The current status of procedural sedation for pediatric patients in out-of-operating room locations. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2012;25:453-460. [PMID: 22732423 DOI: 10.1097/aco.0b013e32835562d8]

Deep Sedation in Pediatric Patients With Single Ventricle Physiology Outside of the Operating Room

Background: Advancements in palliative surgery of patients with single ventricle physiology have led to an increase in the need for deep sedation protocols for painful procedures. However, positive pressure ventilation during anesthesia can result in unfavorable cardiopulmonary interactions. This patient population may benefit from sedation from these painful procedures. Methods: This study aims to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of deep sedation by pediatric intensivists outside the operating room for children with single ventricle physiology. This is a single-center, retrospective chart review on consecutive pediatric patients with single ventricle physiology who received deep sedation performed by pediatric intensivists between 2013 and 2020. Results: Thirty-three sedations were performed on 27 unique patients. The median age was 3.7 years (25th%-75th%: 2.1-15.6). The majority of the sedations, 88% (29/33), were done on children with Fontan physiology and 12% (4/33) were status-post superior cavopulmonary anastomosis. The primary cardiac defect was hypoplastic left heart in 63% (17/27) of all sedation procedures. There were 24 chest tube placements and 9 cardioversions. Ketamine alone [median dose 1.5 mg/kg (range 0.8-3.7)], ketamine [median dose 1 mg/kg (range 0.1-2.1)] with propofol [median dose 2.3 mg/kg (range 0.7-3.8)], and ketamine [median dose 1.5 mg/kg (range 0.4-3.0)] with morphine [median dose 0.06 mg/kg (range 0.03-0.20)] were the most common sedation regimens used. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 4 patients (15%), three of which were transient AEs. All sedation encounters were successfully completed. Conclusion: Procedural deep sedation can be safely and effectively administered to single ventricle patients by intensivist-led sedation teams in selective case.

Sedoanalgesia in the Debridement of Pediatric Burns in the Emergency Department: Is It Effective and Safe?

BACKGROUND

The routine use of sedoanalgesia has increased the number of potential minor surgical procedures that can be performed in the Emergency Department (ED) without requiring general anesthesia and, thus, hospital admission. Our aim is to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the use of sedoanalgesia in childhood burns treated in the ED.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in burned children in whom burn debridement was performed under sedoanalgesia in the ED between 2017 and 2021 in a tertiary referral center for burns. We collected demographic variables, burn features and the type of sedoanalgesia performed in each case, including its effectiveness and associated adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 227 patients (118 males, 109 females) were included, with a median age of 25 months. In total, 99.2% of the burns were thermal (69.2% scald burns), with a mean total body surface area (TBSA) burned of 4%. The most commonly used drugs were intravenous ketamine (35.7%), intravenous ketamine + midazolam (15.4%), intranasal fentanyl + midazolam (14.1%) and intranasal fentanyl (10.6%). The effectiveness of sedoanalgesia was considered satisfactory in 95.2% of the cases, with an adverse effect rate of 7.5%, without severe adverse effects reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedoanalgesia in the ED in the early treatment of childhood burns achieves high effectiveness and safety. It is postulated as a quality indicator; thus, it should be known by all pediatric healthcare practitioners.

Delayed Adverse Events after Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Background and objectives: Procedural sedation for bone marrow examination (BME) and intrathecal chemotherapy (ITC) is necessary for pediatric patients with hematological malignancies. There has been no report on adverse events after discharge from the recovery room. This retrospective study evaluated the types and incidences of delayed adverse events among pediatric patients scheduled for BME or ITC under deep sedation in a single center for 3 years. Materials and Methods: The patients were divided into two groups: inpatients (group I) and outpatients (group O). All patients were managed during the procedures and the recovery period. In total, 10 adverse events were assessed; these occurred 2 h (T1, acute), 12 h (T2, early), and 24 h (T3, delayed) after the procedure. The duration of each adverse event was also recorded and was classified as 2 h (D1), 12 h (D2), or 24 h (D3). The data of 263 patients (147 inpatients and 116 outpatients) who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Results: The overall incidence of adverse events was statistically significant difference: 48.3% in group I and 33.6% in group O (p = 0.011). The rates of adverse events at T1 and T2 were significantly different between groups I and O (42.8% vs. 11.2% and 7.5% vs. 20.7%, respectively) (p < 0.001). The adverse events were mostly of D1 or D2 duration in both groups. Patients with a higher proportion of ketamine in a propofol−ketamine mixture had a significantly higher proportion of adverse events at T1 (34.6%), as compared with those with a mixture with a lower proportion of ketamine (21.1%) or propofol alone (17.9%) (p = 0.012). Conclusions: The most common adverse events were dizziness or headache; typically, they did not last longer than 12 h. The propofol-ketamine combination with a higher proportion of ketamine seems to produce more adverse events within 2 h after the procedure. Nevertheless, all sedative types appear safe to use without additional management.

Evaluation of pediatric procedural sedation education in pediatric emergency medicine fellowships

ABSTRACT

Pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) is often performed outside of the operating room, and by various sub-specialty providers. There is no consistency in how pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows are trained in PPS. The objective of this study was to survey PEM program directors (PDs) and PEM fellows about their current sedation teaching practices via a direct survey. While many fellowship programs train PEM fellows in PPS, we hypothesize that there is no consistent method of developing and measuring this skill.A 12-question survey was sent to PEM PDs directly via email. A separate 17-question survey was sent to current PEM fellows via their program coordinators by email. Each survey had multiple choice, yes-no and select-all program questions. Responses were collected in an online (REDCap) database and summarized as frequencies and percentages.Based on identifiable email, 67 programs were contacted, with a PD response rate of 46 (59%). Sixty-two program coordinators were contacted based on identifiable email with 78 fellow responses. We noted that 11/46 PD respondents offer a formal PPS rotation. Thirty programs report using propofol in the emergency department and 93% of PD respondents (28/30) actively train fellows in the use of propofol. Approximately 62% of PEM fellow respondents (48/78) report sedating without any attending oversight. Twenty-eight percent of PEM fellow respondents report using simulation as a component of their sedation training.PPS is a critical skill. However, there is a lack of consistency in both education and evaluation of competency in this area. An organized PPS rotation would improve PPS case exposure and PPS skills.

Pediatric Deep Sedation for Ophthalmology Procedures in an Outpatient Setting, Risk Evaluation

Background:

Pediatric deep sedation (PDS) performed by a dedicated pediatric sedation service has been found to be safe, convenient, and efficient for minor procedures. Major complications such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, and death are rare. However, minor complications such as desaturation, apnea, suctioning, or laryngospasm can occur infrequently. To date, little data exist evaluating PDS use for minor ophthalmology procedures.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of complications for subjects receiving PDS for minor ophthalmology procedures.

Setting:

Pediatric children's hospital sedation service.

Materials and Methods:

This was a review of a prospectively collected database between 2018 and 2020. A hundred and thirty-four subjects aged 0–18 years, who underwent PDS for minor ophthalmology procedures, were compared to 1119 subjects who received PDS for other procedures (e.g., lumbar puncture, bone marrow aspirate/biopsy, and Botox).

Statistical Analysis:

SAS software, version 9.4, was used to determine variables associated with deep sedation that were predictive of complications. A multiple logistic regression procedure was conducted. Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level.

Results:

Subjects receiving PDS for ophthalmology procedures had a higher rate of minor complications than the control group (n = 18, 13.4%, vs. n = 58, 5.7%; P < 0001). No major complications occurred in any of the studied subjects. The ophthalmology group had a higher rate of bag-mask ventilation, airway positioning, and suctioning.

Conclusions:

Ophthalmology procedures using PDS have a greater occurrence of minor complications compared to other painful procedures. No major complications were noted in either group, providing evidence that PDS can be performed safely for ophthalmology procedures using the sedation team model.

Adjuvant lidocaine to a propofol-ketamine-based sedation regimen for bone marrow aspirates and biopsy in the pediatric population

Pediatric patients with hematological malignancies repeatedly undergo painful bone marrow aspirates and biopsies (BMABs) in routine care. No standard sedation regimen has been established. This study evaluated the addition of injected local lidocaine to a propofol-ketamine sedation for BMAB and its effects on propofol dosing, safety, and efficacy. A retrospective analysis of children undergoing BMAB with propofol-ketamine with (PK+L) and without (PK-only) the injection of local lidocaine. Patients were matched through propensity probability scores. To measure efficacy, dosing, procedure length, and recovery time were evaluated. To assess safety, adverse and serious events were recorded. As an indirect measurement of analgesia, changes in heart rate and blood pressure were analyzed. Of the 420 encounters included, 188 matched pairs (376 patients) were analyzed. Patient demographics were comparable. The median dose of propofol was not significantly different between both groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar. There were no significant differences in the changes in heart rate and blood pressure with sedation between groups.Conclusion: This study suggests that the addition of local lidocaine injection to a propofol-ketamine sedation for BMAB pediatric patients does not affect the propofol dose, safety, or efficacy properties of the regimen. What is Known: •Although propofol is commonly used, there is no standard sedation regimen for pediatric patients undergoing bone marrow aspiration and biopsy. •Local lidocaine is used in analgesia in the adults undergoing the same procedure. What is New: •Local lidocaine adjuvant to propofol-ketamine sedation does not affect propofol dosing, the safety of efficacy properties of the regimen in the pediatric population.

Adaptive randomised controlled non-inferiority multicentre trial (the Ketodex Trial) on intranasal dexmedetomidine plus ketamine for procedural sedation in children: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Up to 40% of orthopaedic injuries in children require a closed reduction, almost always necessitating procedural sedation. Intravenous ketamine is the most commonly used sedative agent. However, intravenous insertion is painful and can be technically difficult in children. We hypothesise that a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus intranasal ketamine (Ketodex) will be non-inferior to intravenous ketamine for effective sedation in children undergoing a closed reduction.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a six-centre, four-arm, adaptive, randomised, blinded, controlled, non-inferiority trial. We will include children 4-17 years with a simple upper limb fracture or dislocation that requires sedation for a closed reduction. Participants will be randomised to receive either intranasal Ketodex (one of three dexmedetomidine and ketamine combinations) or intravenous ketamine. The primary outcome is adequate sedation as measured using the Paediatric Sedation State Scale. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, time to wakening and adverse effects. The results of both per protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be reported for the primary outcome. All inferential analyses will be undertaken using a response-adaptive Bayesian design. Logistic regression will be used to model the dose-response relationship for the combinations of intranasal Ketodex. Using the Average Length Criterion for Bayesian sample size estimation, a survey-informed non-inferiority margin of 17.8% and priors from historical data, a sample size of 410 participants will be required. Simulations estimate a type II error rate of 0.08 and a type I error rate of 0.047.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from Clinical Trials Ontario for London Health Sciences Centre and McMaster Research Ethics Board. Other sites have yet to receive approval from their institutions. Informed consent will be obtained from guardians of all participants in addition to assent from participants. Study data will be submitted for publication regardless of results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT0419525.

Pediatric Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: Safety and Systems

Anesthesia care performed outside the operating room is a growing area of pediatric anesthesia practice. The anesthesiology team expects to care for children in diverse locations, which include diagnostic and interventional radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary endoscopy suites, radiation oncology sites, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory. To provide safe, high-quality care the anesthesiologist working in these environments must understand the unique environmental, logistical, and perioperative considerations and risks involved with each remote location. This 2-part review provides an overview of safety and system considerations in pediatric nonoperating room anesthesia before describing in more detail considerations for particular remote anesthetizing locations.

Incidence and predictors of respiratory adverse events in children undergoing procedural sedation with intramuscular ketamine in a paediatric emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Although ketamine is one of the commonest medications used in procedural sedation of children, to our knowledge, there is currently no published report on predictors of respiratory adverse events during ketamine sedation in Asian children. We aimed to determine the incidence of and factors associated with respiratory adverse events in children undergoing procedural sedation with intramuscular (IM) ketamine in a paediatric emergency department (ED) in Singapore.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was done of all children who underwent procedural sedation with IM ketamine in the paediatric ED between 1 April 2013 and 31 October 2017. Demographics and epidemiological data, including any adverse events and interventions, were extracted electronically from the prospective paediatric sedation database. The site of procedure was determined through reviewing medical records. Descriptive statistics were used for incidence and baseline characteristics. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors.

RESULTS

Among 5,476 children, 102 (1.9%) developed respiratory adverse events. None required intubation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Only one required bag-valve-mask ventilation. The incidence rate was higher in children aged < 3 years, at 3.6% compared to 1.0% in older children (odds ratio [OR] 3.524, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.354-5.276; p < 0.001). Higher initial ketamine dose (adjusted OR 2.061, 95% CI 1.371-3.100; p = 0.001) and type of procedure (adjusted OR 0.190 (95% CI 0.038-0.953; p = 0.044) were significant independent predictors.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of respiratory adverse events was 1.9%. Age, initial dose of IM ketamine and type of procedure were significant predictors.

Trends in Outpatient Procedural Sedation: 2007-2018

BACKGROUND

Pediatric subspecialists routinely provide procedural sedation outside the operating room. No large study has reported trends in outpatient pediatric procedural sedation. Our purpose in this study was to identify significant trends in outpatient procedural sedation using the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 2007 to 2018 were used for trending procedural sedation. Patient characteristics, medications, type of providers, serious adverse events, and interventions were reported. The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to explore the association between the year and a given characteristic.

RESULTS

A total of 432 842 sedation encounters were identified and divided into 3 4-year epochs (2007-2011, 2011-2014, and 2014-2018). There was a significant decrease in infants <3 months of age receiving procedural sedation (odds ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.98). A large increase was noticed in pediatric hospitalists providing procedural sedation (0.6%-9.5%; P < .001); there was a decreasing trend in sedation by other providers who were not in emergency medicine, critical care, or anesthesiology (13.9%-3.9%; P < .001). There was an increasing trend in the use of dexmedetomidine (6.3%-9.3%; P < .001) and a decreasing trend in the use of chloral hydrate (6.3%-0.01%; P < .001) and pentobarbital (7.3%-0.5%; P < .001). Serious adverse events showed a nonsignificant increase overall (1.35%-1.75%).

CONCLUSIONS

We report an increase in pediatric hospitalists providing sedation and a significant decrease in the use of chloral hydrate and pentobarbital by providers. Further studies are required to see if sedation services decrease costs and optimize resource use.

Analgosedation for diagnostic and interventional procedures: a countrywide survey of pediatric centers in Germany

Background

As more and more diagnostic and interventional options are becoming available for use in pediatric patients, techniques of procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) are being administered in considerably growing numbers as well.

Aims

The objective of this research effort was to conduct the first countrywide survey on the status quo of sedation analgesia as delivered to children and adolescents in Germany.

Methods

We dispatched letters to all pediatric hospital settings in Germany (n = 305), including a questionnaire that had been developed with existing guidelines taken into account. Its items were designed to elucidate the current practice of PSA throughout these pediatric centers regarding (a) organizational structures and (b) standards of medication and staffing.

Results

A total of 138 centers returned the questionnaire, hence the response rate was 45.2%. Numerous centers had implemented adequate structures and staffing standards. Deficits were nevertheless identified, most notably in terms of on-location equipment and staff provided to deliver sedations. Essential items of equipment were not provided in up to 26.8% of centers. Adequate staffing was not provided in up to 44.2% of centers, depending on the diagnostic or interventional procedures for which the PSA was delivered. The most widely used sedative agents were midazolam, ketamine/esketamine, and propofol.

Conclusions

Adequate care structures for the management of procedural sedation analgesia have been implemented by many pediatric centers in Germany. On the downside, these findings also reveal deficits that will take efforts to be eliminated.

Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

A study of the MR imaging manifestations with injection of sedative at the buttocks in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

During the MRI examination, pediatric patients sleep under the sedation so that the image artifacts caused by the patient motion could be minimized. However, the sedative injection at the buttocks might cause a difficulty in the diagnosis of the buttock diseases using the MRI manifestations.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the imaging characteristics of MR for the pediatric patients with the sedative injected at the buttocks in order to correctly diagnose the diseases.

METHODS

MR imaging data of 64 pediatric patients injected with the sedative at the buttocks were retrospectively collected, including 8 cases of buttock disease. The imaging manifestations were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

Out of 64 patients, 8 were diagnosed as the buttock diseases. MR imaging manifestations of the sedatives injected at the buttocks were the locally patchy and streaky long T1 and long T2 signals and were different from what were shown for the normal tissues and diseases.

CONCLUSION

The sedative injected at the buttocks has the MRI manifestations different from the normal tissues and diseases. Correctly understanding the MRI manifestations for the pediatric patients with the injection of sedative at the buttocks would reduce the chances of the misdiagnosis on the diseases.

Severe outcomes of pediatric perioperative adverse events occurring in operating rooms compared to off-site anesthetizing locations in the Wake Up Safe Database

BACKGROUND

Anesthesia services are frequently provided outside of the traditional operating room environment for children. It is unclear if adverse events which occur in off-site anesthetizing locations result in more severe outcomes compared to events in traditional operating rooms.

AIM

We used a multi-institutional registry of pediatric patients to compare outcomes of perioperative adverse events between location types.

METHODS

De-identified data from 24 pediatric tertiary care hospitals participating in the Wake Up Safe registry during 2010-2015 were analyzed. Peri-procedural adverse events occurring in operating rooms or off-site locations were included. The primary outcome was whether the adverse event was severe, defined as requiring escalation of care or resulting in temporary or significant harm. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare location type (operating room vs. off-site) and the likelihood of a severe outcome among reported events.

RESULTS

There were 1594 adverse events, of which 362 were associated with off-site anesthetizing locations. In multivariable logistic regression, off-site location was associated with greater odds of severe adverse event outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.69; P = 0.044). Comparing adverse events in cardiac catheterization suites to events in operating rooms confirmed higher odds of severe outcome in the former group (adjusted odds ratio = 1.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.08; P = 0.025), while this difference was not found for other off-site locations.

CONCLUSION

Multivariable analysis of a large registry revealed a greater likelihood of severe outcome for adverse events occurring in cardiac catheterization suites (but not other out of the OR sites), compared to adverse events occurring in the operating room. Additional prospective studies are needed which better control for patient and environmental characteristics and their effect on severe outcomes after anesthesia.

Systematic Review: Rectal Administration of Medications for Pediatric Procedural Sedation

BACKGROUND

Per rectum (PR) medication delivery is an alternative to traditional oral (PO), intravenous (IV), or intramuscular (IM) administration of medication for procedural sedation of pediatric emergency department patients. However, many emergency physicians are unfamiliar with its use, and there are no widely adopted guidelines or reviews dedicated to this topic.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to provide emergency physicians with an overview of PR procedural sedation medications in pediatric patients.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed literature search of relevant keywords limited to studies of human subjects published in English between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2017. We excluded case reports, general review articles, editorial/opinion pieces, correspondence, and abstracts. Two of the authors then conducted a structured review of the selected studies.

RESULTS

A total of 315 PubMed citations meeting the search criteria were found. Twenty-eight articles were included for final detailed review. Only 4 of the 28 included studies were conducted in the emergency department setting. A total of 9 different medications have been studied for PR procedural sedation. Sedation effectiveness ranged from 40% to 98%. No life-threatening complications were reported in any of the included clinical trials. Hypoxia was found to occur in up to 10% of those receiving PR sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric procedural sedation with PR medications appears to be feasible, moderately effective, and safe based on our review of the current literature. However, further studies on its applicability in the emergency department setting are needed.

Higher Mallampati Scores Are Not Associated with More Adverse Events During Pediatric Procedural Sedation and Analgesia

Introduction

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used by non-anesthesiologists (NAs) outside of the operating room for several types of procedures. Adverse events during pediatric PSA that pose the most risk to patient safety involve airway compromise. Higher Mallampati scores may indirectly indicate children at risk for airway compromise. Medical governing bodies have proposed guidelines for PSA performed by NAs, but these recommendations rarely suggest using Mallampati scores in pre-PSA evaluations. Our objective was to compare rates of adverse events during pediatric PSA in children with Mallampati scores of III/IV vs. scores of Mallampati I/II.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational study. Children 18 years of age and under who presented to the pediatric emergency department (PED) and required PSA were enrolled. We obtained Mallampati scores as part of pre-PSA assessments. We defined adverse events as oxygen desaturation < 90%, apnea, laryngospasm, bag-valve-mask ventilation performed, repositioning of patient, emesis, and "other." We used chi-square analysis to compare rates of adverse events between groups.

Results

We enrolled 575 patients. The median age of the patients was 6.0 years (interquartile range = 3.1,9.9). The primary reasons for PSA was fracture reduction (n=265, 46.1%). Most sedations involved the use of ketamine (n= 568, 98.8%). Patients with Mallampati scores of III/IV were more likely to need repositioning compared to those with Mallampati scores of I/II (p=0.049). Overall, patients with Mallampati III/IV scores did not experience a higher proportion of adverse events compared to those with Mallampati scores of I/II. The relative risk of any adverse event in patients with Mallampati scores of III/IV (40 [23.8%]) compared to patients with Mallampati scores of I/II (53 [18.3%]) was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [0.91-1.87]).

Conclusion

Patients with Mallampati scores of III/IV vs. Mallampati scores of I/II are not at an increased risk of adverse events during pediatric PSA. However, patients with Mallampati III/IV scores showed an increased need for repositioning, suggesting that the sedating physician should be vigilant when performing PSA in children with higher Mallampati scores.

Variation in Pediatric Procedural Sedations Across Children's Hospital Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVES

Describe the trends in pediatric sedation use over time and determine variation in use of procedural sedation across children's hospital emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

We analyzed ED data from 35 hospitals within the Pediatric Health Information System for patients <19 years old who received sedation medications and were discharged from 2009 to 2014. Patients with chronic comorbidities or undergoing intubation were excluded. We determined frequency and trends in use of sedation and compared these between EDs. Descriptive statistics with appropriate weighting were used.

RESULTS

Of the 1 448 011 patients potentially requiring sedation who presented to the ED, 99 951 (7.9%) underwent procedural sedation. Medication usage in 2014 included ketamine (73.7%), fentanyl and midazolam (15.9%), ketofol (7.3%), and propofol (2.7%). Use of fentanyl and midazolam increased, whereas use of ketamine, pentobarbital, etomidate, chloral hydrate, and methohexital decreased over time. Significant variation exists in the use of sedation across hospitals; in 2014, the sedation rate ranged 0.2% to 32.0%, with a median of 8.0%. The diagnosis with the largest variation in procedural sedation use was dislocation, with sedation rates ranging from 2% to 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability across pediatric EDs in the use of procedural sedation, suggesting sedations may be performed too often or too little in some hospitals.

Intensivist-based deep sedation using propofol for pediatric outpatient flexible bronchoscopy

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sedating pediatric patients for outpatient flexible bronchoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted for all children, age 17 years or under who underwent flexible bronchoscopy under deep sedation in an outpatient hospital-based setting. Two sedation regimens were used; propofol only or ketamine prior to propofol. Patients were divided into three age groups; infants (less than 12 mo), toddlers (1-3 years) and children (4-17 years). Demographics, indication for bronchoscopy, sedative dosing, sedation and recovery time and adverse events were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the total 458 bronchoscopies performed, propofol only regimen was used in 337 (74%) while propofol and ketamine was used in 121 (26%). About 99% of the procedures were successfully completed. Children in the propofol + ketamine group tend to be younger and have lower weight compared to the propofol only group. Adverse events including transient hypoxemia and hypotension occurred in 8% and 24% respectively. Median procedure time was 10 min while the median discharge time was 35 min. There were no differences in the indication of the procedure, propofol dose, procedure or recovery time in either sedative regimen. When compared to other age groups, infants had a higher incidence of hypoxemia.

CONCLUSION

Children can be effectively sedated for outpatient flexible bronchoscopy with high rate of success. This procedure should be performed under vigilance of highly trained providers.

Comparison between chloral hydrate and propofol-ketamine as sedation regimens for pediatric auditory brainstem response testing

Introduction

The use of diagnostic auditory brainstem response testing under sedation is currently the “gold standard” in infants and young children who are not developmentally capable of completing the test.

Objective

The aim of the study is to compare a propofol-ketamine regimen to an oral chloral hydrate regimen for sedating children undergoing auditory brainstem response testing.

Methods

Patients between 4 months and 6 years who required sedation for auditory brainstem response testing were included in this retrospective study. Drugs doses, adverse effects, sedation times, and the effectiveness of the sedative regimens were reviewed.

Results

73 patients underwent oral chloral hydrate sedation, while 117 received propofol-ketamine sedation. 12% of the patients in the chloral hydrate group failed to achieve desired sedation level. The average procedure, recovery and total nursing times were significantly lower in the propofol-ketamine group. Propofol-ketamine group experienced higher incidence of transient hypoxemia.

Conclusion

Both sedation regimens can be successfully used for sedating children undergoing auditory brainstem response testing. While deep sedation using propofol-ketamine regimen offers more efficiency than moderate sedation using chloral hydrate, it does carry a higher incidence of transient hypoxemia, which warrants the use of a highly skilled team trained in pediatric cardio-respiratory monitoring and airway management.

Perceptions of parents and paediatricians on pain induced by bone marrow aspiration and lumbar puncture among children with acute leukaemia: a qualitative study in China

OBJECTIVE

To obtain in-depth insight into the perceptions of parents and paediatricians in China regarding current procedural pain management on bone marrow aspirations and lumbar punctures in paediatric haemato-oncology department.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was conducted in a 4500-bed university hospital in northwest China. To collect data, in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with parents of children with acute leukaemia (n=12) and haemato-oncology paediatricians (n=11) using purposive sampling. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The suffering of procedural pain among paediatric patients was not adequately recognised and properly treated at the paediatric haemato-oncology department. The current paediatric procedural pain management is inadequate for paediatric patients. Crucial factors were identified including lack of awareness about the damage of uncontrolled pain in children, parents' low supportive ability, the limited capacity to provide general analgesia by anaesthetists, inadequate knowledge in the usage of analgesia and sedation and lack of efficient analgesic for children's procedural pain. The participants strongly expected optimal interventions to improve paediatric procedural pain management.

CONCLUSIONS

The result suggested a perceived and actual poor management of paediatric procedural pain in haemato-oncology department in northwest China. A relevant pain management education programme for paediatricians and parents as well as an effective pain medication are urgently needed in northwest China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Identifier: ChiCTR-INR-16007989.

[Preparation of sedation-analgesia procedures in spanish paediatric emergency departments: A descriptive study]

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to describe the current practice regarding the preparation of the sedation-analgesia (SA) procedures performed in the paediatric emergency centres in Spain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicentre, observational and prospective analytical study was carried out on the SA procedures that were performed on children under 18 years-old in 18 paediatric emergency departments between February 2015 and January 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 658 SA procedures were registered in 18 hospitals of Spain, most of them to children older than 24 months. The type of the procedure was: simple analgesia in 57 (8.6%), sedation in 44 (6.7%), SA for a not very painful procedure in 275 (41.8%), and SA for a very painful procedure in 282 (42.9%). Informed consent was requested in 98.6% of the cases. The written form was more frequently preferred in the group of patients that received SA for a very painful procedure (76.6%) in comparison to a painful procedure or to simple analgesia (62.9% and 54.4%, respectively, P<.001). The staff that most frequently performed the SA procedures were the paediatricians of the emergency departments (64.3%), followed by Paediatrics Residents (30.7%). The most frequent reasons for the SA were traumatological (35.9%) and surgical (28.4%). Fasting was observed in 81% of the cases. More than two-thirds (67.3%, n=480) children were monitored, the majority (95.8%) of them using pulse oximetry. The pharmacological strategy used was the administration of one drug in 443 (67.3%) of the cases, mostly nitrous oxide, and a combination of drugs in 215 (32.7%), especially midazolam/ketamine (46.9%).

CONCLUSION

The majority of the SA procedures analysed in this study have been carried out correctly and prepared in accordance with the current guidelines.

Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: Update 2016

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

Outcomes following implementation of a pediatric procedural sedation guide for referral to general anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging studies

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Guidelines for referral of children to general anesthesia (GA) to complete MRI studies are lacking. We devised a pediatric procedural sedation guide to determine whether a pediatric procedural sedation guide would decrease serious adverse events and decrease failed sedations requiring rescheduling with GA.

METHODS

We constructed a consensus-based sedation guide by combining a retrospective review of reasons for referral of children to GA (n = 221) with published risk factors associated with the inability to complete the MRI study with sedation. An interrupted time series analysis of 11 530 local sedation records from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium between July 2008 and March 2013, adjusted for case-mix differences in the pre- and postsedation guide cohorts, evaluated whether a sedation guide resulted in decreased severe adverse events (SAE) and failed sedation rates.

RESULTS

A significant increase in referrals to GA following implementation of a sedation guide occurred (P < 0.001), and fewer children with an ASA-PS class ≥III were sedated using procedural sedation (P < 0.001). There was no decrease in SAE (P = 0.874) or in SAE plus airway obstruction with concurrent hypoxia (P = 0.435). There was no change in the percentage of failed sedations (P = 0.169).

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are needed to determine the impact of a sedation guide on pediatric procedural sedation services.

What Works and What's Safe in Pediatric Emergency Procedural Sedation: An Overview of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Sedation is increasingly used to facilitate procedures on children in emergency departments (EDs). This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) examines the safety and efficacy of sedative agents commonly used for procedural sedation in children in the ED or similar settings.

METHODS

We followed standard SR methods: comprehensive search; dual study selection, quality assessment, data extraction. We included SRs of children (1 month to 18 years) where the indication for sedation was procedure-related and performed in the ED.

RESULTS

Fourteen SRs were included (210 primary studies). The most data were available for propofol (six reviews/50,472 sedations) followed by ketamine (7/8,238), nitrous oxide (5/8,220), and midazolam (4/4,978). Inconsistent conclusions for propofol were reported across six reviews. Half concluded that propofol was sufficiently safe; three reviews noted a higher occurrence of adverse events, particularly respiratory depression (upper estimate 1.1%; 5.4% for hypotension requiring intervention). Efficacy of propofol was considered in four reviews and found adequate in three. Five reviews found ketamine to be efficacious and seven reviews showed it to be safe. All five reviews of nitrous oxide concluded it is safe (0.1% incidence of respiratory events); most found it effective in cooperative children. Four reviews of midazolam made varying recommendations. To be effective, midazolam should be combined with another agent that increases the risk of adverse events (upper estimate 9.1% for desaturation, 0.1% for hypotension requiring intervention).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive examination of an extensive body of literature shows consistent safety and efficacy for nitrous oxide and ketamine, with very rare significant adverse events for propofol. There was considerable heterogeneity in outcomes and reporting across studies and previous reviews. Standardized outcome sets and reporting should be encouraged to facilitate evidence-based recommendations for care.

Adult and pediatric anesthesia/sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents current trends of safe and efficient anesthesia and sedation for adults and children for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room with a special focus on total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), target-controlled infusion (TCI), intravenous or topical lidocaine, and the use of the video laryngoscope.

RECENT FINDINGS

The concepts of a well tolerated and adequate anesthesia or sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room have to meet the needs of the adult and pediatric patients and the special requests of the gastroenterologists. Anesthesia and sedation of adults for gastrointestinal procedures with TIVA or TCI and spontaneous breathing is well established. Many institutions perform anesthesia for pediatric patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures with an inhalational agent, especially in young children and for short procedures. Unlike adults, in young children the airways frequently must be secured with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask. Respiration may be spontaneous, assisted, or controlled. TIVA and TCI are increasingly chosen for older children and longer procedures. A local anesthetic administered intravenously or topically to the upper airways and the use of the video laryngoscope can facilitate the insertion of the endoscope.

SUMMARY

Both anesthesiologists and nonanesthesiologists have to achieve a consensus and develop quality-improvement strategies to provide safe and efficient anesthesia and sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room for pediatric and adult patients. Techniques using TIVA, TCI, intravenous or topical application of lidocaine, and the video laryngoscope may improve and facilitate gastrointestinal procedures for the patients, the anesthesiologists, and the gastroenterologists.

Complications of Deep Sedation for Individual Procedures (Lumbar Puncture Alone) Versus Combined Procedures (Lumbar Puncture and Bone Marrow Aspirate) in Pediatric Oncology Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pediatric oncology patients frequently undergo procedural sedation. The goal of this study was to determine the safety of combining procedures into a single sedation encounter and to assess if the magnitude of any complication is significant enough to justify separate sedation encounters for multiple procedures.

METHODS

This retrospective review included pediatric oncology patients sedated for lumbar puncture alone or combined procedures (lumbar puncture and bone marrow aspirate) from January 2012 to January 2014. Demographic characteristics, medication dosing, procedural success, sedation duration, and adverse events (AEs) with associated required interventions were recorded. Sedation-related complications were separated into serious adverse events (SAEs) and AEs. Data were analyzed by using multivariable modeling.

RESULTS

Data from 972 sedation encounters involving 96 patients, each having 1 to 28 encounters (mean±SD, 10±5), were reviewed. Ninety percent were individual procedures and 10% were combined procedures. Overall, there were few SAEs, and airway obstruction was the most common SAE. Combined procedures required 0.31 mg/kg more propofol (P<.001) and took 1.4 times longer (P<.001) than individual procedures. In addition, when adjusting for possible confounding factors, the odds of having an SAE were 4.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.37-16.65); P=.014) times higher for combined procedures. All SAEs and AEs were manageable by the sedation team.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining procedures was associated with higher propofol doses, prolonged duration, and a small increase in likelihood of SAEs compared with individual procedures. All AEs fell within the scope of management by the sedation team. Balancing the increased, but manageable, risks versus the advantages of family/patient convenience, enhanced resource utilization, and minimization of potential neurotoxicity from anesthetics supports combining procedures when possible.

Emergency Procedural Sedation With Propofol in Older Teenagers: Any Cause for Concern?

INTRODUCTION

Propofol is a standard for adult emergency department procedural sedation (EDPS). Use in pediatric patients remains controversial. Our primary objective was to investigate whether adverse events occurred more frequently in teenage pediatric patients receiving propofol for EDPS.

METHODS

This retrospective study examines records from the Halifax Procedural Sedation Registry, collected between January 1, 2006 and May 31, 2013. Patients undergoing EDPS using propofol were divided into those aged 16 to 19 years (teenagers), 20 to 65 years (adults), and older than 65 years (seniors). The primary outcomes were the incidences of hypotension and hypoxia.

RESULTS

Four thousand sixty-three EDPSs were included in the analysis, of which 230 involved teenagers, 2853 adults (mean age, 43.0 years), and 980 seniors (mean age, 77.1). The teenage group was significantly less likely to develop hypotension or hypoxia. These differences were confirmed on multivariate analysis. Patients in the teenage group received higher doses of propofol per kilogram/minute than the other groups. No other differences met statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Teenage patients receiving EDPS with propofol had a lower incidence of adverse events, and both received and tolerated larger adjusted doses of medication than older patients. Satisfaction and duration of EDPS were similar. Concerns about propofol use in younger patients have not been supported by this study. We believe that these findings support the use of propofol for EDPS in older teenagers.

Review on sedation for gastrointestinal tract endoscopy in children by non-anesthesiologists

AIM

To present evidence and formulate recommendations for sedation in pediatric gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy by non-anesthesiologists.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched for the following keywords "endoscopy, GI", "endoscopy, digestive system" AND "sedation", "conscious sedation", "moderate sedation", "deep sedation" and "hypnotics and sedatives" for publications in English restricted to the pediatric age. We searched additional information published between January 2011 and January 2014. Searches for (upper) GI endoscopy sedation in pediatrics and sedation guidelines by non-anesthesiologists for the adult population were performed.

RESULTS

From the available studies three sedation protocols are highlighted. Propofol, which seems to offer the best balance between efficacy and safety is rarely used by non-anesthesiologists mainly because of legal restrictions. Ketamine and a combination of a benzodiazepine and an opioid are more frequently used. Data regarding other sedatives, anesthetics and adjuvant medications used for pediatric GI endoscopy are also presented.

CONCLUSION

General anesthesia by a multidisciplinary team led by an anesthesiologist is preferred. The creation of sedation teams led by non-anesthesiologists and a careful selection of anesthetic drugs may offer an alternative, but should be in line with national legislation and institutional regulations.

The design of a multicentre Canadian surveillance study of sedation safety in the paediatric emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Procedural sedation and analgesia have become standard practice in paediatric emergency departments worldwide. Although generally regarded as safe, serious adverse events such as bradycardia, asystole, pulmonary aspiration, permanent neurological injury and death have been reported, but their incidence is unknown due to the infrequency of their occurrence and lack of surveillance of sedation safety. To improve our understanding of the safety, comparative effectiveness and variation in care in paediatric procedural sedation, we are establishing a multicentre patient registry with the goal of conducting regular and ongoing surveillance for adverse events in procedural sedation.

METHODS

This multicentre, prospective cohort study is enrolling patients under 18 years of age from six paediatric emergency departments across Canada. Data collection is fully integrated into clinical care and is performed electronically in real time by the healthcare professionals caring for the patient. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who experience a serious adverse event as a result of their sedation. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients who experience an adverse event that could lead to a serious adverse event, proportion of patients who receive a significant intervention in response to an adverse event, proportion of patients who experience a successful sedation, and proportion of patients who experience a paradoxical reaction to sedation. There is no predetermined end date for data collection.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been obtained from participating sites. Results will be disseminated using a multifaceted knowledge translation strategy by presenting at international conferences, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and through established networks.

Pediatric critical care physician-administered procedural sedation using propofol: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium Database

OBJECTIVE

Increasing demand for pediatric procedural sedation has resulted in a marked increase in provision of pediatric procedural sedation by pediatric critical care physicians both inside and outside of the ICU. Reported experience of pediatric critical care physicians-administered pediatric procedural sedation is limited. We used the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to evaluate a multicenter experience with propofol by pediatric critical care physicians in all settings.

SETTING

Review of national Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to identify pediatric procedural sedation provided by pediatric critical care physicians from 2007 to 2012. Demographic and clinical data were collected to describe pediatric procedural sedation selection, location, and delivery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with pediatric procedural sedation-related adverse events and complications.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 91,189 pediatric procedural sedation performed by pediatric critical care physicians using propofol were included in the database. Median age was 60.0 months (range, 0-264 months; interquartile range, 34.0-132.0); 81.9% of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II. Most sedations were performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (80.9%). Procedures were successfully completed in 99.9% of patients. A propofol bolus alone was used in 52.8%, and 41.7% received bolus plus continuous infusion. Commonly used adjunctive medications were lidocaine (35.3%), opioids (23.3%), and benzodiazepines (16.4%). Overall adverse event incidence was 5.0% (95% CI, 4.9-5.2%), which included airway obstruction (1.6%), desaturation (1.5%), coughing (1.0%), and emergent airway intervention (0.7%). No deaths occurred; a single cardiac arrest was reported in a 13-month-old child receiving propofol and ketamine, with no untoward neurologic sequelae. Risk factors associated with adverse event included: location of sedation, number of adjunctive medications, upper and lower respiratory diagnosis, prematurity diagnosis, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, and painful procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric procedural sedation using propofol can be provided by pediatric critical care physicians effectively and with a low incidence of adverse events.

Pediatric Sedation: Using Secondary Data to Describe Registered Nurse Practice in Radiology

Children, often require sedation for procedures due to their developmental level and difficulty complying with positioning. There are few studies that describe nurse sedation practices or adverse events. Studies of pediatric sedation care have small sample sizes that are inadequate to detect adverse events. This study reports practices and outcomes of sedation delivered to children from infancy up to 14 years of age, that were monitored only by registered nurses (RNs) during diagnostic radiology procedures drawn from a sample of 12,584 cases from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC) database. There were 727 adverse events (5.78%). However, no deaths, cardiac arrests, intubations or aspirations were reported in this sample. The most common adverse event was inadequate sedation/agitation/delirium 196 (155.8/10,000) and desaturation below baseline for greater than 30 seconds 173 (138/10,000). Further research comparing sedation practices and outcomes by type of providers, including nurses, are necessary to improve practice.

Provision of deep procedural sedation by a pediatric sedation team at a freestanding imaging center

BACKGROUND

Freestanding imaging centers are popular options for health care systems to offer services accessible to local communities. The provision of deep sedation at these centers could allow for flexibility in scheduling imaging for pediatric patients. Our Children's Sedation Services group, comprised of pediatric critical care medicine and pediatric emergency medicine physicians, has supplied such a service for 5 years. However, limited description of such off-site services exists. The site has resuscitation equipment and medications, yet limited staffing and no proximity to hospital support.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the experience of a cohort of pediatric patients undergoing sedation at a freestanding imaging center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all sedations from January 2012 to December 2012. Study variables include general demographics, length of sedation, type of imaging, medications used, completion of imaging, adverse events based on those defined by the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database and need for transfer to a hospital for additional care.

RESULTS

Six hundred fifty-four consecutive sedations were analyzed. Most patients were low acuity American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class ≤ 2 (91.8%). Mean sedation time was 55 min (SD ± 24). The overwhelming majority of patients (95.7%) were sedated for MRI, 3.8% for CT and <1% (three patients) for both modalities. Propofol was used in 98% of cases. Overall, 267 events requiring intervention occurred in 164 patient encounters (25.1%). However, after adjustment for changes from expected physiological response to the sedative, the rate of events was 10.2%. Seventy-five (11.5%) patients had desaturation requiring supplemental oxygen, nasopharyngeal tube or oral airway placement, continuous positive airway pressure or brief bag valve mask ventilation. Eleven (1.7%) had apnea requiring continuous positive airway pressure or bag valve mask ventilation briefly. One patient had bradycardia that resolved with nasopharyngeal tube placement and continuous positive airway pressure. Fifteen (2.3%) patients had hypotension requiring adjustment of the sedation drip but no fluid bolus. Overall, there were six failed sedations (0.9%), defined by the inability to complete the imaging study. There were no serious adverse events. There were no episodes of cardiac arrest or need for intubation. No patient required transfer to a hospital.

CONCLUSION

Sedation provided at this freestanding imaging center resulted in no serious adverse events and few failed sedations. While this represents a limited cohort with sedations performed by predominately pediatric critical care medicine and pediatric emergency medicine physicians, these findings have implications for the design and potential scope of practice of outpatient pediatric sedation services to support community-based pediatric imaging.

An update on pediatric hospital-based sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The need for sedation for procedures performed outside the operating room has increased dramatically, and pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) is increasingly performed by practitioners who are not anesthesiologists. With 'sedationists' emerging from various specialties, there are differences in practice and guidelines with regards to presedation assessment, targeted depths of sedation, monitoring requirements, and the training required. Our aim is to identify some of the recent advances in PPS and to describe progress towards greater standardization of practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies report attempts to optimize the efficacy of specific pharmaceuticals used in PPS. Ketamine, a dissociative agent, functions uniquely and requires its own sedation practice guidelines. Utilizing less invasive administration of sedation via transmucosal and inhaled routes is gaining popularity. Additionally, replacing subjective measurement of depths of the sedation continuum and the nonstandardized definitions of adverse events with alternatives based on physiological parameters and/or required rescue interventions is underway. Finally, the use of presedation family-centered counseling and adjuncts that provide visual and auditory distraction are enhancing pharmaceutical methods.

SUMMARY

Further multispecialty collaboration and formation of greater consensus with regards to sedation practice are essential to the development of universal guidelines that optimize patient care.