Safety and effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine together with midazolam for sedation in neonatal MRI

Four-year review of safe and effective procedural sedation in neonates and young infants

Objectives

Newborns and small infants are unable to cooperate actively during diagnostic procedures; therefore, sedation is often employee to maintain immobilization and obtain high-quality images. However, these procedures are often indicated in sick, vulnerable, or hemodynamically unstable neonates and young infants, which raises the associated risks of sedation. This study summarizes our 4-year of experience with safe and effective procedural sedation in this vulnerable population.

Study design

This retrospective study analyzed data on neonates and young infants who underwent non-painful diagnostic procedures from December 2019 to November 2023. Patients were categorized into the neonate (aged≦ 28 days) and the young infant (29 days ≦ aged ≦ 90 days) groups.

Results

Non-pharmacological strategies, including sleeping naturally, swaddling/facilitated tucking, non-nutritive sucking, and skin-to-skin care, can achieve a success rate for sedation about 98.4%. In terms of pharmacological methods, our institution primarily utilizes chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in neonates and young infants undergoing non-painful diagnostic procedures. Midazolam serves as an alternative sedative. Chloral hydrate alone demonstrated a 92.5% success rate on the first attempt, compared to midazolam alone, with an 85.11% success rate. Neonates experienced a higher incidence of adverse events during sedation compared to young infants.

Conclusion

This study reviews our 4-year experience with procedural sedation in neonates and young infants. Chloral hydrate demonstrated a high degree of safety and efficacy in this population. However, supervision by skilled medical personnel and extended observation is required. In our institution, the experience with midazolam is limited in this population, and further research is warranted to establish its safety and efficacy. Non-pharmacological strategies can achieve an acceptable rate of sedation success, which can be used based on patient's tolerance.

The effect of age on outpatient pediatric procedural sedation with intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam

Procedural sedation for diagnostic examination is a common practice in children. The study aims to analyze the sedative effect and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam in outpatient pediatric procedural sedation across different age groups and to assess the incidence of sedation failure. From February 2021 to September 2021, children who underwent procedural sedation were retrospectively enrolled. The children were divided into 4 groups based on age: the infant group (0 to 1 year old), toddler group (1 to 3 years old), preschool group (3 to 6 years old), and school-age group (6 to 12 years old). Two-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam were used for sedation. The sedation success rate after rescue, sedation success rate, onset time of sedation, and the sedation time were recorded. The incidence of adverse events and the risk factors for sedation failure were also analyzed. A total of 4758 patients were identified. After exclusion, 3149 patients were ultimately enrolled. The combination of 2-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam resulted in a total success rate of 99.7% and a sedation success rate of 91.4%. The sedation success rate varied among the four groups: 90.2% in the infant group, 93.1% in the toddler group, 92.7% in the preschool group, and 78.4% in the school-age group. The sedation success rate was significantly lower in the school-age group compared to the other three groups (P < 0.001). The onset time of sedation was shorter in infant (22 min, IQR: 18-28 min, P < 0.001) and longer in the school-age group (30 min, IQR: 25-35 min, P < 0.05). Additionally, the infants had a longer sedation time (110 min, IQR: 90-135 min, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of delayed recovery (27.5%, all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was low (4.70%), which bradycardia (2.03%) being the most common. Age (0-1 year and > 6 years), weight, ASA class II, and history of failed sedation were identified as risk factors of sedation failure.   Conclusion: Intranasal administration of 2-mcg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with oral administration of 0.5-mg/kg midazolam was found to be efficient and safety for pediatric procedural sedation. Different age groups of children exhibited distinct sedation characteristics, and age was identified as a risk factor affecting the efficacy of sedation. What is Known: • Procedural sedation for diagnostic examination is a common practice in children. • The combination of dexmedetomidine with midazolam can improve sedative effects. What is New: • The success rate of sedation using a combination of 2-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam was significantly lower in school-age children as compared to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. • The onset time of sedation increased with age, and the sedation time was found to be longer in infant patients.

Safety and quality in paediatric procedural sedation: what really matters?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review gives an overview of the safety aspects for paediatric procedural sedation and a discussion of possibilities for optimizing structure, processes and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Procedural sedation in paediatric patients is performed by providers of different specialties and compliance with safety standards is a basic requirement regardless of provider specialty. This includes preprocedural evaluation, monitoring, equipment and profound expertise of sedation teams. The choice of sedative medications and the possibility of incorporating nonpharmacological methods play an important role for optimal outcome. In addition, an ideal outcome from the patient's perspective includes optimized processes and clear and empathetic communication.

SUMMARY

Institutions providing paediatric procedural sedation must ensure the comprehensive training of sedations teams. Furthermore, institutional standards for equipment, processes and optimal choice of medication depending on performed procedure and comorbidities of the patient must be established. At the same time, organizational and communication aspects should be considered.

Perioperative management and drug selection for sedated/anesthetized patients undergoing MRI examination: A review

In recent years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology has become an indispensable imaging tool owing to significant improvements in MRI that have opened up new diagnostic perspectives. Due to the closed environment, long imaging time, and need to remain still during the examination process, the examiner may cannot cooperate with the completion of the examination of the procedure, which increases the need for deep sedation or anesthesia. Achieving this can sometimes be challenging, especially in the special nontraditional environment of MRI equipment (unfamiliar and narrow spaces, away from patients, strong magnetic fields) and in special populations requiring sedation/anesthesia during examinations, which pose certain challenges for the perioperative anesthesia management of MRI. A simple "checklist" is necessary because it allows the anesthesiologist to become familiar with the particular environment and human and material resources as quickly as possible. For the choice of sedative/anesthetic, the traditional drugs, such as midazolam and ketamine, are still used due to the ease of administration despite their low sedation success rate, prolonged recovery, and significant adverse events. Currently, dexmedetomidine, with respiratory drive preservation, propofol, with high effectiveness and rapid recovery, and sevoflurane, which is mild and nonirritating, are preferred for sedation/anesthesia in children and adults undergoing MRI. Therefore, familiarity with the perioperative management of patient sedation and general anesthesia and drug selection in the MRI environment is critical for successful surgical completion and for the safe and rapid discharge of MRI patients receiving sedation/anesthesia.

Needle-free pharmacological sedation techniques in paediatric patients for imaging procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedation techniques and drugs are increasingly used in children undergoing imaging procedures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an overview of literature concerning sedation of children aged 0-8 yr for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures using needle-free pharmacological techniques.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies on the use of needle-free pharmacological sedation techniques for MRI procedures in children aged 0-8 yr. Studies using i.v. or i.m. medication or advanced airway devices were excluded. We performed a meta-analysis on sedation success rate. Secondary outcomes were onset time, duration, recovery, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included, with 22 380 participants. The pooled success rate for oral chloral hydrate was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.96); for oral chloral hydrate and intranasal dexmedetomidine 95% (95% CI: 0.92-0.97); for rectal, oral, or intranasal midazolam 36% (95% CI: 0.14-0.65); for oral pentobarbital 99% (95% CI: 0.90-1.00); for rectal thiopental 92% (95% CI: 0.85-0.96); for oral melatonin 75% (95% CI: 0.54-0.89); for intranasal dexmedetomidine 62% (95% CI: 0.38-0.82); for intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam 94% (95% CI: 0.78-0.99); and for inhaled sevoflurane 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a large variation in medication, dosage, and route of administration for needle-free sedation. Success rates for sedation techniques varied between 36% and 98%.

Sedation and analgesia from prolonged pain and stress during mechanical ventilation in preterm infants: is dexmedetomidine an alternative to current practice?

Mechanical ventilation is an uncomfortable and potentially painful intervention. Opioids, such as morphine and fentanyl, are used for analgesia and sedation but there is uncertainty whether they reduce pain in mechanically ventilated infants. Moreover, there may be short-term and long-term adverse consequences such as respiratory depression leading to prolonged mechanical ventilation and detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental effects. Despite this, opioids are widely used, possibly due to a lack of alternatives.Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective alpha-2-adrenergic agonist with analgesic and sedative effects, currently approved for adults, has come into use in newborn infants. It provides analgesia and simulates natural sleep with maintenance of spontaneous breathing and upper airway tone. Although data on pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics in preterm infants are scant, observational studies report that using dexmedetomidine in conjunction with opioids/benzodiazepines or on its own can reduce the cumulative exposure to opioids/benzodiazepines. As it does not cause respiratory depression, dexmedetomidine could enable quicker weaning and extubation. Dexmedetomidine has also been suggested as an adjunct to therapeutic hypothermia in hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and others have used it during painful procedures and surgery. Dexmedetomidine infusion can cause bradycardia and hypotension although most report clinically insignificant effects.The increasing number of publications of observational studies and clinical use demonstrates that dexmedetomidine is being used in newborn infants but data on safety and efficacy are scant and not of high quality. Importantly, there are no data on long-term neurodevelopmental impact on preterm or term-born infants. The acceptance of dexmedetomidine in routine clinical practice must be preceded by clinical evidence. We need adequately powered and well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating whether dexmedetomidine alone or with opioids/benzodiazepines in infants on mechanical ventilation reduces the need for opioids/benzodiazepine and improves neurodevelopment at 24 months and later as compared with the use of opioids/benzodiazepines alone.

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.