A randomized controlled trial of oral chloral hydrate vs intranasal dexmedetomidine plus buccal midazolam for auditory brainstem response testing in children

A descriptive cross-sectional study on the cumulative frequency of pediatric procedural sedation in 0- to 3-year-old children

BackgroundRecurrent illnesses and poor adherence to medical procedures render infants and young children vulnerable to procedural sedation, while repeated or prolonged exposure to anesthetic medications and sedative drugs may potentially exert adverse effects on the developing brain.ObjectiveTo investigate the distribution of cumulative frequency and the use of general anesthetic drugs in pediatric procedural sedation for children aged 0 to 3 years.MethodsThe records of all children treated in the Sedation Clinic of the Children's Medical Center of our university in November 2021 were extracted as the sample. A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed, and the cumulative frequency of pediatric procedural sedation in 0- to 3-year-old children was investigated as the first endpoint.ResultsA total of 3439 independent children were included in this study, 2649 (77.0%), 471 (13.7%), 270 (7.9%) and 49 (1.4%) children with 1 to 3, 3 to 5, 5 to 10 and ≥10 rounds of the cumulative frequency of sedation, respectively, and 929 (27%) of those were identified general anesthetics using. There was no significant difference in the gender ratio of each cumulative frequency strata subgroup compared with that of the total sample.Conclusions: The present study concluded that some 0- to 3-year-old children are at risk of large cumulative frequency of pediatric procedural sedation and high risk of general anesthetics exposure.

Efficacy of Rectal Versus Oral Chloral Hydrate in Pediatric Auditory Brainstem Response: Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To compare sedation success rates between rectal (RCH) and oral chloral hydrate (OCH) administration in children undergoing auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing and assess the incidence of adverse effects.

Study Design

Randomized controlled trial, performed between May 2023 and August 2023.

Setting

Ear, Nose, and Throat Outpatient Department at tertiary care hospital.

Methods

Pediatric patients aged 1 to 5 years, who were indicated for ABR testing were enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups. The control group received 10% wt/vol chloral hydrate orally at a dose of 50 mg/kg, while the other group received the same dose through rectal administration. Onset of sedation, duration of sedation, recovery time, vital signs, and adverse effects were recorded and analyzed to assess sedative effectiveness and safety.

Results

Eighty-eight children were randomly assigned to RCH or OCH administration groups, the sedation success rates of RCH and OCH groups were 84.09% and 90.91%, respectively (P = .33). Adverse effects were detected in 11 children (12.5%), with a vomiting rate of 20.45% in the oral group versus 0% in the rectal group (P = .002). The diarrhea rate was 4.55% in the rectal group versus 0% in the oral group (P = .16). In either group, no serious adverse effects were documented.

Conclusion

RCH and OCH are both safe and effective for short-term sedation in pediatric patients during ABR testing. Interestingly, RCH administration offers a high success rate without vomiting or major adverse effects. This study established the effectiveness of RCH for sedation in children under specialized supervision.

Comparison of intranasal ketamine with intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine combination in pediatric dental patients for procedural sedation: A crossover study

BACKGROUND

The main goal of the pediatric dentist is to address and reduce children's fear and anxiety during the dental treatment, especially when conventional behavior-guiding strategies fail. In such cases, the use of pharmacological agents becomes an essential factor to consider.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal ketamine (INK) with the combination of intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine (INMzD) in pediatric dental patients for the procedural sedation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-seven children aged 3-9 years who required dental procedures such as extractions, pulpectomy, and restorations were randomly distributed into two groups using the envelope drawing method. Group INK received 7 mg/kg INK, whereas Group INMzD received a combination of midazolam spray (0.3 mg/kg) and atomized dexmedetomidine (3 μg/kg).

RESULTS

INK showed faster onset, faster recovery, and shorter discharge time than INMzD. Both groups had acceptable physiological parameters and no postoperative complications. INK was more accepted by the patients than INMzD.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of efficacy, safety, and acceptability, INK outperformed the combination of INMzD for the procedural sedation.

An evaluation of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam in pediatric sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.

METHODS

The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I2 = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I2 = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I2 = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I2 = 30%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.

Efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate in auditory brainstem response test: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of chloral hydrate in auditory brainstem response (ABR) tests.

SETTING AND DESIGN

In this study, the authors systematically searched both English (Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) and Chinese (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and VIP Chinese Science) databases. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. The pooled sedation failure rate and the pooled incidence of adverse events were calculated via a random-effects model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity, and the PRISMA guideline was followed.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with ABR tests receiving chloral hydrate sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The pooled sedation failure rate and the pooled incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 23 clinical studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled sedation failure rate of patients who received chloral hydrate sedation before ABR examination was 10.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) (6.7%, 15.0%), I2 = 95%, p < .01]. There were significant differences in the prevalence of sedation failure between sample sizes greater than 200 and those less than or equal to 200 (5.6% vs. 19.6%, p < .01) and between the studies that reported sleep deprivation and those that did not report sleep deprivation (7.1% vs. 18.9%, p < .01). The pooled incidence of adverse events was 10.32% [95% CI (5.83%, 14.82%), I2 = 98.1%, p < .01].

CONCLUSIONS

Chloral hydrate has a high rate of sedation failure, adverse events, and potential carcinogenicity. Therefore, replacing its use in ABR tests with safer and more effective sedatives is warranted.

Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Moderate to deep sedation is required for dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. Midazolam is the most commonly used sedative, whereas intranasal dexmedetomidine is increasingly used in pediatric sedation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this trial was to compare the sedative efficacy of oral midazolam alone with that of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam during dental treatment of children with dental anxiety.

DESIGN

In total, 83 children (aged 3-12 years) scheduled to undergo dental sedation were randomized to receive oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal placebo, or oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) plus intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg). The primary outcome was the rate of successful sedation for dental treatment. Secondary outcomes were the onset time and adverse events during and after treatment. Data analyses involved descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

The rate of successful sedation was significantly higher in combination group (P = 0.007), although the sedation onset time was significantly longer in combination group (17.5 ± 2.4 min) than in monotherapy group (15.7 ± 1.8) (P = 0.003). No children required medical intervention or oxygen therapy for hemodynamic disturbances, and the incidences of adverse events had no significant difference between groups (P = 0.660).

CONCLUSION

Combined treatment with oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) is more significantly effective for managing the behavior of non-cooperative children during dental treatment, compared to oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) alone. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100042300) TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2100042300, Clinical trial first registration date: 17/01/2021.

Comparison of cerebral oxygen desaturation events between children under general anesthesia and chloral hydrate sedation - a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

During pediatric general anesthesia (GA) and sedation, clinicians aim to maintain physiological parameters within normal ranges. Accordingly, regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rScO2) should not drop below preintervention baselines. Our study compared rScO2 desaturation events in children undergoing GA or chloral hydrate sedation (CHS).

METHODS

Ninety-two children undergoing long auditory assessments were randomly assigned to two study arms: CHS (n = 40) and GA (n = 52). Data of 81 children (mean age 13.8 months, range 1-36 months) were analyzed. In the GA group, we followed a predefined 10 N concept (no fear, no pain, normovolemia, normotension, normocardia, normoxemia, normocapnia, normonatremia, normoglycemia, and normothermia). In this group, ENT surgeons performed minor interventions in 29 patients based on intraprocedural microscopic ear examinations. In the CHS group, recommendations for monitoring and treatment of children undergoing moderate sedation were met. Furthermore, children received a double-barreled nasal oxygen cannula to measure end-tidal carbon dioxide (etCO2) and allow oxygen administration. Chloral hydrate was administered in the parent's presence. Children had no intravenous access which is an advantage of sedation techniques. In both groups, recommendations for fasting were followed and an experienced anesthesiologist was present during the entire procedure. Adverse event (AE) was a decline in cerebral oxygenation to below 50% or below 20% from the baseline for ≥1 min. The primary endpoint was the number of children with AE across the study arms. Secondary variables were: fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2), etCO2, systolic and mean blood pressure (BP), and heart rate (HR); these variables were analyzed for their association with drop in rScO2 to below baseline (%drop_rScO2).

RESULTS

The incidence of AE across groups was not different. The analysis of secondary endpoints showed evidence that %drop_rScO2 is more dependent on HR and FIO2 than on BP and etCO2.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the strong association between HR and rScO2 in children aged < 3 years, whereas previous studies had primarily discussed the role of BP and etCO2. Prompt HR correction may result in shorter periods of cerebral desaturation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00024362, 04/02/2021).

What Is the Role of Dexmedetomidine in Modern Anesthesia and Critical Care?

Dexmedetomidine's unique sedative properties have led to its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine has a beneficial pharmacologic profile including analgesic sparing effects, anxiolysis, sympatholysis, organ-protective effects against ischemic and hypoxic injury, and sedation which parallels natural sleep. An understanding of predictable side effects, effects of age-related physiologic changes, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine is crucial to maximize its safe administration in adults and children. This review focuses on the growing body of literature examining advances in applications of dexmedetomidine in children and adults.

Efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate as sedatives for pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study was designed to review published literature to determine the efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate (CH) for sedation in pediatric patients based on qualified studies. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for qualified studies published before March 2021. For each study, we analyzed the relative risk or weighted mean difference combined with a 95% CI. Fourteen studies including 3749 pediatric patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with oral CH, intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly increased the success rate of sedation and decreased the duration and latency of sedation, time of recovery from sedation, and total sedation time. Compared with oral CH, intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the incidence of adverse events, including vomiting, but increased the incidence of bradycardia. In conclusion, intranasal dexmedetomidine provides better sedation than oral CH for pediatric patients with good safety; however, the incidence of bradycardia is increased.

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.

Comparison of the Effects of Oral Midazolam and Intranasal Dexmedetomidine on Preoperative Sedation and Anesthesia Induction in Children Undergoing Surgeries

Background and Purpose: Premedication with either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine prior to surgery remains less than ideal. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of those two drug regimens would have any beneficial effects on the preoperative sedation and the children’s compliance during anesthesia inhalation induction.

Experimental Approach: One hundred thirty-eight children aged 2–6 years were randomly allocated into three groups: Group M with oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹, Group D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg⁻¹, and Group M + D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg⁻¹ plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹. The primary outcome was the children’s compliance during inhalation induction with sevoflurane. The secondary outcomes included the preoperative sedative effects, behavior scores, parental separation anxiety scores, and the postoperative incidence of emergence agitation and recovery time.

Results: Subjects in Group M + D showed higher satisfaction scores of compliance (p = 0.0049) and mask acceptance (MAS) (p = 0.0049) during anesthesia inhalation induction. Subjects in Group M + D had a significantly shorter time than those in Groups M and D to achieve the desired sedation level (p < 0.001) and remained at a higher sedation score in the holding area and up to the anesthesia induction after drug administration (p < 0.001).

Conclusion and Implications: We conclude that pediatric patients premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg⁻¹ plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ had significantly improved anesthesia induction compliance, and quicker onset to achieve and maintain a satisfactory level of sedation than those premedicated separately with two drugs. Therefore, the combined premed regimen is a greater choice when we are expecting a higher quality of sedation and a smoother anesthesia induction in children undergoing the surgeries.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Compared to a Combination of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine with Ketamine for Sedation of Children Requiring Dental Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Outpatient pediatric sedation is challenging. This study aimed to test intranasal dexmedetomidine efficacy as a single drug or combined with ketamine (DK) to sedate children undergoing dental treatment. Children < 7 years were randomized into dexmedetomidine 2 mcg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg (DK) or dexmedetomidine 2.5 mcg/kg (D) groups. Videos from the dental sedation allowed the systematic assessment of children's behavior (primary outcome) according to the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS). Secondary outcomes were parental and dentist satisfaction, adverse events, and recovery time. The data were analyzed descriptively and through regression models. Participants were 88 children (44 per group; 50 boys). The duration of quiet behavior (OSUBRS) was higher than 50% (DK mean 58.4 [standard deviation 38.1]; D 55.2 [39.1]; p = 0.225). Parents (DK 78.0 [32.2]; D 72.7 [35.1]; p = 0.203) and dentists (KD 62.7 [41.0]; D 62.8 [40.1]; p = 0.339) were overall satisfied. Adverse events occurred in 16 cases (DK n = 10, 62.5%; D n= 6, 37.5%; p = 0.104) and were minor. The median recovery time in the DK group was 1.3 times greater than in group D (p < 0.05). Intranasal sedation with dexmedetomidine alone is equally efficacious and satisfactory for pediatric sedation with fewer adverse events and faster recovery than the DK combination.

Rectal chloral hydrate sedation for computed tomography in young children with head trauma

Children evaluated in the emergency department for head trauma often undergo computed tomography (CT), with some uncooperative children requiring pharmacological sedation. Chloral hydrate (CH) is a sedative that has been widely used, but its rectal use for child sedation after head trauma has rarely been studied. The objective of this study was to document the safety and efficacy of rectal CH sedation for cranial CT in young children.We retrospectively studied all the children with head trauma who received rectal CH sedation for CT in the emergency department from 2016 to 2019. CH was administered rectally at a dose of 50 mg/kg body weight. When sedation was achieved, CT scanning was performed, and the children were monitored until recovery. The sedative safety and efficacy were analyzed.A total of 135 children were enrolled in the study group, and the mean age was 16.05 months. The mean onset time was 16.41 minutes. Successful sedation occurred in 97.0% of children. The mean recovery time was 71.59 minutes. All of the vital signs were within normal limits after sedation, except 1 (0.7%) with transient hypoxia. There was no drug-related vomiting reaction in the study group. Adverse effects occurred in 11 patients (8.1%), but all recovered completely. Compared with oral CH sedation, rectal CH sedation was associated with quicker onset (P < .01), higher success rate (P < .01), and lower adverse event rate (P < .01).Rectal CH sedation can be a safe and effective method for CT imaging of young children with head trauma in the emergency department.

Auditory brainstem response testing using intranasal dexmedetomidine sedation in children: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Auditory brainstem response (ABR) is used to determine hearing thresholds in children who cannot undergo behavioural testing. Children must remain still during testing, with general anaesthesia (GA) in theatre required for those who cannot. We developed a protocol whereby an ABR was undertaken in a ward environment using only intranasal dexmedetomidine for sedation.

DESIGN

Prospective data were collected including the time of sedation onset, ABR duration and arrival to discharge time was recorded and feedback was requested using a questionnaire.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twenty-nine consecutive patients routinely undergoing an ABR.

RESULTS

From this pilot study, we demonstrated that intranasal dexmedetomidine could be used successfully to administer safe sedation to all twenty-nine children undergoing an ABR in a ward environment as opposed to theatre.

CONCLUSIONS

This allowed for faster time to discharge compared to GA, produced what was felt to be a better quality ABR trace, better utilization of a theatre slot, negated the need for GA in a child and created a less stressful experience for both parent and child according to information from feedback questionnaires.

Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine and Oral Midazolam for Premedication in Pediatric Dental Patients under General Anesthesia: A Randomised Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of preoperative intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam on preoperative sedation and postoperative agitation in pediatric dentistry. A total of 60 children (ASA grade I, aged 3-6 years) scheduled for elective pediatric dental treatment were randomly divided into the dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MID) groups. Ramsay sedation score, parental separation anxiety scale, mask acceptance scale, pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. The Ramsay sedation scale and hemodynamic parameters of the children were observed and recorded immediately before administration and 10, 20, and 30 min after administration. A satisfactory mask acceptance scale rate was 93.33% in both MID and DEX groups, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). The proportions of children that "successfully separated from their parents" were 93.33% (MID) and 96.67% (DEX). No significant difference was found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The incidence of agitation was 20% in the MID group and 0% in the DEX group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam provided satisfactory sedation. No significant difference between the two groups was found in terms of parental separation anxiety and mask acceptance (p > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative pediatrics emergence delirium was significantly lower in the DEX group (p < 0.05).

A Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine and Dexmedetomidine Plus Buccal Midazolam for Non-painful Procedural Sedation in Children with Autism

Children with autism often need sedation for diagnostic procedures and they are often difficult to sedate. This prospective randomized double-blind control trial evaluates the efficacy and safety using intranasal dexmedetomidine with and without buccal midazolam for sedation in children with autism undergoing computerized tomography and/or auditory brainstem response test. The primary outcome is the proportion of children attaining satisfactory sedation. One hundred and thirty-six children received intranasal dexmedetomidine and 139 received intranasal dexmedetomidine with buccal midazolam for sedation. Combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and buccal midazolam was associated with higher sedation success when compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine. Since intranasal and buccal sedatives required little cooperation this could be especially useful technique for children with autism or other behavioral conditions.