Low-dose dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to propofol infusion for children in MRI: A double-cohort study

A dose-ranging pilot trial of dexmedetomidine-propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

The optimal sedation/anesthesia technique for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans has not been established. The combination of propofol with dexmedetomidine has been reported, but without systematic dosing data. Our primary aim was to determine the propofol-sparing effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX) when added to propofol for MRI scan sedation/anesthesia utilizing a dose-ranging protocol for four distinct regimens (Propofol-Only, DEX-High, DEX-Low, DEX-Bolus). Our secondary aims were to document adverse events, scan interruptions due to patient movements, and determine recovery time. Seventy-nine patients aged 1-12 years scheduled for MRIs under anesthesia were sequentially enrolled. A 60% reduction in propofol dose required was found in the dexmedetomidine cohorts. There was no difference (p = 0.161) in recovery time between Propofol-Only and DEX-Bolus groups. There were no differences in episodes of hypotension (p = 0.464), bradycardia (p = 0.558), or patient movement (p = 0.273) between the Propofol-Only and dexmedetomidine cohorts. Recovery time was prolonged for DEX-High and DEX-Low groups compared to DEX-Bolus or Propofol-Only. The addition of dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the necessary dose of propofol. Propofol combined with a single bolus of dexmedetomidine (no infusion) provided effective sedation/anesthesia without adverse events or extending recovery time.

Anesthetic-sparing effect of dexmedetomidine during total intravenous anesthesia for children undergoing dental surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine, an α2-adrenergic agonist, reduces propofol and remifentanil requirements when used as an adjunct to total intravenous anesthesia in adults, but studies in a pediatric population are sparse. This study investigates the magnitude of dose-sparing effects of a postinduction dexmedetomidine bolus on propofol and remifentanil requirements during pediatric surgery.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, children aged 2-10 years undergoing elective dental surgery were assigned to one of four groups: placebo, 0.25 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine, 0.5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine, and 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine. Maintenance with fixed-ratio propofol and remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia followed a bispectral index (BIS)-guided algorithm designed to maintain a stable depth of anesthesia. The primary outcomes were time-averaged maintenance infusion rates of propofol and remifentanil. Secondary outcomes in the postanesthetic care unit included sedation scores, pain scores, and time to discharge.

RESULTS

Data from 67 patients were available for analysis. The median [interquartile range] propofol infusion rate was lower in the 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine group (180 [164-185] mcg/kg/min) versus placebo (200 [178-220] mcg/kg/min): percent change -10.0%; 95% CI -2.4 to -19.8; p = 0.013. The remifentanil infusion rate was also lower in the 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine group (0.089 [0.080, 0.095] mcg/kg/min) versus placebo (0.103 [0.095, 0.106] mcg/kg/min): percent change, -13.7%; 95% CI -5.47 to -21.0; p = .022. However, neither propofol nor remifentanil infusion rates were significantly different in the 0.25 or 0.5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine groups. In the postanesthesia care unit, there were no differences in pain or sedation scores, and time to discharge was not significantly prolonged in any dexmedetomidine group.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg reduced the propofol and remifentanil requirements during maintenance of anesthesia in children when administered as a postinduction bolus.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03422978, date of registration 2018-02-06.

Comparison of effects of dexmedetomidine with ketofol and ketofol alone on quality of sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A prospective randomized controlled double-blind trial

Background and Aim

Patient movement during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most frequent cause of artifacts and poor scan quality. Children cannot lie still. Thus, anesthesia is required to keep the child calm and immobile. This randomized double-blinded clinical trial compares the clinical effects of the addition of dexmedetomidine as premedication with ketofol on the quality of sedation. We hypothesized that the addition of dexmedetomidine would improve the quality of sedation.

Methods

A total of 132 children aged 6 months to 10 years were randomized into groups DK (dexmedetomidine-ketofol) and K (ketofol). DK received an intravenous bolus of dexmedetomidine (0.5 mcg/kg) as premedication 10 minutes prior. Both the groups were induced with ketofol (0.5 mg/kg), and sedation was maintained with propfol infusion (100 mcg/kg/min). The primary objective was the quality of sedation as assessed by the University of Michigan Sedation Scale. Image quality, requirement of rescue propofol dose, recovery, and adverse events were also studied. Data are given as median [interquartile range (IQR)] or frequency.

Results

All 132 children completed MRI scans. The DK group showed significantly better quality of sedation, 71% versus 47% of children, a median difference of 1 (-0.569 to -0.0969), P < .005, a better quality of scan, a reduced number of additional doses of propofol, and a decreased total dose of propofol. Hemodynamic parameters and recovery times for the two groups were similar. There were no significant side effects in both groups.

Conclusion

The quality of sedation and the quality of the MRI scan are greatly improved by administering dexmedetomidine (0.5 mcg/kg) 10 minutes before to induction. Additionally, this technique decreases the need of propofol and gives better hemodynamic stability without delaying the recovery time.

Effective and safe pediatric sedation

Pediatric sedation is a crucial tool for minimizing pain and anxiety during procedures and examinations in children. However, it is not without risks. This review provides a comprehensive review of pediatric sedation, including both established practices and recent advancements. A thorough pre-procedural evaluation is crucial to mitigate these risks. Skilled healthcare professionals trained in pediatric sedation are paramount to ensure a safe and effective procedure. The choice of sedative medication depends on various factors, such as the type of procedure and the patient's medical condition. Medications, used alone or in combination, offer sedation with varying onset times and durations. Non-pharmacological approaches can complement pharmacological sedation and further reduce potential complications. Preventing sedation-related complications requires a multidisciplinary approach. This includes collaborative decision-making, vigilant monitoring throughout the procedure, and a focus on patient safety. Recovery involves ensuring the child returns to their baseline status before discharge, following established criteria. In conclusion, successful pediatric sedation hinges on a comprehensive strategy. This strategy encompasses a thorough evaluation, skilled personnel, appropriate medication selection, vigilant monitoring, and a focus on patient safety throughout the process. By following these steps, we can minimize risks and achieve successful outcomes.

Usefulness of deep sedation with intravenous dexmedetomidine and midazolam in cardiac catheterization procedures for pediatric patients

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly selective alpha 2 receptor agonist that has the advantage of causing less respiratory depression than other sedative agents. We evaluated the add-on effects of DEX on sedation among pediatric patients who received midazolam and pentazocine during cardiac catheterization.

Methods

120 cardiac catheterization procedures in 110 patients under deep sedation at Department of Pediatrics, Kanazawa University Hospital from January 2013 to August 2018: 63 procedures without DEX (i.e., non-DEX group) and 57 procedures with DEX (i.e., DEX group). Intravenous midazolam and pentazocine were used in both groups, and DEX without an initial loading dose (0.6 μg/kg/h) was used in the DEX group. We retrospectively investigated complications during catheterization, doses of sedative agents, and changes in vital signs.

Results

Hypoxemia requiring oxygen administration during catheterization tended to be higher in the non-DEX group than in the DEX group (4.8% vs. 0%). Additional dose of midazolam was significantly lower in the DEX group (median [IQR]: 0.05 mg/kg [0-0.11]) than in the non-DEX group [0.09 mg/kg (0-0.23), p = 0.0288]. The additional dose of midazolam in the non-DEX group with hypoxemia was significantly higher than the dose used in the non-DEX group without hypoxemia. No case of bradycardia below the criteria for bradycardia occurred and no serious complications occurred in the DEX group.

Conclusion

The use of intravenous DEX in combination with midazolam and pentazocine in pediatric cardiac catheterization may reduce the need for an additional dose of midazolam and may contribute to the prevention of airway complications associated with respiratory depression caused by sedative agents.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial

BACKGROUND

Children under 6 years who need magnetic resonance imaging usually require sedation to obtain best quality images, but the optimal sedation protocol remains to be determined. In 2018, we showed a 22% interruption in image acquisition during magnetic resonance imaging when performing a propofol-based sedation using a bolus approach. As non-pharmacological premedication is often insufficient to reduce the anxiety of children related to parental separation, pharmacological premedication may be useful to facilitate the induction of anesthesia. In our institution, effective premedication is obtained oral intake of midazolam, though its administration relies on patients' compliance and could also lead to paradoxical reaction. Dexmedetomidine has a safe profile in the pediatric population and can therefore represent an interesting alternative. The primary objective of this trial is to demonstrate the superiority of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam as premedication in reducing the occurrence of any event requiring temporary or definitive interruption of the examination to allow anesthesiologist intervention in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging under propofol sedation.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, superiority trial, we planned to include 250 patients, aged 6 months to 6 years, undergoing a scheduled magnetic resonance imaging requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist. After informed consent, the patients will be randomized to receive either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication. The data will be analyzed in intention to treat, using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z, chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney U tests. A P-value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

The MIDEX MRI study will assess the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam to improve the quality of a propofol-based sedation prior to magnetic resonance imaging, without negative repercussion on the postoperative period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05192629 . Registered on 14 January 2022. Protocol version 2.1.

[Anaesthesia and Sedation for Diagnostic Procedures in Children]

Constant medical progress leads to an increasing range of indications and consequently increasing number of diagnostic procedures in (early) childhood. To prevent lasting traumatization of children (and parents) and to ensure proper examination conditions, adequate (analgo-)sedation or general anesthesia is usually required for the appropriate management of diagnostic procedures in childhood, whether painful or not. The safety of young patients is the first priority. Administrations, hospitals, and each individual anesthesiologist are responsible for establishing structures, experience, and knowledge in this area so that children of all ages receive optimum care. In this article, the authors provide an overview of basic principles (structures, requirements, recommendations), currently used drugs, and procedure-specific examples for providing procedural analgosedation/anesthesia in children.

Prospective, randomised comparison of two intravenous sedation methods for magnetic resonance imaging in children

BACKGROUND

Children usually need sedation or even anaesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. As there is no universally accepted method for this purpose we undertook a prospective, randomised comparison of propofol and dexmedetomidine in children aged 1 to 10 years.

METHODS

After Institutional Board approval and parents' informed consent 64 ASA status I or II children scheduled for MRI scan were enrolled. Patients were premedicated with intravenous (IV) midazolam (0.1 mg kg -1 ) and ketamine (1 mg kg -1 ) and randomised to propofol (P) or dexmedetomidine (D) group. A propofol bolus of 1 mg kg -1 followed by infusion of 4 mg kg -1 h -1 , or dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg -1 followed by 2 µg kg -1 h-1 infusion were used. Heart rate, SpO 2 and non-invasive blood pressure were monitored and recorded at 5 min intervals. Results were compared by means of standard statistical methods.

RESULTS

Both dexmedetomidine and propofol after premedication with ketamine and midazolam are suitable for MRI sedation, although propofol use results in shorter recovery time. Less interventions are needed when dexmedetomidine is used.

Effect of esketamine vs dexmedetomidine adjunct to propofol sedation for pediatric 3Tesla magnetic resonance imaging: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adequate sedation is essential for pediatric patients undergoing 3Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Using propofol alone is associated with patient arousing and adverse airway events. This study aimed to assess esketamine vs dexmedetomidine adjunct to propofol sedation for pediatric 3 T MRI.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, 114 pediatric patients aged between 6 months and 8 years were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to the esketamine-propofol group or the dexmedetomidine-propofol group. Sedation was provided with esketamine or dexmedetomidine in combination with propofol titration. The primary outcome was the total dose of propofol. Secondary outcomes included propofol infusion dose, adverse events, time to emergence from sedation, and time to discharge from recovery room.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients completed this study (56 in the esketamine-propofol group and 55 in the dexmedetomidine-propofol group). All MRI procedures were successfully performed under sedation. The total median (IQR) dose of propofol was significantly lower in the esketamine-propofol group (159.8 [121.7, 245.2] μg/kg/min) than that in the dexmedetomidine-propofol group (219.3 [188.6, 314.8] μg/kg/min) (difference in medians [95% CI] =  - 66.9 [- 87.8 to - 43.0] μg/kg/min, P < 0.0001). The use of esketamine resulted in a lower dose of propofol for titration (difference in medians [95% CI] =  - 64.3 [- 75.9 to - 51.9] μg/kg/min), a shorter time to emergence (difference in means [95% CI] =  - 9.4 [- 11.4 to - 7.4] min), and a reduced time to recovery room discharge (difference in means [95% CI] =  - 10.1 [- 12.1 to - 8.2] min). In the dexmedetomidine-propofol group, 2 patients experienced upper airway obstruction and 6 patients had bradycardia. No episodes of oxygen desaturation or other adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both regimens provided effective sedation for pediatric 3 T MRI, the esketamine-propofol sedation reduced propofol requirement and facilitated recovery, without detection of increased adverse effects in the studied population. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (identifier: ChiCTR2100048477).

Dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative for procedural sedation in preterm and neonate infants: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Many different sedation concepts for magnetic resonance imaging have been described for prematurely and term-born infants, ranging from "no sedation" to general anesthesia. Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 receptor agonist that is frequently used to sedate older children, because the anesthesiologist can easily adjust sedation depth, the patient maintains spontaneous breathing, and awakens rapidly afterwards.

AIMS

The present study evaluates whether dexmedetomidine could safely be used as the sole sedative for prematurely and term-born infants less than 60 weeks postconceptional age undergoing diagnostic procedures.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of n = 39 prematurely and term-born infants (<60 weeks postconceptional age or a body weight <5 kg) who were sedated with dexmedetomidine for an MRI at a German university hospital from August 2016 to November 2018.

RESULTS

Successful imaging was achieved in all cases. The median initial bolus of dexmedetomidine administered over 10 min was 1.39 μg kg^-1 body weight (range 0.34-3.64 μg kg^-1 ), followed with a continuous infusion at a median rate of 1.00 μg kg^-1  h^-1 (range 0.5-3.5 μg kg^-1  h^-1 ); however, 3 patients (7%) needed some additional sedation (ketamine or propofol). All patients, including 10 infants who had previously required respiratory support, underwent the procedure without any relevant desaturation or apnea. Bradycardia was observed in up to 15 out of 39 cases (38.5%), but only four (10.3% in total and 26.7% of bradycardia) required atropine.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that dexmedetomidine can be safely used for procedural sedation in the high-risk cohort of prematurely and term-born infants less than 60 weeks postconceptional age. Apnea during procedural sedation and subsequent stay in the recovery room is avoided, but bradycardia remains a relevant risk that may require treatment.

Dexmedetomidine reduces propofol-induced hippocampal neuron injury by modulating the miR-377-5p/Arc pathway

BACKGROUND

Propofol and dexmedetomidine (DEX) are widely used in general anesthesia, and exert toxic and protective effects on hippocampal neurons, respectively. The study sought to investigate the molecular mechanisms of DEX-mediated neuroprotection against propofol-induced hippocampal neuron injury in mouse brains.

METHODS

Hippocampal neurons of mice and HT22 cells were treated with propofol, DEX, and propofol+DEX. In addition, transfection of miR-377-5p mimics or inhibitors was performed in HT22 cells. Neuronal apoptosis was evaluated by a means of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT)-mediated dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) or Hochest 33,258 staining; Arc positive expression in hippocampus tissues was detected using a microscope in immunohistochemistry assays; miRNA-377-5p expression was quantified by RT-qPCR; the protein levels of Arc, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B were determined using western blot; Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assay was used to detect the viability and apoptotic rate of the neurons; methylation analysis in the miR-377-5p promoter was performed through methylated DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) assay; dual luciferase reporter assay was performed to confirm whether Arc was under targeted regulation of miR-377-5p.

RESULTS

In the current study, both in vitro and in vivo, propofol treatment induced hippocampal neuron apoptosis and suppressed cell viability. DNMT3A and DNMT3B expression levels were decreased following propofol treatment, resulting in lowered methylation in the miR-377-5p promoter region and then enhanced expression of miR-377-5p, leading to a decrease in the expression of downstream Arc. Conversely, the expression levels of DNMT3A and DNMT3B were increased following DEX treatment, thus methylation in miR-377-5p promoter region was improved, and miR-377-5p expression was decreased, leading to an increase in the expression of downstream Arc. Eventually, DEX pretreatment protected hippocampal neurons against propofol-induced neurotoxicity by recovering the expression levels of DNMT3A, miR-377-5p, and Arc to the normal levels. Additionally, DNMT3A knockdown improved miR-377-5p expression but reduced Arc expression, and DNMT3A overexpression exerted the opposite effects. Dual luciferase reporter assay revealed a binding target between miR-377-5p and Arc 3'UTR. The neuroprotective effect of DEX against propofol-induced neuronal apoptosis was diminished after Arc knockdown. Silencing Arc independently triggered the apoptosis of HT22 cells, which was alleviated through transfection of miR-377-5p inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX reduced propofol-induced hippocampal neuron injury via the miR-377-5p/Arc signaling pathway.

Using intranasal dexmedetomidine with buccal midazolam for magnetic resonance imaging sedation in children: A single-arm prospective interventional study

OBJECTIVE

Although numerous intravenous sedative regimens have been documented, the ideal non-parenteral sedation regimen for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been determined. This prospective, interventional study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of buccal midazolam in combination with intranasal dexmedetomidine in children undergoing MRI.

METHODS

Children between 1 month and 10 years old requiring sedation for MRI examination were recruited to receive buccal midazolam 0.2 mg⋅kg^-1 with intranasal dexmedetomidine 3 μg⋅kg^-1. The primary outcome was successful sedation following the administration of the initial sedation regimens and the completion of the MRI examination.

RESULTS

Sedation with dexmedetomidine-midazolam was administered to 530 children. The successful sedation rate was 95.3% (95% confidence interval: 93.5-97.1%) with the initial sedation regimens and 97.7% (95% confidence interval: 96.5-99%) with a rescue dose of 2 μg⋅kg^-1 intranasal dexmedetomidine. The median sedation onset time was 10 min, and a significant rising trend was observed in the onset time concerning age (R = 0.2491, P < 0.001). The wake-up and discharge times significantly correlated with the duration of the procedure (R = 0.323, P < 0.001 vs. R = 0.325, P < 0.001). No oxygen deficiency nor medication intervention due to cardiovascular instability was observed in any of the patients. History of a prior failed sedation was considered a statistically significant risk factor for failed sedation in the multivariate logistic regression model [odds ratio = 4.71 (95% confidence interval: 1.24-17.9), P = 0.023].

CONCLUSION

In MRI examinations, the addition of buccal midazolam to intranasal dexmedetomidine is associated with a high success rate and a good safety profile. This non-parenteral sedation regimen can be a feasible and convenient option for short-duration MRI in children between 1 month and 10 years.

Trends in Pediatric MRI sedation/anesthesia at a tertiary medical center over time

BACKGROUND

Each year, hundreds of thousands of children require sedation/anesthesia to facilitate MRI scans. Anesthetic techniques for accomplishing sedation/anesthesia vary widely between institutions and providers, with unclear implications for patient safety.

AIMS

We sought to establish trends in anesthetic practice for pediatric MRI sedation/anesthesia across a 7-year period and determine rates of adverse events, considering technique used, age, and ASA physical classification status (ASA-PS).

METHODS

Using established data resources, we analyzed 24 052 anesthetics performed by anesthesiologists for MRI scans between 5/1/2013 and 12/31/2019 on patients less than 18 years old, focusing on medications used, trends of use, and associated adverse events. Adverse events (hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia) were defined by deviation from age norms and accessed via the electronic anesthetic record database. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess trends over time in categorical data, and one-way ANOVA was used to analyze continuous data. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was implemented to determine the independent associations between anesthetic technique and adverse events while adjusting for age, ASA-PS, and weight.

RESULTS

The most significant trends noted were a decrease in "propofol-only" anesthetic techniques and an increase in propofol and dexmedetomidine combination techniques. Mild desaturation (80-89% SpO₂ ) occurred in 4.22% of cases with more significant hypoxia much rarer (0.44% of cases having desaturation <70% SpO₂ ). Bradycardia occurred in 2.39% of cases and hypotension in 1.75% of cases. Major adverse events were rare.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide the largest report of the nature of MRI sedation/anesthesia as practiced by anesthesiologists in a large children's hospital. We demonstrate that, even in a large system, anesthetic techniques are pliable and shift significantly over time. Our data also support a high level of safety within our system, despite a case mix likely higher in risk than those in most of the previously published studies.

Dexmedetomidine: What's New for Pediatrics? A Narrative Review

Over the past few years, despite the lack of approved pediatric labelling, dexmedetomidine’s (DEX) use has become more prevalent in pediatric clinical practice as well as in research trials. Its respiratory-sparing effects and bioavailability by various routes are only some of the valued features of DEX. In recent years the potential organ-protective effects of DEX, with the possibility for preserving neurocognitive function, has put it in the forefront of clinical and bench research. This comprehensive review focused on the pediatric literature but presents relevant, supporting adult and animal studies in order to detail the recent growing body of literature around the pharmacology, end-organ effects, organ-protective effects, alternative routes of administration, synergetic effects, and clinical applications, with considerations for the future.

Pediatric Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: Case Management

Anesthesiology teams care for children in diverse locations, including diagnostic and interventional radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary endoscopy suites, radiation oncology units, and cardiac catheterization laboratories. To provide safe, high-quality care, anesthesiologists working in these environments must understand the unique environmental and perioperative considerations and risks involved with each remote location and patient population. Once these variables are addressed, anesthesia and procedural teams can coordinate to ensure that patients and families receive the same high-quality care that they have come to expect in the operating room. This article also describes some of the considerations for anesthetic care in outfield locations.

Propofol use in newborns and children: is it safe? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the main indications and assess the most common adverse events with the administration of hypnotic propofol in most pediatric clinical scenarios.

SOURCES

A systematic review of PubMed, SciELO, Cochrane, and EMBASE was performed, using filters such as a maximum of five years post-publication, and/or references or articles of importance, with emphasis on clinical trials using propofol. All articles of major relevance were blind-reviewed by both authors according to the PRISMA statement, looking for possible bias and limitations or the quality of the articles.

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

Through the search criterion applied, 417 articles were found, and their abstracts evaluated. A total of 69 papers were thoroughly studied. Articles about propofol use in children are increasing, including in neonates, with the majority being cohort studies and clinical trials in two main scenarios: upper digestive endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. A huge list of adverse events has been published, but most articles considered them of low risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol is a hypnotic drug with a safe profile of efficacy and adverse events. Indeed, when administered by non-anesthesiologists, quick access to emergency care must be provided, especially in airway events. The use of propofol in other scenarios must be better studied, aiming to reduce the limitations of its administration by general pediatricians.

Impact of Anesthetics, Analgesics, and Perioperative Blood Transfusion in Pediatric Cancer Patients: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in developed countries. Children and adolescents with cancer need surgical interventions (ie, biopsy or major surgery) to diagnose, treat, or palliate their malignancies. Surgery is a period of high vulnerability because it stimulates the release of inflammatory mediators, catecholamines, and angiogenesis activators, which coincides with a period of immunosuppression. Thus, during and after surgery, dormant tumors or micrometastasis (ie, minimal residual disease) can grow and become clinically relevant metastasis. Anesthetics (ie, volatile agents, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine) and analgesics (ie, opioids) may also contribute to the growth of minimal residual disease or disease progression. For instance, volatile anesthetics have been implicated in immunosuppression and direct stimulation of cancer cell survival and proliferation. Contrarily, propofol has shown in vitro anticancer effects. In addition, perioperative blood transfusions are not uncommon in children undergoing cancer surgery. In adults, an association between perioperative blood transfusions and cancer progression has been described for some malignancies. Transfusion-related immunomodulation is one of the mechanisms by which blood transfusions can promote cancer progression. Other mechanisms include inflammation and the infusion of growth factors. In the present review, we discuss different aspects of tumorigenesis, metastasis, angiogenesis, the immune system, and the current studies about the impact of anesthetics, analgesics, and perioperative blood transfusions on pediatric cancer progression.