Oral versus intravenous premedication for small bowel biopsy in children: effect on procedure and fluoroscopy times

The Safety of Metoclopramide in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Metoclopramide is recommended for adults with breakthrough or refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and for CINV prophylaxis in children. The drug regulatory agencies of Canada and the EU have revised the labelling of metoclopramide to contraindicate its use in children aged <1 year and to caution against its use in children aged <5 years and its duration of use beyond 5 days.

OBJECTIVE

This review describes the safety of metoclopramide in children when given for any indication.

METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE and Embase as of 9 March 2015. All studies in English reporting adverse effects associated with the use of metoclopramide in children (aged ≤18 years) were included. Adverse effects that had a cumulative incidence of at least 1 % and were reported in prospective studies were synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 108 (57 prospective) studies involving 2699 patients (2745 metoclopramide courses) were included. The most common adverse effects reported in prospective studies of metoclopramide in children were extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS; 9 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 5-17), diarrhea (6 %, 95 % CI 4-9), and sedation (multiple-dose studies: 6 %, 95 % CI 3-12). Dysrhythmia, respiratory distress/arrest, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and tardive dyskinesia were rarely associated with metoclopramide use.

LIMITATIONS

The definitions of adverse effects reported in the included studies were heterogeneous, and the risk of bias in most studies was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The most commonly reported adverse effects associated with the use of metoclopramide in children-EPS, diarrhea, and sedation-were reversible and of no long-term significance. Adverse effects that were life threatening or slow to resolve were rarely associated with its use in children.

Small bowel biopsy in Swedish paediatric clinics

The capsule technique for small bowel biopsy performed at Swedish paediatric clinics was evaluated using two questionnaires in 1990 and 1993, respectively. Replies were received from all 45 centres which together perform approximately 2300 biopsies per year. Clotting function tests prior to biopsy were carried out in 42% of the centres. The biopsies were performed under intubation anaesthesia in 13% of the centres. The most striking difference between the answers to the two questionnaires was the mode of sedation. The use of intravenous sedatives increased from 40% of the centres in the first questionnaire to 59% in the second one. The use of the oral, rectal and intramuscular routes decreased correspondingly. The most frequently used drugs for intravenous sedation were benzodiazepines, in the first questionnaire diazepam and in the second one midazolam. The failure rate was approximately 5%. In the first questionnaire, no complication was encountered. In the second questionnaire, three cases of intramural duodenal haematoma were reported, one of which led to pancreatitis. We conclude that by focusing on questions of sedation these rather simple questionnaires may have resulted in more effective sedation of children undergoing small bowel biopsy.

Intranasal versus intravenous administration of midazolam to children undergoing small bowel biopsy

Sixty-three children under the age of 9 years were randomized to receive intravenous (group A, n = 33) or intranasal (group B, n = 30) midazolam as sedation for small bowel biopsy. Mean doses of midazolam given to produce adequate sedation were 0.31 mg (kg body weight)-1 in group A and 0.34 mg (kg body weight)-1 in group B (NS). Four children in group A and 10 children in group B required additional doses to maintain adequate sedation throughout the biopsy procedure (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the median procedure time (7 min in group A, 8.5 min in group B) or median fluoroscopy time (5 s in group A, 4 s in group B). All children in group B showed signs of discomfort from the nose when given midazolam intranasally. In conclusion, this study indicates that intravenous administration of midazolam is preferable to the intranasal route.