Invasive procedures carried out in conscious children: contrast between North American and European paediatric oncology centres

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.

Nursing management of children's pain: Current evidence and future directions for research

This critical literature review discusses the research evidence underpinning each of the pain standards in the National Service Framework for Children: Standard for hospital services. Relevant evidence-based reviews and clinical practice guidelines are highlighted, and aspects of children's pain management where the research evidence is particularly strong or weak are identified. Priorities are suggested for nurse-led research aimed at generating new knowledge to improve pain management for children.

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.

Symptom Management Research in Children With Cancer

A review of the clinical research studies published within the past 5 years revealed that efforts to manage symptoms of cancer and its treatments have not kept pace with new advances in the cure for cancer. Children with cancer continue to experience distressing physical symptoms caused by the disease and treatment. The purpose of this article is to provide a concise overview of the most common symptoms experienced by children with cancer. These symptoms include pain, nausea and vomiting, nutritional concerns, mucositis, and fatigue experienced by the child with cancer. Recommendations for future research are addressed.

A survey of procedural sedation and analgesia practices in pediatric oncology centers in India

OBJECTIVE

Repeated lumbar punctures (LP) and bone marrow aspirations (BMA) are part of childhood cancer management. Adequate sedation and analgesia for these procedures in a safe environment is desirable. We evaluate current practice related to this in pediatric oncology centers in India.

METHODS

Clinicians attending the 2nd Annual India Pediatric Oncology Initiative meeting at New Delhi in February 2010 were invited to complete a questionnaire. Questionnaires were also sent by email to the remaining major pediatric oncology centers not represented at the meeting. Responses for LP and BMA were separately collated and variability by type of hospital and patient caseload was assessed.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 26 of 32 centers (81%) approached. A median of 3 personnel (mostly pediatric residents and nurses) were present during the procedures. Some form of sedation and analgesia was used for LP and BMA in 88.5% and 100% centers respectively. However, use of systemic sedation and analgesia (usually midazolam +/- ketamine) for LP and BMA in ≥75% patients was seen in 47.8% and 61.6% centers respectively. General anesthesia was not used in any center. Additional restraint was commonly used and its use was significantly more in public hospitals (p = 0.01). Monitoring was usually done by observation of vital signs, with use of pulse-oximetry in less than half of the centers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is varied use of sedation and analgesia for LP and BMA in pediatric oncology centers in India. Further research is needed to identify the reasons for this. Availability of resources is likely to be a factor.

The management of procedural pain at the Italian Centers of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology: state-of-the-art and future directions

PURPOSE

The quality of life of children with cancer can be affected by the experience of cancer-related pain, treatment-related pain, procedural pain, generalized pain, and long-term chronic pain, and the consequences may be permanent. Treatment-related pain and procedural pain are often reportedly the most painful experiences relating to their illness. Procedural pain treatment is therefore now considered essential. This multicenter survey investigated how procedural pain is managed at Italian Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Centers.

METHODS

From April to October 2010, questionnaires were collected from the directors and/or referent of the Italian Centers of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology about the management of lumbar punctures, bone marrow aspirates, and biopsies.

RESULTS

We received responses from 67% of the centers (which performed a total of 13,271 procedures per year). Fifty percent of the procedures were performed in the operating room. The sedation-analgesia was provided "almost always" for 84% of procedures. Non-pharmacological treatments were used in 55% of the centers. The specialist who practiced analgesia was the anesthetist in 83.3% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

A nationwide multicentre survey has been conducted for the first time to verify the management of procedural pain in Pediatric Hematology-Oncology patients. The results indicate that many aspects in the management of procedural pain appear consistent with the international guidelines. Some problems still remain, including the inability to ensure adequate sedation-analgesia in all the patients--often due to the lack of adequate staff, the frequent use of the operating room, and an underdeveloped use of non-pharmacological therapies.

Moderate intravenous sedation with fentanyl and midazolam for invasive procedures in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Data were collected prospectively on 100 consecutive invasive procedures, that is, lumbar and bone marrow punctures (alone or in combination), in 16 patients less than 21 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Efficacy of sedation and the need for restraint were graded according to 2 multiple-point scales. All invasive procedures were successfully performed. Oxygen by face mask was needed in 5 cases, whereas no patient required sedation reversal; 92% of the time, the patient was calm, cooperative, and responding to verbal commands, whereas in 97 procedures, there was no or only minimal patient movement that did not interfere with the completion of the procedure. Inpatient administration of midazolam and fentanyl by trained pediatric providers is safe and effective for invasive procedures in children and adolescents with ALL.

Safety of general anesthesia for lumbar puncture and bone marrow aspirate/biopsy in pediatric oncology patients

INTRODUCTION

Painful short duration procedures such as bone marrow aspiration/biopsy and the lumbar puncture with or without intrathecal chemotherapy are frequently performed during the treatment of children with cancer. This study evaluated the frequency and severity of complications of bone marrow aspiration biopsy and lumbar puncture/intrathecal chemotherapy under general anesthesia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed from November 2003 to August 2005. Patients with cancer younger than 21 years old, receiving treatment at the Pediatric Oncology Unity of Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, undergoing diagnostic and/or therapeutic short duration procedures carried out under general anesthesia in the outpatient surgery unit.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients were submitted to 423 procedures under general anesthesia. There were 61% boys, mean age of 7.5 years (0.2 to 21) and ASA II 98%. Eighty seven percent of the procedures were carried out in patients with leukemia or lymphoma. The majority of the procedures had no adverse events during intraoperative and postoperative periods. No procedure had to be suspended after it had begun. One patient had lumbar pain after the procedure and was admitted to the ward with suspected subdural bleeding, but this was not confirmed. No patient needed cardiopulmonary reanimation or treatment in the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

General anesthesia for short duration painful procedures in children undergoing treatment for malignancies is safe when carried out by trained professionals in outpatient clinical surgery unit.

Propofol-fentanyl versus propofol alone for lumbar puncture sedation in children with acute hematologic malignancies: propofol dosing and adverse events

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether the combination of propofol and fentanyl results in lower propofol doses and fewer adverse cardiopulmonary events than propofol and placebo for lumbar puncture in children with acute hematologic malignancies.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled, double blind, crossover study.

SETTING

Pediatric Sedation Program.

PATIENTS

Children with acute leukemia or lymphoma receiving sedation for lumbar puncture.

INTERVENTIONS

Each patient received two sedations in random order, one with propofol/placebo and one with propofol/fentanyl. The study investigator and patient/parent were blinded to placebo or fentanyl. Data collected included patient age and diagnosis, propofol dose and adverse events. Adverse events included oxygen saturation <94%, airway obstruction, apnea, hypotension, and bradycardia (<5% mean for age). Logistic regression analysis was used to assess probability of adverse events and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank and McNemar's tests were used for paired comparisons.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were enrolled. Fourteen patients were male and eight were female. Each patient was studied twice for a total of 44 sedations. The median age was 5.0 yrs (range, 2.2-17.2 yrs). All procedures were successfully completed. The median total dose of propofol was 5.05 mg/kg (range, 2.4-10.2 mg/kg) for propofol/placebo vs. 3.00 mg/kg (range 1.4-10.5 mg/kg) for propofol/fentanyl (p < 0.001). Twelve adverse events occurred in 11 of 22 patients (50.0%) propofol/placebo compared with 6 of 22 (18.2%) propofol/fentanyl (p = 0.02). The most common adverse event was hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propofol and fentanyl vs. propofol alone for lumbar puncture sedation in children with acute hematologic malignancies resulted in lower propofol doses and fewer adverse events.

Sedative preference of families for lumbar punctures in children with acute leukemia: propofol alone or propofol and fentanyl

Propofol is a common sedative/anesthetic used for invasive procedures in children with cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine whether families of children with acute leukemia prefer propofol alone or propofol plus fentanyl for lumbar puncture (LP) sedation. We conducted a randomized, placebo controlled, double blind, crossover study. Each patient was studied twice, once with propofol/placebo and once with propofol/fentanyl. Data collected included the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Score (M-YPAS) at baseline and after placebo or fentanyl, Induction Compliance Checklist, recovery excitement, recovery time, and adverse events. After the study, families were asked which sedative regimen they preferred for future LPs. Twenty-two patients received 44 LP sedations: propofol 22, propofol/fentanyl 22. The average age was 6.4+/-4.2 years (mean+/-SD). There were no significant differences between groups in M-YPAS, Induction Compliance Checklist or recovery excitement. Adverse events occurred in 11/22 patients (50%) propofol and 4/22 (18.2%) propofol/fentanyl (P=0.0196). Average recovery time (mean+/-SD) was 36.86+/-17.1 minutes propofol versus 26.36+/-16.4 minutes propofol/fentanyl (P=0.047). Sixteen families (72.7%) chose propofol with fentanyl for future LP sedations (P=0.05). In conclusion, most families prefer propofol and fentanyl for LPs. Propofol with fentanyl was also associated with fewer adverse events and faster recovery.

Making pain assessment more accessible to children and parents: can greater involvement improve the quality of care?

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether nursing and parental pain assessment documentation and analgesia administration increased with the use of a temporary tattoo of a pain intensity scale (TTPS) compared with a paper version of the pain scale (PPS). To document any adverse skin reactions from the use of the TTPS and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the PPS and TTPS for use as postoperative pain assessment tools in the home and clinical setting.

METHODS

Two pilot randomized controlled trials were conducted to test the TTPS intervention and the PPS control condition in children aged 6 to 12 years, after surgery. Trial 1 involved children admitted to hospital for planned inpatient surgery (n=86). Trial 2 involved children discharged home following day case surgery (n=25).

RESULTS

The TTPS was well accepted and there were no adverse effects. Our hypothesis that the TTPS would increase documentation of pain assessment or analgesic administration was not supported. However, a number of confounding factors may explain the findings. Children in both trials indicated greater overall satisfaction with the TTPS and responses from both parents and children suggested some aspects of the quality of the pain management experience were enhanced with use of the TTPS in both trials.

DISCUSSION

The TTPS is a new method to engage children in pain assessment, which may have positive effects on the quality of postoperative pain assessment and management in hospital and home settings. Larger trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of the TTPS across all pediatric settings and for children with nonsurgical and also surgical pain. The findings from these pilot trials provide useful information for design and power estimation for further research in inpatient and home settings.

Pediatric sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pediatric sedation continues to evolve. It is an area of practice that involves a variety of pediatric subspecialties, the practitioners of many of which are not fully aware of what is being done by others involved in this care. The purpose of this review is to consider the current status of pediatric sedation in general and to discuss the most recent literature concerning this practice. Specifically we will discuss the use of new medications for pediatric sedation, issues concerning fasting status, issues surrounding the effectiveness of sedation, and discharge criteria after sedation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Propofol sedation is growing rapidly outside of the operating room environment. Emergency-medicine and intensive-care providers are regularly employing propofol for procedural sedation and reporting its effective use in their hands. Also in the emergency-medicine field, evidence is emerging that fasting status is not a particularly important factor in the genesis of critical events during sedation. Anesthesiologists are evaluating the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation of children and new reports describe the advantages of deep sedation and anesthesia over moderate sedation for painful procedures. Finally an important study shows that a patient's condition on discharge after sedation can be improved through the implementation of specific criteria using objective scoring techniques.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiologists and those outside of anesthesiology are employing new potent sedative hypnotic agents to accomplish effective pediatric sedation. At the same time, the consensus-generated sedation guidelines--particularly with respect to fasting guidelines--are being questioned. All of this is occurring in the face of mounting evidence that sedation depth needs to be adequate to provide optimal operating conditions and patient satisfaction. Regardless of sedation method used, recovery criteria need to be carefully considered in order to optimize patient safety.

Sedation and analgesia for brief diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in children

The number of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures done outside of the operating room and the intensive care unit has increased substantially in recent years. In parallel, the management of acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing therapeutic and diagnostic procedures has developed considerably in the past two decades. The primary goal of procedural sedation and analgesia is the safe and efficacious control of emotional distress and pain. The availability of non-invasive monitoring, short-acting opioids and sedatives has broadened the possibilities of sedation and analgesia in children in diverse settings. While most of these procedures themselves pose little risk to the child, the administration of sedation or analgesia may add substantial risk to the patient. This article reviews the current status of sedation and analgesia for invasive and non-invasive procedures in children providing an evidence-based approach to several topics of importance, including patient assessment, personnel requirements, equipment, monitoring, and drugs.

Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update

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 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 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 tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction; a clear understanding of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of the medications used for sedation, as well as an appreciation for 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 people to 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 presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical 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.

Painful procedures in children with cancer: comparison of moderate sedation and general anesthesia for lumbar puncture and bone marrow aspiration

BACKGROUND

The study was conducted to compare moderate sedation (MS) with general anesthesia (GA) in the management of frequently performed lumbar puncture or bone marrow aspiration (BMA) during the treatment of childhood cancer.

PROCEDURE

The MS (14 patients for 30 procedures) was managed by non-anesthesiologists (combined nitrous oxide-midazolam +/- non-pharmacological techniques). The GA was managed by anesthesiologists (17 patients for 30 procedures). A neutral observer recorded side effects, use of sedative antagonists, recovery time, oncologist's evaluation, procedure behaviors check list (PBCL); subjective perceptions during the procedure with a questionnaire administered to children (>6 years) and their parents; drugs costs and professional resources. P-values <0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

We had two inadequate sedations in MS (6.6%) versus 0 in GA. We had no significant differences in side effects (7.10% MS vs. 8.6% in GA), use of antagonists (2.90% GA vs. 0 MS), PBCL, oncologist evaluation and questionnaire data or drugs costs. We observed significant differences in recovery times (MS, mean 43 +/- SD min vs. GA, mean 117 +/- SD min) and professional resources costs. The effects of non-pharmacological techniques on anxiety were perceived very positively by both children and parents (on 0-4 scale, mean scores 3.57 for the children; 3.53 for the parents).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that MS compared favorably to GA with respect to both safety and efficacy. When performed by non-anesthesiologists, MS may be associated with better compliance and cost-effectiveness as it relies on the contribution of non-pharmacological techniques.

Propofol versus midazolam/ketamine for procedural sedation in pediatric oncology

Different pharmacologic agents have been used for sedation in children undergoing invasive procedures. The authors prospectively compared the efficacy, the occurrence of adverse effects, cardiovascular parameters, oxygen saturation and induction, and recovery time in propofol with or without morphine versus midazolam/ketamine sedation for procedural sedation in children with malignancies and hematologic disorders. Fifty children received either propofol with or without morphine or ketamine/midazolam sedation for invasive procedures. Intravenous sedation consisted of 0.1 mg midazolam/kg and 1.0 mg ketamine/kg or 2 mg propofol/kg with or without 0.1 mg morphine/kg. Incremental dosages of ketamine or propofol were given, if necessary, to achieve or to maintain adequate sedation levels. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, time to induce sedation, recovery time, and adverse effects were recorded. All invasive procedures were successfully completed, with satisfactory sedation levels in all 25 patients in the propofol group and 23 of the 25 patients in the ketamine group. In 14 of the 25 procedures in the propofol group and 4 of the 25 procedures in the ketamine group, sedation was associated with side effects, the most common being oxygen desaturation. There was a significant increase in diastolic blood pressure after ketamine medication and a significant decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate in the propofol group. Induction and recovery times in the propofol group were significantly shorter. Both regimens for procedural sedation are efficacious in achieving satisfactory sedation levels for invasive procedures. Propofol offers a quicker onset of sedation and a faster, smoother recovery but is associated with a higher rate of side effects. Considering the substantial rate of adverse effects, these procedural sedations should be performed only by physicians trained in advanced airway management and life support.

Bispectral index as a guide for titration of propofol during procedural sedation among children

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the bispectral index (BIS) monitor could be used to guide physicians in titrating propofol to an effective safe level of deep sedation for children undergoing painful medical procedures.

DESIGN

Multiphase clinical trial.

SETTING

Outpatient treatment center of a university children's hospital.

PATIENTS

Pediatric outpatients undergoing painful medical procedures.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were sedated with propofol for the procedures. Patients were monitored with a BIS monitor, and the BIS score was correlated with the patient's clinical level of sedation. The BIS score was then used as a guide to titrate propofol in the last phase of the study.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The study consisted of 3 phases. In a chart review of data for 154 children who underwent 212 procedures, propofol was found to be safe and effective, with consistent dosing among the intensivists administering the medication. The children received a mean bolus dose of propofol of 1.56 mg/kg, with a mean total dose of propofol of 0.33 mg/kg per minute for the duration of the procedure. In the second phase, 21 patients ranging in age from 27 weeks to 18 years, with normal neurologic function, were sedated with propofol. An observer who was blinded to the BIS scores recorded clinical levels of sedation and reactivity (with a modified Ramsay scale and reactivity score) every 1 to 3 minutes. Another observer recorded the BIS scores at the same times. A total of 275 data points were collected and evaluated. All data points from the times at which patients were considered to be sedated adequately were used to construct a normal distribution of BIS scores. The mean BIS score was 62. This distribution was used to predict that a maximal BIS score of 47 was needed to ensure adequate sedation for 90% of the population. In the third phase of the study, an algorithm was devised to determine the target BIS score necessary for adequate sedation of 95% of the patients. We chose an initial BIS score of 50 (at which 85% of the patients in phase 2 were sedated) because of the possibility of data from phase 2 being skewed toward oversedation. Propofol was administered by an intensivist in an attempt to maintain the target BIS score. A blinded observer noted the patient's clinical level of sedation. In this group, there were 2 failures, ie, patients were clinically uncomfortable despite a BIS score of < or =50, representing only 90% success. Therefore, with the algorithm, propofol was titrated to sedate the next patients to a BIS score of 45. These patients required a mean bolus dose of 1.47 mg/kg and a mean total dose of 0.51 mg/kg per minute to maintain a BIS score of 45. They awakened in 12.75 minutes. All patients were sedated adequately, all procedures were successful, and no patients experienced complications from the sedation. To eliminate variability in the way propofol was dosed, the next 10 patients were given propofol according to a standardized protocol. These 10 children received an initial bolus of 1 mg/kg, with incremental bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg per dose (maximum: 20 mg) to achieve and to maintain a BIS score of 45. With this protocol, all patients were sedated adequately and none experienced complications from the sedation. The patients required a mean bolus dose of 2.23 mg/kg and a mean dose of 0.52 mg/kg per minute to maintain a BIS score of 45. The mean time until awakening was 14.9 minutes. Regarding the total dose over time and the time until awakening, there was no statistical significance between this group and the group sedated to a BIS score of 45 without the dosing protocol.

CONCLUSION

The BIS monitor can be a useful monitoring guide for the titration of propofol by physicians who are competent in airway and hemodynamic management, to achieve deep sedation for children undergoing painful procedures.

Recovery After Anesthesia for Short Pediatric Oncology Procedures: Propofol and Remifentanil Compared with Propofol, Nitrous Oxide, and Sevoflurane

Anesthesia techniques in children undergoing short painful oncology procedures should allow rapid recovery without side effects. We compared the recovery characteristics of two anesthetic techniques: propofol with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide and a total IV technique using propofol and remifentanil. Twenty-one children, undergoing two similar painful procedures within 2 wk were studied in a single-blind manner within patient comparison. The order of the techniques was randomized. Propofol and remifentanil involved bolus doses of both propofol 3-5 mg/kg and remifentanil 1-4 microg/kg. Propofol with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide involved propofol 3-5 mg/kg with 2%-8% sevoflurane and 70% nitrous oxide. The primary outcome variable was the time taken to achieve recovery discharge criteria; other recovery characteristics were also noted. The mean age of the children was 6.5 yr (range, 2.5-9.8 yr). Nineteen had lymphoblastic leukemia and two had lymphoma. All children had intrathecal chemotherapy and one had bone marrow aspiration. Most procedures lasted <4 min. The mean time to achieve recovery discharge criteria was appreciably shorter after propofol and remifentanil than propofol with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide by nearly 19 min (P = 0.001). All other time comparisons had similar trends and statistical differences. Seven parents expressed a preference for the propofol and remifentanil technique compared with one preferring propofol with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide. Children are apneic during the procedure and require respiratory support from an anesthesiologist. Discharge readiness from the recovery ward was achieved on average 19 min earlier after propofol with remifentanil compared with the combination of propofol, sevoflurane and nitrous oxide. Parents more often preferred propofol with remifentanil.

Review of pediatric sedation

Sedating children for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures remains an area of rapid change and considerable controversy. Exploration of this topic is made difficult by the fact that the reports of techniques and outcomes for pediatric sedation appear in a wide range of subspecialty publications and rarely undergo comprehensive examination. In this review article, we will touch on many aspects of the topic of pediatric sedation from the perspective of the anesthesiologist. We begin with a review of the historical role of anesthesiologists in the development of the current standards for pediatric sedation. We also examine the current status of pediatric sedation as reflected in published studies and reports. A specific review of the issues surrounding safety of sedation services is included. Current trends in sedation practice, including the expanding role of potent sedative hypnotic drugs outside the field of anesthesiology, are noted. Finally, we suggest future areas for research and clinical improvement for sedation providers.

Cancer pain management in children

Unrelieved pain may have a major impact on the care of children with cancer. The type and severity of pain experienced by children with cancer varies from acute, procedure-related pain to progressive chronic pain associated with the progression of the disease or sequelae of treatment. Drugs are the mainstay of treatment. Regular pain assessments combined with appropriate analgesic administration at regular dosing intervals, adjunctive drug therapy for control of adverse effects and associated symptoms, and nonpharmacological interventions are recommended. Although standard dosing of opioids adequately treats most cancer pain in children, more complex treatment is required by a significant group. Strategies to improve analgesia include the use of epidural or intrathecal infusions of a combination of opioids and other adjuvants, or other regional anaesthesia techniques. Procedure- and treatment-related pain is an even greater problem than cancer pain. Recommendations have been published with regard to the monitoring and personnel required when children are sedated which aim to set the standard of care and minimize both physical discomfort or pain and negative psychological responses, by providing analgesia; and to maximize the potential for amnesia; and to control behaviour.

General anaesthesia or conscious sedation for painful procedures in childhood cancer: the family's perspective

BACKGROUND

Until recently, midazolam sedation was routinely used in our institution for bone marrow aspirates and lumbar punctures in children with cancer. It has been perceived by many doctors and nurses as being well tolerated by children and their families.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of inhalational general anaesthesia and midazolam sedation for these procedures.

METHODS

A total of 96 children with neoplastic disorders, who received either inhalational general anaesthesia with sevoflurane, nitrous oxide, and oxygen (GA) or sedation with oral or nasal midazolam (SED) as part of their routine preparation for procedures were studied. The experiences of these children were examined during their current procedure and during their first ever procedure. Main outcome measures were the degree of physical restraint used on the child, and the levels of distress and pain experienced by the child during the current procedure and during the first procedure. The family's preference for future procedures was also determined.

RESULTS

During 102 procedures under GA, restraint was needed on four occasions (4%) when the anaesthetic mask was first applied, minimal pain was reported, and children were reported as distressed about 25% of the time. During 80 SED procedures, restraint was required in 94%, firm restraint was required in 66%, the child could not be restrained in 14%, median pain score was 6 (scale 0 (no pain) to 6 (maximum pain)), and 90% of the parents reported distress in their child. Ninety per cent of families wanted GA for future procedures. Many families reported dissatisfaction with the sedation regime and raised concerns about the restraint used on their child.

CONCLUSIONS

This general anaesthetic regime minimised the need for restraint and was associated with low levels of pain and distress. The sedation regime, by contrast, was much less effective. There was a significant disparity between the perceptions of health professionals and those of families with respect to how children coped with painful procedures.

Investigation of daytime wetting: when is spinal cord imaging indicated?

BACKGROUND

Most children with daytime wetting have detrusor instability. A minority have neuropathic vesicourethral dysfunction. The commonest cause is spina bifida, which may be closed. Clinical features suggestive of closed spina bifida include cutaneous, neuro-orthopaedic or lumbosacral spine x ray abnormalities, impaired bladder sensation, and incomplete bladder emptying. MRI is the ideal method for detecting spinal cord abnormality. It has been suggested that MRI spine is an unnecessary investigation in children with daytime wetting in the absence of cutaneous, neuro-orthopaedic, or lumbosacral spine x ray abnormalities.

AIM

To clarify indications for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine in children with voiding dysfunction.

METHODS

Retrospective study of children with voiding dysfunction referred from the Guy's Hospital neurourology clinic for MRI spine between April 1998 and April 2000. Clinical notes and results of investigations, including urodynamic studies and MRI spine were reviewed.

RESULTS

There were 48 children (median age 9.1 years). Closed spina bifida was detected in five, of whom four had neuropathic vesicourethral dysfunction confirmed by urodynamic studies. Impaired bladder sensation and incomplete bladder emptying were more frequent in these children than in those with normal MRI spine. One child with spinal cord abnormality had no cutaneous, neuro-orthopaedic, or lumbosacral spine x ray abnormalities.

CONCLUSION

Spinal cord imaging should be considered in children with daytime wetting when this is associated with impaired bladder sensation or poor bladder emptying, even in the absence of neuro-orthopaedic, cutaneous, or lumbosacral spine x ray abnormalities.