but it is characteristically more likely to lead to respiratory failure. Although recommended guidelines for pediatric procedural sedation are available within South Korea and internationally, Korean pediatric endoscopists use different drugs, either alone or in combination, in practice. Efforts are being made to minimize the risk of sedation while avoiding procedural challenges. The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data on the sedation methods used by Korean pediatric endoscopists to help physicians perform pediatric sedative upper endoscopy (PSUE).

METHODS

The PSUE procedures performed in 15 Korean pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic units within a year were analyzed. Drugs used for sedation were grouped according to the method of use, and the depth of sedation was evaluated based on the Ramsay scores. The procedures and their complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 734 patients who underwent PSUE were included. Sedation and monitoring were performed by an anesthesiologist at one of the institutions. The sedative procedures were performed by a pediatric endoscopist at the other 14 institutions. Regarding the number of assistants present during the procedures, 36.6% of procedures had one assistant, 38.8% had 2 assistants, and 24.5% had 3 assistants. The average age of the patients was 11.6 years old. Of the patients, 19.8% had underlying diseases, 10.0% were taking medications such as epilepsy drugs, and 1.0% had snoring or sleep apnea history. The average duration of the procedures was 5.2 minutes. The subjects were divided into 5 groups as follows: 1) midazolam + propofol + ketamine (M + P + K): n = 18, average dose of 0.03 + 2.4 + 0.5 mg/kg; 2) M + P: n = 206, average dose of 0.06 + 2.1 mg/kg; 3) M + K: n = 267, average dose of 0.09 + 0.69 mg/kg; 4) continuous P infusion for 20 minutes: n = 15, average dose of 6.6 mg/kg; 5) M: n = 228, average dose of 0.11 mg/kg. The average Ramsay score for the five groups was 3.7, with significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001). Regarding the adverse effects, desaturation and increased oxygen supply were most prevalent in the M + K group. Decreases and increases in blood pressure were most prevalent in the M + P + K group, and bag-mask ventilation was most used in the M + K group. There were no reported incidents of intubation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A decrease in oxygen saturation was observed in 37 of 734 patients, and it significantly increased in young patients (P = 0.001) and when ketamine was used (P = 0.014). Oxygen saturation was also correlated with dosage (P = 0.037). The use of ketamine (P < 0.001) and propofol (P < 0.001) were identified as factors affecting the Ramsay score in the logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although the drug use by Korean pediatric endoscopists followed the recommended guidelines to an extent, it was apparent that they combined the drugs or reduced the doses depending on the patient characteristics to reduce the likelihood of respiratory failure. Inducing deep sedation facilitates comfort during the procedure, but it also leads to a higher risk of complications.

Variation in Pediatric Anesthesiologist Sedation Practices for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background: Despite a worldwide shift toward anesthesiologist-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children, ideal sedation regimens remain unclear and best practices undefined. Aim: The aim of our study was to document variation in anesthesiologist-administered sedation for pediatric endoscopy. Outcomes of interest included coefficients of variation, procedural efficiency, as well as adverse events. Methods: IRB approval was obtained to review electronic health records of children undergoing routine endoscopy at our medical center during a recent calendar year. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to examine predictors of sedation practices. Results: 258 healthy children [2-21 years (median 15, (Q1-Q3 = 10-17)] underwent either upper and/or lower endoscopies with sedation administered by anesthesiologists (n = 21), using different sedation regimens (29) that ranged from a single drug administered to 6 sedatives in combination. Most patients did not undergo endotracheal tube intubation for the procedure (208, 81%), and received propofol (255, 89%) either alone or in combination with other sedatives. A total of 10 (3.8%) adverse events (9 sedation related) were documented to occur. The coefficient of variation (CV) for sedation times was high at 64.2%, with regression analysis suggesting 8% was unexplained by procedure time. Multivariable model suggested that longer procedure time (p < 0.0001), younger age (p < 0.0001), and use of endotracheal tube intubation (p = 0.02) were associated with longer sedation time. Discussion: We found great variation in anesthesiologist administered regimens for pediatric endoscopy at our institution that may be unwarranted, presenting may opportunities for minimizing patient risk, as well as for optimizing procedural efficiency.

Pancreatobiliary Endoscopic Interventions for Pediatric Pancreatic Pathology

Despite the increased global recognition of pediatric pancreatic diseases, there are limited data on the utility of sophisticated endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in their management. Promising results of recent studies have highlighted the emerging therapeutic utility of EUS and ERCP in children. With these latest developments in mind, this article reviews the current literature regarding diagnostic and therapeutic uses, benefits, limitations, and clinical outcomes of EUS and ERCP in pediatric pancreatology.

Oral Lorazepam is not Superior to Placebo for Lowering Stress in Children Before Digestive Endoscopy: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Digestive endoscopies must be performed within a safe and comfortable environment. We have previously shown that the quality of intravenous sedation is influenced by preoperative stress.

AIM

Our primary objective was to compare the effects of oral lorazepam and placebo on the salivary cortisol response of children undergoing a digestive endoscopy. Secondary objectives were the assessment of procedural pain and comfort as well as the occurrence of adverse events.

METHODS

Participants were randomized and received either lorazepam, placebo, or no premedication. Saliva was collected upon arrival at the hospital and 1 h following randomization. The sedation protocol included midazolam and fentanyl ± ketamine. Procedural pain was evaluated with the Nurse Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS). Patients completed a postoperative questionnaire. The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of children having a cortisol decrease ≥ 15 nmol/L.

RESULTS

101 participants (54 females) were included. The rate of children having a cortisol decrease ≥ 15 nmol/L was 27.3%, 35.3%, and 19.4% for lorazepam, placebo, and no premedication, respectively (p = 0.356). The median (IQR) NAPCOMS pain score was 3.0 (0-6) for lorazepam, 4.4 (0-6) for placebo, and 3.4 (3-4) for no premedication (p = 0.428). With lorazepam, 75.9% of children reported experiencing a comfortable procedure, compared with 41.9% taking placebo and 34.5% with no premedication (p = 0.013). Transient tachycardia was the most frequent intraoperative adverse event, particularly with lorazepam (62.5%, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral lorazepam had no effect on patients' preoperative stress, as measured by salivary cortisol, but was associated with a higher rate of comfortable procedures.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT03180632.

Evaluation of the safety of using propofol for paediatric procedural sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Propofol is one of the most widely used drugs for paediatric procedural sedation owing to its known advantages, but some concerns remain regarding respiratory and/or cardiac complications in patients receiving propofol. Although a considerable number of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been conducted to compare it with other sedative agents or opioids for children undergoing various procedures, propofol is still being used off-label for this indication in many countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of those RCTs to provide an overall summation of evidence that can potentially be considered for further regulatory decisions, including reimbursement policies. We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to January 31, 2018. Our meta-analysis of 30 RCTs confirmed that propofol sedation had advantages in recovery time when compared with other drugs, without excessive concerns for cardiovascular or respiratory adverse events. Its safety profile regarding coughing, nausea or vomiting, and emergence delirium was also similar to that of other drugs. The overall evidence suggests that propofol sedation for paediatric procedures should be considered more positively in the context of regulatory decisions.

Haloperidol-Induced Dystonia due to Sedation for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Pediatric Case Report

Dystonia is a movement disorder characterized by sustained muscle tone. Antipsychotic agents sometimes cause acute dystonia that can rapidly worsen within a few hours or days. Because healthy children rarely receive antipsychotic agents, it is unusual to see antipsychotic agent-induced dystonia in pediatric emergency departments. We report a rare case of a 12-year-old healthy boy who presented with acute dystonia after administration of haloperidol for sedation. He was suspected of laryngeal dystonia because stridor and desaturation were present. The symptoms disappeared with the administration of hydroxyzine. Rapid diagnosis was important in this case because laryngeal dystonia is a potential life-threatening complication due to upper airway obstruction. Considering the risk of side effects, doctors who are not accustomed to administering pediatric anesthesia should consult a pediatrician and/or an anesthesiologist prior to administration of anesthetics to pediatric patients.

Propofol Sedation by Pediatric Gastroenterologists for Endoscopic Procedures: A Retrospective Analysis

Background: There is a substantial literature on the favorable outcome of propofol administration by non-anesthesiologists for endoscopy in adults; however, very few data are currently available on propofol sedation by pediatric gastroenterologists. Aims: to evaluate the safety of propofol sedation by pediatric gastroenterologists. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all children who were sedated by pediatric gastroenterologists in three Northern Israeli hospitals over a 4 years period Demographic and medical characteristics and any data regarding the procedure were extracted from patient's records. The main outcome measurements were procedure completion and reported adverse events. Results: Overall, 1,214 endoscopic procedures for were performed during this period. Complete data was available for 1,190 procedures. All children sedated by pediatric gastroenterologists were classified as ASA I or II. Propofol dosage (in mg/kg) inversely correlated with patient age. The younger the child the higher the dose needed to reach a satisfactory level of sedation (r = -0.397, p < 0.001). The addition of fentanyl significantly decreased propofol dosage needed to provide optimal sedation, p < 0.001. Nine (0.7%) reversible adverse events were reported. All the procedures were successfully completed and all patients were discharged home. Conclusions: We conclude that our approach is safe in children as it is in adults and can be implemented for children with ASA I, II.

Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Sedation in Pediatric Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has become an established diagnostic and therapeutic modality in pediatric gastroenterology. Effective sedation strategies have been adopted to improve patient tolerance during pediatric EGD. For children, safety is a fundamental consideration during this procedure as they are at a higher risk of severe adverse events from procedural sedation compared to adults. Therefore, a detailed risk evaluation is required prior to the procedure, and practitioners should be aware of the benefits and risks associated with sedation regimens during pediatric EGD. In addition, pediatric advanced life support by endoscopists or immediate intervention by anesthesiologists should be available in the event that severe adverse events occur during pediatric EGD.

A comparison of sedation with midazolam-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl during endoscopy in children: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam plus ketamine versus fentanyl plus propofol combination administered to children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) and to determine the most appropriate sedation protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-blind study included patients between the ages of 4 and 17 years who underwent UGE for diagnostic purposes. Patients were divided randomly into groups A (midazolam-ketamine combination, n=119) and B (fentanyl plus propofol combination, n=119). The effectiveness of the sedation and complications during the procedure and recovery period were recorded.

RESULTS

The processes started without an additional dose of the drug for 118 patients (99.1%) in group A and for 101 patients (84.8%) in group B (P=0.001). The average dose of ketamine administered to the patients in group A was 1.03±0.15 mg/kg and the average dose of propofol administered to the patients in group B was 1.46±0.55 mg/kg. None of the patients stopped the endoscopic procedure in group A, but one patient (0.8%) had to discontinue the endoscopic procedure in group B. 27 patients in group A (22.7%) and 41 patients (34.5%) in group B developed complications during the procedure (P=0.044). The rate of complications during the recovery of group A (110 patients, 92.4%) was significantly higher than that in group B (48 patients, 40.3%) (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

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

Sedation and Monitoring in the Pediatric Patient during Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

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

Pain Relief for Children after Adenotonsillectomy

Effective pain relief following adenotonsillectomy in children remains a challenge. This study evaluated the effects of intramuscular 0.5 mg/kg ketamine, 1 mg/kg tramadol or 1 mg/kg meperidine on post-operative pain and recovery in 45 children aged 1-7 years undergoing adenotonsillectomy. Anaesthesia was induced with thiopental or sevoflurane (with succinylcholine for intubation) and was maintained with sevoflurane in oxygen and nitrous oxide. Post-operative pain was scored blind using a modified Toddler–Preschooler Post-Operative Pain Scale 30, 60, 120 and 240 min after tracheal extubation. Post-operative agitation scores were also recorded. Mean post-operative pain score was significantly higher in the tramadol-treated group compared with the meperidine-treated group 120 min after extubation. At all other time-points after extubation, mean post-operative pain scores were similar for the three treatment groups. Ketamine was associated with a significantly higher mean agitation score compared with tramadol and meperidine. We conclude that the effects of ketamine, meperidine and tramadol on post-operative pain following adenotonsillectomy in children were similar.

Propofol versus Midazolam for Sedation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children

Background/Aims

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of 62 children who underwent ambulatory diagnostic EGD during 1-year period. Data were collected from 34 consecutive patients receiving propofol alone. Twenty-eight consecutive patients who received sedation with midazolam served as a comparison group. Outcome variables were length of procedure, time to recovery and need for additional supportive measures.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, weight, sex, and the length of endoscopic procedure. The recovery time from sedation was markedly shorter in propofol group (30±16.41 minutes) compared with midazolam group (58.89±17.32 minutes; p<0.0001). During and after the procedure the mean heart rate was increased in midazolam group (133.04±19.92 and 97.82±16.7) compared with propofol group (110.26±20.14 and 83.26±12.33; p<0.0001). There was no localized pain during sedative administration in midazolam group, though six patients had localized pain during administration of propofol (p<0.028). There was no serious major complication associated with any of the 62 procedures.

Conclusions

Intravenous administered propofol provides faster recovery time and similarly safe sedation compared with midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Safe and effective procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess, by a review of published evidence, the safest and most effective way to provide procedural sedation (PS) in children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE).

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were used. Search terms "endoscopy, gastrointestinal" or "endoscopy, digestive system" were combined with "sedation," "conscious sedation," "moderate sedation," "deep sedation," and "hypnotics and sedatives." The final review was restricted to studies reporting specifically on safety (incidences of adverse events) and/or effectiveness (time characteristics, need for supplemental sedation, need for restraint, procedural success, provider satisfaction, and patient comfort) of PS for GIE in children younger than 18 years.

RESULTS

The search yielded 182 references and the final selection included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 non-RCTs. Six sedation categories were identified: propofol, opioid/benzodiazepine, premedication, ketamine-, sevoflurane-, and midazolam-based. Only a few RCTs have compared different categories. Opioid/benzodiazepine- and propofol-based PS have a similar safety profile and a low incidence of major adverse events. Propofol-based sedation turned out to be the most effective regimen, with effectiveness comparable to general anesthesia. The addition of midazolam, fentanyl, remifentanil, and/or ketamine to propofol may increase the effectiveness without creating more adverse events. Data on midazolam-, ketamine- and sevoflurane-based sedation were generally too limited to draw conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a lack of RCTs containing all aspects of effectiveness and safety, the present evidence indicates propofol-based PS to be the best practice for PS in children undergoing GIE. Propofol can be safely administered by specifically trained nonanesthesiologists.

Procedural sedation analgesia

The number of noninvasive and minimally invasive procedures performed outside of the operating room has grown exponentially over the last several decades.Sedation, analgesia, or both may be needed for many of these interventional or diagnostic procedures. Individualized care is important when determining if a patient requires procedural sedation analgesia (PSA). The patient might need an anti-anxiety drug, pain medicine, immobilization, simple reassurance, or a combination of these interventions. The goals of PSA in four different multidisciplinary practices namely; emergency, dentistry, radiology and gastrointestinal endoscopy are discussed in this review article. Some procedures are painful, others painless. Therefore, goals of PSA vary widely. Sedation management can range from minimal sedation, to the extent of minimal anesthesia. Procedural sedation in emergency department (ED) usually requires combinations of multiple agents to reach desired effects of analgesia plus anxiolysis. However, in dental practice, moderate sedation analgesia (known to the dentists as conscious sedation) is usually what is required. It is usually most effective with the combined use of local anesthesia. The mainstay of success for painless imaging is absolute immobility. Immobility can be achieved by deep sedation or minimal anesthesia. On the other hand, moderate sedation, deep sedation, minimal anesthesia and conventional general anesthesia can be all utilized for management of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound for evaluating gastrointestinal tract disorders in pediatrics: a tertiary care center experience

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration (FNA) has a well-established role in the evaluation of various gastrointestinal (GI) tract disorders in adults. The clinical impact of EUS on the management of the pediatric population remains less clear. This study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and applications of EUS ± FNA in pediatric GI tract disorders.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a prospectively maintained EUS database, all patients 18 years of age or younger referred for EUS at our institution were identified. Retrospective chart review was conducted to document procedure indications, type of anesthesia used, EUS findings, final FNA cytology results, and clinical impact of EUS ± FNA on the subsequent management of pediatric patients.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight EUS procedures were performed in 56 patients (35 girls). Median age was 16 years (range 4-18 years). The main indications for EUS were acute or recurrent pancreatitis, abdominal pain of suspected pancreatobiliary origin, suspected biliary obstruction, upper GI mucosal/submucosal lesions, and evaluation of pancreatic abnormalities seen on prior imaging. Sedation used included nurse-administered propofol sedation in 38 (73%), general anesthesia in 9 (17%), and fentanyl with meperidine in 3 (6%). Five therapeutic procedures performed included celiac plexus blocks in 4 and 1 EUS-guided pancreatogram. In 44 (86%) patients, EUS provided a new diagnosis. The procedure was successfully completed in all patients with no reported complications.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS ± FNA is feasible and safe and makes a significant impact on most pediatric patients. Nurse-administered propofol sedation appears to be safe and well tolerated in this group.

Remifentanil versus fentanyl for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children

OBJECTIVES

We compared sedation by propofol combined with either fentanyl or remifentanil in pediatric outpatients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-two children scheduled for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in our institution were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg/kg propofol plus either 1 μg/kg bolus of fentanyl (group F; n = 20) or 0.5 μg/kg bolus of remifentanil (group R; n = 22). Cardiorespiratory parameters, sedation level, adverse effects related to the drugs and/or to the procedure, ease of performance for the endoscopist, and time to awakening were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no clinically significant changes in hemodynamics. Apnea periods >20 seconds and decreases in SaO2 <90% occurred more frequently in group R (31.8% vs 0%, P < 0.01, and 27.3% vs 5.0%, P > 0.05, respectively). Children in group R had significantly shorter average time to awakening: 9.5 ± 5.6 vs 16.5 ± 10.5 minutes (P = 0.01), and received a significantly lower total dose of propofol (P = 0.034). Adverse effects within the first 24 hours postprocedure occurred less frequently in group R (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil in combination with propofol provides good analgesic and sedative effects, which were shorter lasting compared with fentanyl-based sedation, and caused fewer delayed adverse effects. The use of remifentanil was associated with respiratory depression, emphasizing the need for experienced anesthesiologists.

A literature review of the safety and efficacy of using propofol for sedation in endoscopy

A 2007 survey of members of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates identified a need for more evidence regarding sedation medications including propofol. Therefore, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Randomized Clinical Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse (http://www.guideline.gov) databases were individually searched using the term propofol, limited to human, English, 2000-2009, review articles, and randomized clinical trials. A total of 46 resources contributed to this review, with emphasis on 16 studies ranging from retrospective chart reviews to double-blind, randomized controlled trials. Nonanesthesia personnel-administered propofol, including that administered by specially trained nurses under the supervision of an endoscopist, appears to be safe with minor, easily resolved, adverse events occurring in less than 1% of patients. These minor adverse events included four studies reporting hypoxemia requiring occasional intervention, three studies reporting hypotension, and two studies reporting bradycardia. No patients required tracheal intubation, and no deaths were reported.

Professional skills and competence for safe and effective procedural sedation in children: recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature

Objectives. To investigate which skills and competence are imperative to assure optimal effectiveness and safety of procedural sedation (PS) in children and to analyze the underlying levels of evidence. Study Design and methods. Systematic review of literature published between 1993 and March 2009. Selected papers were classified according to their methodological quality and summarized in evidence-based conclusions. Next, conclusions were used to formulate recommendations. Results. Although the safety profiles vary among PS drugs, the possibility of potentially serious adverse events and the predictability of depth and duration of sedation define the imperative skills and competence necessary for a timely recognition and appropriate management. The level of effectiveness is mainly determined by the ability to apply titratable PS, including deep sedation using short-acting anesthetics for invasive procedures and nitrous oxide for minor painful procedures, and the implementation of non-pharmacological techniques. Conclusions. PS related safety and effectiveness are determined by the circumstances and professional skills rather than by specific pharmacologic characteristics. Evidence based recommendations regarding necessary skills and competence should be used to set up training programs and to define which professionals can and cannot be credentialed for PS in children.

Avaliação da lidocaína tópica como pré-medicação para a endoscopia digestiva alta em crianças

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia da lidocaína spray tópica como droga adjuvante na sedação e analgesia de crianças e adolescentes para endoscopia digestiva. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídos 80 pacientes (49 femininos e 31 masculinos, idade média 12±3 anos), 40 no grupo placebo e 40 no grupo lidocaína. Os pacientes foram alocados aleatoriamente e um paciente de cada grupo foi excluído. Lidocaína a 10% ou placebo (ácido tânico 0,5%) aerossol (dois jatos) foram aplicados na orofaringe antes da infusão de propofol. Os pacientes foram monitorizados durante o procedimento e após, sendo respondido questionário para avaliar odinofagia e a pré-medicação. O desfecho primário foi a dose de propofol empregada, enquanto os desfechos secundários foram incidência de complicações, tempo de sala e duração do procedimento. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferenças entre os grupos quanto à idade, sexo e indicação da endoscopia. A dose de propofol empregada não foi diferente nos dois grupos (grupo placebo 3,1±1,1 e grupo lidocaína 2,9±1,3mg/kg; p=0,69), mesmo quando considerada a dose bruta (p=0,33). No entanto, o tempo de sala médio foi maior no grupo placebo do que no lidocaína (23±7 versus 20±5 minutos; IC95% da diferença: 0,47-5,89 minutos, p=0,02). Não houve diferenças entre os grupos quanto à duração do procedimento, incidência de complicações e aceitação pelo paciente. CONCLUSÕES: O emprego de medicação tópica anestésica em endoscopia reduz o tempo de sala sem aumentar a incidência de efeitos adversos (NCT00521703).

Determination of the pharmacodynamic interaction of propofol and dexmedetomidine during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children

OBJECTIVES

Propofol is a sedative-hypnotic drug commonly used to anesthetize children undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist that has been utilized in combination with propofol to provide anesthesia. There is currently no information regarding the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine on the propofol plasma concentration-response relationship during EGD in children. This study aimed to investigate the pharmacodynamic interaction of propofol and dexmedetomidine when used in combination for children undergoing EGD.

METHODS

A total of 24 children undergoing EGD, ages 3-10 years, were enrolled in this study. Twelve children received dexmedetomidine 1 microg x kg(-1) given over 10 min as well as a continuous infusion of propofol delivered by a computer-assisted target-controlled infusion (TCI) system with target plasma concentrations ranging from 2.8 to 4.0 microg x ml(-1) (DEX group). Another group of 12 children undergoing EGD also received propofol administered by TCI targeting comparable plasma concentrations without dexmedetomidine (control group). We used logistic regression to predict plasma propofol concentrations at which 50% of the patients exhibited minimal response to stimuli (EC50 for anesthesia).

RESULTS

The EC50 +/- SE values in the control and DEX groups were 3.7 +/- 0.4 microg x ml(-1) and 3.5 +/- 0.2 microg x ml(-1), respectively. There was no significant shift in the propofol concentration-response curve in the presence of dexmedetomidine.

CONCLUSION

The EC50 of propofol required to produce adequate anesthesia for EGD in children was unaffected by a concomitant infusion of dexmedetomidine 1 microg x kg(-1) given over 10 min.

Endoscopic sedation in pediatric practice

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

Monitored anesthesia care with propofol versus surgeon-monitored sedation with benzodiazepines and narcotics for preoperative endoscopy in the morbidly obese

BACKGROUND

Although still controversial, upper endoscopy is frequently performed before bariatric surgery. This study investigated the hypothesis that morbidly obese patients would prefer anesthesiologist-monitored sedation (AMS) compared to surgeon-monitored sedation (SMS) during preoperative endoscopy.

METHODS

All patients who underwent endoscopy before their bariatric surgery were given a post-procedure survey regarding their experience with the preoperative endoscopy. The survey inquired about issues during and after the procedure. We compared patients who had AMS with IV propofol versus SMS IV narcotics and benzodiazepines.

RESULTS

There were 100 patients (SMS=49 and AMS=51). Few patients complained of pain in the abdomen or throat during the procedure (AMS vs. SMS=2 vs. 8% and 2 vs. 10%, respectively; p=NS). More patients complained about throat pain after the procedure (AMS vs. SMS=37 vs. 45%; p=NS). More patients in the SMS group remembered the scope being placed in the mouth versus AMS (33 vs. 10%; p<0.02). More patients remembered gagging during the procedure in the SMS group versus the AMS group, but this did not reach statistical significance (24 vs. 10%; p=0.06). There was a trend that more patients in the AMS group felt they recovered in less than 1 h (53%) compared to the SMS group (37%; p=0.1).

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo upper endoscopy with either AMS or SMS seem to tolerate the procedure well. The preliminary benefits seen with AMS need to be further explored. AMS should be considered for patients undergoing preoperative upper endoscopy before bariatric surgery.

Efficiency of propofol versus midazolam and fentanyl sedation at a pediatric teaching hospital: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Many pediatric endoscopists are adopting propofol in their practices, with the expectation that propofol will increase their overall efficiency.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

To compare the efficiency of propofol versus midazolam and fentanyl by measuring elapsed times between initial intravenous administration and patient discharge at a pediatric teaching hospital.

DESIGN

Endoscopy times were prospectively collected for consecutive patients who were undergoing either anesthesiologist-administered propofol or endoscopist-administered midazolam and fentanyl. The effect of the type of sedation on these times was assessed by using multiple linear regression by adjusting for other candidate predictors, including concomitant use of other sedatives, endotracheal intubation by anesthesiologists, and the presence of fellow trainees.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Time to onset of sedation (time sedation started to scope in), procedure time (endoscope in to endoscope out), discharge time (endoscope out to hospital discharge), and total time (sedation started to hospital discharge).

RESULTS

The times for 134 children (mean age 12 +/- 5 years) to receive propofol sedation were compared with those of 195 children (13 +/- 5 years) who received midazolam and fentanyl. Midazolam and fentanyl cases disproportionately included EGDs (P < .001) and patients who were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists I (P < .03). Patients who received propofol had shorter times until sedated, similar procedure times, longer discharge times, and comparable total times. Multivariate analyses confirmed that fellow participation prolonged the procedure times (P < .0001), and endotracheal intubation prolonged propofol times (P <. 01), but adjusting for these did not change the comparison results.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in a pediatric teaching endoscopy unit may not lead to faster hospital times when compared with endoscopist-administered midazolam and fentanyl. These results are not explained by controlling for patient characteristics, the presence of a trainee, the sedative doses, or endotracheal intubation for airway management.

Propofol-ketamine vs propofol-fentanyl for sedation during pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of propofol-ketamine with propofol-fentanyl in pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double blinded comparison of propofol-ketamine with propofol-fentanyl for sedation in patients undergoing elective UGIE. Ninety ASA I-II, aged 1 to 16-year-old patients were included in the study. Heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate (RR) and Ramsey sedation scores of all patients were recorded perioperatively. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either propofol-ketamine (PK; n = 46) or propofol-fentanyl (PF; n = 44). PK group received 1 mg x kg(-1) ketamine + 1.2 mg x kg(-1) propofol, and PF group received 1 microg x kg(-1) fentanyl + 1.2 mg x kg(-1) propofol for sedation induction. Additional propofol (0.5-1 mg x kg(-1)) was administered when a patient showed discomfort in either group.

RESULTS

The number of patients who needed additional propofol in the first minute after sedation induction was eight in Group PK (17%), and 22 in Group PF (50%) (P < 0.01) and those who did not need additional propofol throughout the endoscopy were 14 in Group PK (30%) and three in Group PF (7%) (P < 0.01). HR and RR values after induction in Group PF were significantly lower than Group PK (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Both PK and PF combinations provided effective sedation in pediatric patients undergoing UGIE, but the PK combination resulted in stable hemodynamics and deeper sedation though more side effects.

Safety of intravenous midazolam and fentanyl for pediatric GI endoscopy: prospective study of 1578 endoscopies

BACKGROUND

Data on safety of intravenous sedation in pediatric GI endoscopy are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety of intravenous sedation for GI endoscopy.

DESIGN/SETTING

Single-center prospective series of outpatient GI endoscopies performed from February 2003 to February 2004 at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The recorded information included demographic, medication, and adverse event data.

PATIENTS

A total of 1226 patients were studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Description of adverse events relating to intravenous sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 2635 endoscopies were performed, of which 1717 were outpatient procedures with the patient under intravenous sedation. Sedation data were available on 1578 procedures (92%, M/F 674/552): 758 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) alone, 116 colonoscopies (COL) alone, and 352 combined EGD and COL. The median dose of fentanyl was 2.77 microg/kg (SD 0.97, range 0-6.73), and of midazolam was 0.11 mg/kg (SD 0.06, range 0-0.39). The mean recovery time was 118 minutes (SD 47.3, range 31-375). Ten patients (0.8%) failed intravenous sedation. Serious adverse events (apnea) were noted in 2 patients (0.2%). Mild or moderate adverse events included desaturation below 92% for less than 20 seconds (100 patients, 9%), vomiting (64 patients, 5%), agitation (15 patients, 1%), desaturation below 92% for greater than 20 seconds (12 patients, 0.7%), and rash (8 patients, 0.7%). No cardiopulmonary resuscitation or sedation reversal was necessary. No patients required hospitalization. Patients younger than 6 years were more likely to develop respiratory adverse event (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous sedation with midazolam and fentanyl is safe for pediatric GI endoscopy. Serious adverse events are rare and no patient required hospitalization.

Patient-reported symptoms after pediatric outpatient colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy under general anesthesia

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic examination of the colon is indicated in children with diarrhea, hematochezia and suspected inflammatory bowel disease. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of patient-reported symptoms after colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy under general anesthesia in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study included patients 18 years of age and younger who underwent colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy during a 1-year period. At least 30 days after the endoscopy, an interview was conducted regarding symptoms after colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight children were eligible, and 68 (77%) were available for follow-up. Ten (15%) reported symptoms after their endoscopy. The most common symptoms reported were diarrhea, excessive gas and sore throat. The frequency of reported symptoms was similar between colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. The frequency of symptoms was not affected by intubation of terminal ileum, polypectomy or the number of prior colonoscopies or flexible sigmoidoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy under general anesthesia are well tolerated by children. A minority of children reports mild symptoms that spontaneously resolve.

Propofol for Sedation in the Endoscopy Setting

Intravenous sedation is routinely administered for endoscopic examinations to help alleviate patient anxiety and discomfort. The goal of moderate sedation is to provide patient comfort to facilitate the completion of the procedure. Nurse administration of intravenous meperidine and midazolam under the direct supervision of the gastroenterologist is the traditional method for achieving this outcome. More recently, physicians have been requesting monitored anesthesia care for the administration of propofol when performing procedures expected to be technically difficult. Propofol is a rapid acting sedative-hypnotic that produces the desired level of consciousness without the residual sedative effect that often persists with the use of benzodiazepines and analgesics. This article reviews current literature regarding the use of propofol for sedation of patients in the endoscopy setting, and highlights the trends in research that may impact future nursing practice.

Comparison of fentanyl versus meperidine for analgesia in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy

This study compared the safety and efficacy of fentanyl and meperidine for analgesia in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy. In a double-blind, randomized trial, 24 patients (11 males) received either fentanyl (1 microg/kg) or meperidine (1 mg/kg). These analgesics were administered in unmarked syringes by an investigator who did not participate in the procedure or in the evaluation of the patient's sedation. There were 17 Caucasians and 7 African-Americans whose mean age was 10.4 +/- 4.4 years. Thirteen patients received meperidine and 11 received fentanyl. Midazolam was given to all patients as needed to provide sufficient sedation for the procedure. Study subjects underwent EGD (n = 17) or colonoscopy (n = 7). There were no differences as assessed by patient, endoscopist, or assistant for tolerance, discomfort, procedure ease, recovery time, complications, heart rate, blood pressure, or oxygen saturation. We conclude that meperidine and fentanyl are equally effective in providing analgesia for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.