Professional skills and competence for safe and effective procedural sedation in children: recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature

Procedural sedation competencies: a review and multidisciplinary international consensus statement on knowledge, skills, training, and credentialing

Procedural sedation is practised by a heterogeneous group of practitioners working in a wide array of settings. However, there are currently no accepted standards for the competencies a sedation practitioner should have, the content of sedation training programmes, and guidelines for credentialing. The multidisciplinary International Committee for the Advancement of Procedural Sedation sought to develop a consensus statement on the following: which competencies should medical or dental practitioners have for procedural sedation and how are they obtained, assessed, maintained, and privileged. Using the framework of Competency-Based Medical Education, the practice of procedural sedation was defined as a complex professional task requiring demonstrable integration of different competencies. For each question, the results of a literature review were synthetised into preliminary statements. Following an iterative Delphi review method, final consensus was reached. Using multispeciality consensus, we defined procedural sedation competence by identifying a set of core competencies in the domains of knowledge, skills, and attitudes across physical safety, effectiveness, psychological safety, and deliberate practice. In addition, we present a standardised framework for competency-based training and credentialing of procedural sedation practitioners.

Virtual sedation as a substitute to pharmacological sedation during PICC placement in pediatric patients: A feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

In pediatric patients, PICC insertion is often performed under sedation to reduce pain and anxiety, which is associated with risks such as laryngospasm, apnea, and hypoxia. Furthermore, it requires a pediatric anesthesiologist. The aim of our study was to evaluate the VR as an alternative to pharmacological sedation to reduce those risks and the overall cost.

METHODS

We tested a VR immersive experience for ten children requiring a PICC. To achieve this, we ran a software, specifically designed for the pediatric healthcare setting, on a commercially available VR headset.In order to evaluate this new practice, we recorded the following data:Patient's anxiety before and after the procedure, recorded through a modified numeric rating scale from 0 (no anxiety) to 10 (worst anxiety imaginable).Patient's pain before (e.g., because of preexisting medical conditions) and after the procedure through a Wong-Baker scale.Caregiver's satisfaction.No active or passive restraint was enforced during the whole procedure, patients had to keep their arms still all by themselves.

RESULT

Out of the 10 patients only in a single case, we had to interrupt the attempt with the VR technique and let the anesthesiologist perform a sedation. From the immediate beginning said patient had trouble adapting to the virtual environment and tried to remove the headset.In all other cases, we noticed a drop in the anxiety level of the patient and the pain never increased. Globally, caregivers were pleased with the experience and reported an average satisfaction rate of 9.3 out of 10.

CONCLUSION

Virtual reality seems a valid alternative to traditional sedation in pediatric patients undergoing a PICC placement procedure. Additional studies, with adequate sample size, of patients are necessary to assess the benefit from this new approach, as well as its impact on the overall procedure length.

Remimazolam for sedation: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and GRADE approach

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation aims to facilitate a successful diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The pharmacokinetic properties and pharmacodynamic effects need to be taken into consideration when choosing the ideal sedative. Midazolam and propofol are frequently employed. However, they are associated with respiratory depression with increasing dosage. Also, midazolam has a potentially unpredictable pharmacodynamic response and propofol may cause hypotension and injection site pain. Remimazolam may provide a superior alternative due to its rapid pharmacodynamic profile and insignificant circulatory effects.

METHODS

This protocol employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful clinical effects of remimazolam versus placebo or other sedatives in adult patients requiring sedation in relation to a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, or due to other circumstances. Three primary outcomes are identified: Sedation success rate, respiratory complications, and hemodynamic complications. Six secondary outcomes are identified: among these are quality of recovery and serious adverse events. All randomized trials are included. The search strategy includes six major biomedical databases. Literature screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Risk of systemic error will be assessed with Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Risk of random error will be assessed with trial sequential analysis. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by appropriate statistical tests. The certainty of the evidence will be judged using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Meta-analysis will be carried out with Rstudio. A "Summary of Findings" table will be presented with our primary and secondary outcome results.

DISCUSSION

The systematic review with up-to-date methodology outlined in this protocol investigates the clinical effects of remimazolam in relation to procedural sedation. The results may guide clinicians in the clinical use of remimazolam.

Inhaled nitrous oxide for painful procedures in children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for N₂O for distress and pain in children.

STUDY DESIGN

We included trials of N₂O in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," or "unfavorable" (p < 0.05, supporting N₂O or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% N₂O (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I² = 0%) and 50% N₂O plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I² = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% N₂O was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I² = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, N₂O was "favorable" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but "neutral" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), N₂O was "neutral" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), N₂O was "favorable" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), N₂O was "neutral" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), N₂O plus EMLA was "favorable" versus N₂O and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of N₂O included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with N₂O alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus N₂O plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and N₂O plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).

CONCLUSIONS

There is sufficient evidence to recommend N₂O plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.

Recommendations for non-anaesthesia providers in sedation and analgesia procedures

Pain and the anxiety that it produces are the main sources of suffering in children managed in emergency departments, eliciting a growing interest in parents and health care providers in the adequate provision of sedation and analgesia. In consequence, the number of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that require sedation and/or analgesia in paediatric emergency departments has increased in recent years, which has generated a need to train non-anaesthesiologists on how to provide this care without affecting patient safety. The objective of this document is to establish evidence-based recommendations, developed by consensus by the Working Group on Sedation and Analgesia of the Sociedad Española de Urgencias de Pediatría, regarding the competencies and training of staff who perform sedation or analgesia procedures to achieve the greatest possible quality in the management of paediatric patients before, during and after these procedures in the paediatric emergency care setting. The consensus document has been structured in two parts: the first addresses the competencies of non-anaesthesiologists who perform sedoanalgesia procedures, and the second how to obtain the necessary training. A list of research questions was prepared, keywords defined and a literature search carried out to break down and summarise the available evidence. The results are presented in the form of conclusions, which were subjected to anonymous voting by each of the members of the working group. For each of the conclusions, we provide the percent agreement obtained in the voting.

The Impact of a Dedicated Sedation Team on the Incidence of Complications in Pediatric Procedural Analgosedation

The number of pediatric procedural sedations for diagnostic and minor therapeutic procedures performed outside the operating room has increased. Therefore, we established a specialized interdisciplinary team of pediatric anesthesiologists and intensivists (Children’s Analgosedation Team, CAST) at our tertiary-care university hospital and retrospectively analyzed the first year after implementation of the CAST. Within one year, 784 procedural sedations were performed by the CAST; 12.2% of the patients were infants <1 year, 41.9% of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade III or IV. Most children received propofol (79%) and, for painful procedures, additional esketamine (48%). Adverse events occurred in 51 patients (6.5%), with a lack of professional experience (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42−0.81) and increased propofol dosage (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.17−1.55) being significant predictors. Overall, the CAST enabled safe and effective procedural sedation in children outside the operating room.

Analgosedation for diagnostic and interventional procedures: a countrywide survey of pediatric centers in Germany

Background

As more and more diagnostic and interventional options are becoming available for use in pediatric patients, techniques of procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) are being administered in considerably growing numbers as well.

Aims

The objective of this research effort was to conduct the first countrywide survey on the status quo of sedation analgesia as delivered to children and adolescents in Germany.

Methods

We dispatched letters to all pediatric hospital settings in Germany (n = 305), including a questionnaire that had been developed with existing guidelines taken into account. Its items were designed to elucidate the current practice of PSA throughout these pediatric centers regarding (a) organizational structures and (b) standards of medication and staffing.

Results

A total of 138 centers returned the questionnaire, hence the response rate was 45.2%. Numerous centers had implemented adequate structures and staffing standards. Deficits were nevertheless identified, most notably in terms of on-location equipment and staff provided to deliver sedations. Essential items of equipment were not provided in up to 26.8% of centers. Adequate staffing was not provided in up to 44.2% of centers, depending on the diagnostic or interventional procedures for which the PSA was delivered. The most widely used sedative agents were midazolam, ketamine/esketamine, and propofol.

Conclusions

Adequate care structures for the management of procedural sedation analgesia have been implemented by many pediatric centers in Germany. On the downside, these findings also reveal deficits that will take efforts to be eliminated.

Propofol Versus 4-hydroxybutyric Acid in Pediatric Cardiac Catheterizations

Introduction

Pediatric patients require deep sedation at least for cardiac catheterizations (CCs). Usually, we perform these CCs applying propofol, but we have seen several side effects of this sedative. We have had good experience with 4-hydroxybutyric acid for other sedations. To optimize our standardized CC procedure, we initiated a prospective, randomized trial to compare the two substances.

Methods

We analyzed our sedation protocols of all CCs within a period of 12 months. In addition to the primary endpoints, the feasibility of the CCs and the occurrence of severe complications, several other parameters were included in the analysis (vital parameters, blood gas analysis, intervention measures). The protocols were blinded for the first part of the evaluation.

Results

During the 12-month-period, 36 patients were included in each group. The propofol group showed lower blood pressure values towards the end of the sedations, while the blood gas analyses revealed lower pH levels and higher pCO2 values. The complication rate was low in both groups.

Conclusion

Both procedures are suited for the safe performance of deep sedations for CCs. The application of 4-hydroxybutyric acid seems to have a few advantages with regard to spontaneous breathing, gas exchange, stability of cardiocirculatory parameters and sedation quality.

General anesthesia, conscious sedation, or nothing: Decision-making by children during painful procedures

BACKGROUND

Following diagnosis, children with cancer suddenly find themselves in an unknown world where unfamiliar adults make all the important decisions. Children typically experience increasing levels of anxiety with repeated invasive procedures and do not adapt to the discomfort. The aim of the present study is to explore the possibility of asking children directly about their medical support preferences during invasive procedures.

PROCEDURE

Each patient was offered a choice of medical support on the day of the procedure, specifically general anesthesia (GA), conscious sedation (CS), or nothing. An ad hoc assessment tool was prepared in order to measure child discomfort before, during, and after each procedure, and caregiver adequacy was measured. Both instruments were completed at each procedure by the attending psychologist.

RESULTS

We monitored 247 consecutive invasive procedures in 85 children and found that children in the 4 to 7 year age group showed significantly higher distress levels. GA was chosen 66 times (26.7%), CS was chosen 97 times (39.3%), and nothing was chosen 5 times and exclusively by adolescents. The child did not choose in 79 procedures (32%). The selection of medical support differed between age groups and distress level was reduced at succeeding procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering children the choice of medical support during invasive procedures allows for tailored support based on individual needs and is an effective modality to return active control to young patients, limiting the emotional trauma of cancer and treatment.

The impact of Narcotrend™ EEG-guided propofol administration on the speed of recovery from pediatric procedural sedation-A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is often used for procedural sedation in children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Reliable assessment of the depth of hypnosis during the endoscopic procedure is challenging. Processed electroencephalography using the Narcotrend Index can help titrating propofol to a predefined sedation level.

AIMS

The aim of this trial was to investigate the impact of Narcotrend Index-guided titration of propofol delivery on the speed of recovery.

METHODS

Children, aged 12-17 years, undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under procedural sedation, had propofol delivered via target controlled infusion either based on Narcotrend Index guidance (group NI) or standard clinical parameters (group C). Sedation was augmented with remifentanil in both study groups. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the speed of fulfilling discharge criteria from the operating room between study groups. Major secondary endpoints were propofol consumption, discharge readiness from the recovery room, hypnotic depth as measured by the Narcotrend Index, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 40 children included, data were obtainable from 37. The time until discharge readiness from the operating room was shorter in group NI than in group C, with a difference between medians of 4.76 minutes [95%CI 2.6 to 7.4 minutes]. The same accounts for recovery room discharge times; difference between medians 4.03 minutes [95%CI 0.81 to 7.61 minutes]. Propofol consumption and the percentage of EEG traces indicating oversedation were higher in group C than in group NI. There were no significant adverse events in either study group.

CONCLUSION

Narcotrend Index guidance of propofol delivery for deep sedation in children aged 12-17 years, underdoing gastrointestinal endoscopy results in faster recovery, less drug consumption, and fewer episodes of oversedation than dosing propofol according to clinical surrogate parameters of depth of hypnosis. The results of this study provide additional evidence in favor of the safety profile of propofol/remifentanil for procedural sedation in adequately selected pediatric patients.

Bone marrow aspirations in oncological patients: experience from an in-house standard in paediatrics

BACKGROUND

Nearly all paediatric patients require deep sedation when undergoing bone marrow aspiration (BMA). We analyzed the data from our protocols documented in a standardised procedure for bone marrow puncture over a period of 2 years.

METHODS

Our standard included the documentation of personal data as well as vital parameters. In addition, we documented all medications administered, potential complications and required intervention measures, as necessary.

RESULTS

A total of 107 protocols were available for the evaluation. Our standard covered the usage of midazolam and S‑ketamine and resulted in complications in just 9 patients, which could be remedied using simple measures. For both active substances, the dosage necessary to reach sufficient deep analgosedation was significantly higher for patients under 24 months of age.

CONCLUSIONS

Our standard for BMA provides a practical and feasible procedure. In addition to good examination conditions, our standard also helps ensure the safety of our patients.

A rectally administered combination of midazolam and ketamine was easy, effective and feasible for procedural pain in children with cerebral palsy

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate how effective a combination of rectally administered midazolam and racemic ketamine was for reducing pain in paediatric cerebral palsy patients receiving intramuscular injections of botulinum neurotoxin A. The feasibility and safety of the pain relief were also explored.

METHOD

Children with cerebral palsy, aged one to 18 years, were recruited from a regional paediatric rehabilitation unit between April 2012 and May 2014. Pain intensity, feasibility, total time spent in the clinic and side effects were registered. Pain scores were recorded by parents and healthcare professionals using different pain scales.

RESULTS

We recorded 128 procedures in 61 children. The median scores were two (range: 0-10) for pain intensity and nine (range: 0-10) for feasibility. The median treatment time in the outpatient unit was 3.25 hours, and the most common side effects were nausea, pain and sleep disturbance. Gross motor function levels showed a negative correlation with the pain scores. This method could be an alternative to nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture for patients who do not tolerate inhalation analgesia.

CONCLUSION

Rectally administered midazolam and racemic ketamine provided effective pain relief for paediatric cerebral palsy outpatients receiving painful injections and was a viable alternative to inhalation analgesia.

What Works and What's Safe in Pediatric Emergency Procedural Sedation: An Overview of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Sedation is increasingly used to facilitate procedures on children in emergency departments (EDs). This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) examines the safety and efficacy of sedative agents commonly used for procedural sedation in children in the ED or similar settings.

METHODS

We followed standard SR methods: comprehensive search; dual study selection, quality assessment, data extraction. We included SRs of children (1 month to 18 years) where the indication for sedation was procedure-related and performed in the ED.

RESULTS

Fourteen SRs were included (210 primary studies). The most data were available for propofol (six reviews/50,472 sedations) followed by ketamine (7/8,238), nitrous oxide (5/8,220), and midazolam (4/4,978). Inconsistent conclusions for propofol were reported across six reviews. Half concluded that propofol was sufficiently safe; three reviews noted a higher occurrence of adverse events, particularly respiratory depression (upper estimate 1.1%; 5.4% for hypotension requiring intervention). Efficacy of propofol was considered in four reviews and found adequate in three. Five reviews found ketamine to be efficacious and seven reviews showed it to be safe. All five reviews of nitrous oxide concluded it is safe (0.1% incidence of respiratory events); most found it effective in cooperative children. Four reviews of midazolam made varying recommendations. To be effective, midazolam should be combined with another agent that increases the risk of adverse events (upper estimate 9.1% for desaturation, 0.1% for hypotension requiring intervention).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive examination of an extensive body of literature shows consistent safety and efficacy for nitrous oxide and ketamine, with very rare significant adverse events for propofol. There was considerable heterogeneity in outcomes and reporting across studies and previous reviews. Standardized outcome sets and reporting should be encouraged to facilitate evidence-based recommendations for care.

Adult and pediatric anesthesia/sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents current trends of safe and efficient anesthesia and sedation for adults and children for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room with a special focus on total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), target-controlled infusion (TCI), intravenous or topical lidocaine, and the use of the video laryngoscope.

RECENT FINDINGS

The concepts of a well tolerated and adequate anesthesia or sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room have to meet the needs of the adult and pediatric patients and the special requests of the gastroenterologists. Anesthesia and sedation of adults for gastrointestinal procedures with TIVA or TCI and spontaneous breathing is well established. Many institutions perform anesthesia for pediatric patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures with an inhalational agent, especially in young children and for short procedures. Unlike adults, in young children the airways frequently must be secured with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask. Respiration may be spontaneous, assisted, or controlled. TIVA and TCI are increasingly chosen for older children and longer procedures. A local anesthetic administered intravenously or topically to the upper airways and the use of the video laryngoscope can facilitate the insertion of the endoscope.

SUMMARY

Both anesthesiologists and nonanesthesiologists have to achieve a consensus and develop quality-improvement strategies to provide safe and efficient anesthesia and sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room for pediatric and adult patients. Techniques using TIVA, TCI, intravenous or topical application of lidocaine, and the video laryngoscope may improve and facilitate gastrointestinal procedures for the patients, the anesthesiologists, and the gastroenterologists.

Procedural Sedation Practice: A Review of Current Nursing Standards

Although administration of procedural sedation is a common practice among nurses, at present a unified consensus statement on Registered Nurse (RN) sedation core competencies or a consistent way in which RN sedation practice is regulated in the United States is lacking. In this article, the topic of RN sedation is discussed and includes current sedation standards by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Joint Commission. Examples of current regulations from State Boards of Nursing throughout the United States are also reviewed. Three major controversies related to RN sedation practice exist: variation in Board of Nursing regulation, lack of research on RN sedation practice, and lack of a national standard for RN sedation. Recommendations to address each of these areas are provided to inform regulators and nurse educators about current standards and knowledge gaps in sedation care. Strategies to improve sedation research in order to advance practice in this area are also discussed.

Procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric patients

A spectrum of conditions requires sedation and analgesia in pediatric population. Ineffective treatment of pain may result in physiological and behavioral responses that can adversely affect the developing nociceptive system. The recognition of pain in children can be facilitated by different pain scales. This article reviews the procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) practices in children along with pharmacology of the drugs used for this purpose.

Pediatric palliative sedation therapy with propofol: recommendations based on experience in children with terminal cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of propofol for palliative sedation of children is not well documented.

OBJECTIVE

Here we describe our experience with the use of propofol palliative sedation therapy (PST) to alleviate intractable end-of-life suffering in three pediatric oncology patients, and propose an algorithm for the selection of such candidates for PST.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified inpatients who had received propofol PST within 20 days of death at our institution between 2003 and 2010. Their medical records were reviewed for indicators of pain, suffering, and sedation from 48 hours before PST to the time of death. We also tabulated consumption of opioids and other symptom management medications, pain scores, and adverse events of propofol, and reviewed clinical notes for descriptors of suffering and/or palliation.

RESULTS

Three of 192 (1.6%) inpatients (aged 6-15 years) received propofol PST at the end of life. Consumption of opioids and other supportive medications decreased during PST in two cases. In the third case, pain scores remained high and sedation was the only effective comfort measure. Clinical notes suggested improved comfort and rest in all patients. Propofol infusions were continued until the time of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that propofol PST is a useful palliative option for pediatric patients experiencing intractable suffering at the end of life. We describe an algorithm that can be used to identify such children who are candidates for PST.

Development of a pediatric hospitalist sedation service: training and implementation

OBJECTIVE

There is growing demand for safe and effective procedural sedation in pediatric facilities nationally. Currently, these needs are being met by a variety of providers and sedation techniques, including anesthesiologists, pediatric intensivists, emergency medicine physicians, and pediatric hospitalists. There is currently no consensus regarding the training required by non-anesthesiologists to provide safe sedation. We will outline the training method developed at St. Louis Children's Hospital.

METHODS

In 2003, the Division of Pediatric Anesthesia at St. Louis Children's Hospital approached the Division of Pediatric Hospitalist Medicine as a resource to provide pediatric sedation outside of the operating room. Over the last seven years, Pediatric Hospitalist Sedation services have evolved into a three-tiered system of sedation providers. The first tier provides sedation services in the emergency unit (EU) and the Center for After Hours Referral for Emergency Services (CARES). The second tier provides sedation throughout the hospital including the EU, CARES, inpatient units, Ambulatory Procedure Center (APC), and Pediatric Acute Wound Service (PAWS); it also provides night/weekend sedation call for urgent needs. The third tier provides sedation in all of the second-tier locations, as well as utilizing propofol in the APC.

RESULTS

This training program has resulted in a successful pediatric hospitalist sedation service. Based on fiscal year 2009 billing data, the division performed 2,471 sedations. We currently have 43 hospitalists providing Tier-One sedation, 18 Tier-Two providers, and six Tier-Three providers.

CONCLUSIONS

A pediatric hospitalist sedation service with proper training and oversight can successfully augment sedation provided by anesthesiologists.

Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Procedural sedation and analgesia is frequently administered outside of the operating room in emergency departments (EDs) and ICUs. Evidence was sought concerning patients' safety in the ED.

RECENT FINDINGS

Procedural sedation, when administered in the ED by trained personnel, is safe. Extensive literature demonstrates that propofol, ketamine, midazalam, and fentanyl are appropriate medications with proper monitoring and the presence of appropriate personnel. Preprocedural fasting may not be necessary in many cases.

SUMMARY

With appropriately trained personnel, proper equipment, and the studied drugs ED sedation and analgesia is safe and an appropriate procedure.