Is chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine a good option for paediatric dental outpatient sedation?

Safety of hydroxyzine in the sedation of pediatric dental patients

Hydroxyzine is one of the most popular oral sedatives used in pediatric dentistry. This study aimed to investigate the safety and possible side effects of sedation using hydroxyzine in pediatric dentistry. "Hydroxyzine," "Dental sedation," "Child," and "Safety" and their associated synonyms were searched using the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, KISS, KMBASE, and KoreaMed databases. Academic information and portals of DBpia and RISS were also perused. Altogether, 340 papers were found, among which a total of 24 papers were selected according to the detailed criteria. Nine studies used hydroxyzine as monotherapy, and 10 studies compared its safety when hydroxyzine used as multitherapy. In addition, seven studies employed a drug regimen wherein hydroxyzine was one of the components. All these studies revealed that the adverse events specific to hydroxyzine usage were drowsiness and dryness of the mouth, and that there were respiratory complications due to a synergistic reaction of hydroxyzine. Although classified as a histamine blocker, hydroxyzine with its sedative, antiemetic, anticonvulsant, and anticholinergic properties is an oral sedative available without serious adverse events, If the proper dosage of the drug is used and its synergistic effects with other drugs are ascertained in the route of administration.

Safety of chloral hydrate sedation in dental practice for children: an overview

Chloral hydrate is the oldest and most common sedative drug used in moderate sedation for pediatric dental patients. Hence, the purpose of this article is to review the safety and possible adverse events of this drug when used for pediatric dental treatment. A bibliographic search in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and KMbase, KISS, DBpia, KoreaMed, and RISS databases was performed. Using the keywords “dental sedation,” “chloral hydrate,” and “children or adolescent,” 512 scientific articles were found. Subsequently, 183 studies were individually assessed for their suitability for inclusion in this literature review. Altogether, 24 studies were selected. They included 12 cases of death before, during, or after chloral hydrate sedation for dental treatment, majorly due to dosing error and use of multiple sedatives. Additionally, intraoperative adverse events were mostly respiratory problems such as hypoxia and apnea, but most events were temporary. After treatment, prolonged sedation, including excessive sleep and less activity were the most common postoperative adverse events, and even death cases were reported. Despite the wide acceptance of chloral hydrate as a sedative-hypnotic agent, the risk of adverse events and adequate dose should be of great concern when using it for pediatric dental sedation.

Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need to determine from published research which agents, dosages and regimens are effective. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 February 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 22 February 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 February 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in children up to 16 years of age. We excluded cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted, in duplicate, information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. Cochrane statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 studies with a total of 3704 participants. Forty studies (81%) were at high risk of bias, nine (18%) were at unclear risk of bias, with just one assessed as at low risk of bias. There were 34 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Studies were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data for the primary outcome (behaviour) was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam versus placebo only. There is moderate-certainty evidence from six small clinically heterogeneous studies at high or unclear risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardized mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.33, P < 0.0001, I2 = 90%; 6 studies; 202 participants). It was not possible to draw conclusions regarding the secondary outcomes due to inconsistent or inadequate reporting or both.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some moderate-certainty evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need for further well-designed and well-reported clinical trials to evaluate other potential sedation agents. Further recommendations for future research are described and it is suggested that future trials evaluate experimental regimens in comparison with oral midazolam or inhaled nitrous oxide.

Conscious Sedation: Emerging Trends in Pediatric Dentistry

Dental fear and anxiety is a common problem in pediatric patients. There is considerable variation in techniques used to manage them. Various sedation techniques using many different anesthetic agents have gained considerable popularity over the past few years. Children are not little adults; they differ physically, psychologically, and emotionally. The purpose of this review is to survey recent trends and concerning issues in the rapidly changing field of pediatric sedation. We will study the topic from the perspective of an anesthesiologist. It will also provide information to practitioners on the practice of conscious sedation in dentistry and will also outline the route of administration, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of various drugs used.

Considerations for submucosal midazolam administration in combination with oral and inhaled medications for sedation of pediatric dental patients

Sedation allows patients to maintain their airway independently and respond appropriately to physical stimulation and verbal command while maintaining a minimum depressed level of consciousness. Drugs commonly used for sedation of pediatric dental patients include a combination of chloral hydrate, hydroxyzine, and nitrous oxide-oxygen. Midazolam is a benzodiazepine and currently one of the most commonly used intravenous sedative agents. It can be easily titrated to provide a wide range of sedation, from conscious sedation to deep sedation, and exhibits a wide safety margin without severe respiratory and circulatory depression. At an appropriate dose, it also decreases patient anxiety and induces amnesia. We found that the submucosal administration of midazolam combined with chloral hydrate provided increased sedative effects and decreased the postoperative vomiting response compared with conventional chloral hydrate administration, with no significant difference in physiological responses. The depth of sedation can be titrated using this technique.

Chloral hydrate, chloral hydrate--promethazine and chloral hydrate -hydroxyzine efficacy in electroencephalography sedation

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate (CH), chloral hydrate and promethazine (CH + P) and chloral hydrate and hydroxyzine (CH + H) in electroencephalography (EEG) sedation.

METHODS

In a parallel single-blinded randomized clinical trial, ninety 1-7 y-old uncooperative kids who were referred to Pediatric Neurology Clinic of Shahid Sadoughi University, Yazd, Iran from April through August 2012, were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate or 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate and 1 mg/kg of promethazine or 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate and 2 mg/kg of hydroxyzine. The primary endpoint was efficacy in sufficient sedation (obtaining four Ramsay sedation score) and successful completion of EEG. Secondary endpoint was clinical adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty nine girls (43.3 %) and 51 boys (56.7 %) with mean age of 3.34 ± 1.47 y were assessed. Sufficient sedation and completion of EEG were achieved in 70 % (N = 21) of chloral hydrate group, in 83.3 % (N = 25) of CH + H group and in 96.7 % (N = 29) of CH + P group (p = 0.02). Mild clinical adverse events including vomiting [16.7 % (N = 5) in CH, 6.7 % (N = 2) in CH + P, 6.7 % (N = 2) in CH + H], agitation in 3.3 % of CH + P (N = 1) group and mild transient hypotension in 3.3 % of CH + H (N = 1) group occurred. Safety of these three sedation regimens was not statistically significant different (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination of chloral hydrate-antihistamines can be used as the most effective and safe sedation regimen in drug induced sleep electroencephalography of kids.

Chloral hydrate versus hydroxyzine HCL for sedation prior to pediatric sleep EEG recording

OBJECTIVE

The sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) can reveal certain epileptiform activity patterns and facilitate localization of the focus. Sedation is often required for sleep EEG recording in pediatric patients, but there is no consensus on the optimal sedative. Hydroxyzine HCL (HH) and chloral hydrate (CH) are popular sedatives, but HH is rarely used for pediatric sleep EEG recording. The goal of this prospective study was to compare CH to HH for sleep induction efficacy, safety and effects on pediatric sleep EEG pattern.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 282 children (age 4-9 years) referred to our sleep EEG laboratory and requiring sedation were randomly assigned to two groups: the CH Group (n = 141) received 50 mg/kg CH and the HH group (n = 141) received 1 mg/kg HH. If sedation was unsatisfactory, a second equal dose of the same sedative was administered 30 min later.

RESULTS

Sleep induction was less successful in the HH group compared to the CH group (p < 0.001). Sleep onset latency was significantly longer in the HH group (p < 0.01) and the proportion of HH group patients requiring a second sedative dose significantly higher (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients exhibiting epileptiform activity on the EEG or in adverse event rate between groups.

CONCLUSION

CH was a superior sedative compared to HH owing to more rapid and successful sleep induction with no increase in adverse events.

Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need to determine from published research which agents, dosages and regimens are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Dissertation Abstracts, SIGLE, the World Wide Web (Google) and the Community of Science Database were conducted for relevant trials and references up to 4th August 2011. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. There were no language restrictions. Trials pre-1966 were not searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in children up to 16 years of age. Crossover trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included with a total of 2810 participants. Thirty trials (83%) were at high risk of bias and six (17%) were at unclear risk of bias. There were 28 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Trials were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam vs placebo only. There is weak evidence from five small clinically heterogeneous trials at high risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 0.75 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardised mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 2.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 4.37, P < 0.001, I² = 91%), which translates to an increase of approximately 1.8 points on the six-point Houpt behaviour scale. There is very weak evidence from two trials which could not be pooled that inhalational nitrous oxide is more effective than placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some weak evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is very weak evidence that nitrous oxide inhalation may also be effective. There is a need for further well designed and well reported clinical trials to evaluate other potential sedation agents. Further recommendations for future research are described and it is suggested that future trials evaluate experimental regimens in comparison with oral midazolam or inhaled nitrous oxide.

Comparison of three conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical success of three conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients. A clinical trial was performed wherein dental treatment was administered to pediatric patients ASA I and II under conscious sedation.. Fifty-four children were divided into three groups of 18 patients each, randomly assigned Group A received hydroxyzine (2 mg/kg 2 h before treatment and a subsequent dose of 1 mg/kg 20 min before treatment) orally; group B received 0.50 mg/kg midazolam mixed with 1.5 mg/kg hydroxyzine 20 min before treatment orally; group C received chloral hydrate, 50 mg/kg mixed with 1.5 mg/kg hydroxyzine 20 min before treatment orally. The Ohio State Behavioral Rating Scale (OSBRS) showed statistically significant differences between groups B and C with respect to group A. The regimens of midazolam or chloral hydrate mixed with hydroxyzine represent excellent choices for conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients.

What is the evidence for paediatric dental sedation?

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children, unfortunately it is difficult to determine from published research which agents, dosages and techniques are effective.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative efficacy of the various conscious sedation techniques and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry. DESIGN AND KEY METHODS: Relevant databases and reference lists from articles were searched up to December 2005. Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in anxious children up to 16 years of age.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies were included with 3372 subjects in total. Overall quality of studies was found to be disappointing with poor reporting often the main problem.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors were not able to reach any definitive conclusion on which was the most effective drug or method of sedation used for anxious children due to issues with the quality and validity of published studies to date.

Sedation of anxious children undergoing dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Anxiety about dental treatment or behaviour management problems can be a barrier to its uptake in children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour, unfortunately it is difficult to determine from published research which agents, dosages and techniques are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relative efficacy of the various conscious sedation techniques and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Dissertation Abstracts, SIGLE, the World Wide Web (Google) and the Community of Science Database were searched for relevant trials and references up to December 2004. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. There were no language restrictions. Trials pre-1966 were not searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in anxious children up to 16 years of age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two authors. Authors of trials were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out not using any formal scoring system. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-one studies were included with 3246 subjects in total. Overall quality of studies was found to be disappointing with poor reporting often the main problem. Data reported could not be easily aggregated into groups to facilitate description of results. Meta-analysis of the available data was also not possible for the same reason. The variety of differing drug regimens compared made it difficult to isolate groups of studies that were sufficiently similar in design to allow sensible comparison. Where groups of studies could be isolated, then the differing outcome measures used made their meta-analysis impossible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Review authors were not able to reach any definitive conclusion on which was the most effective drug or method of sedation used for anxious children. A list of proposed areas of study was described.

Sedation of anxious children undergoing dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Anxiety about dental treatment maybe a barrier to its uptake in children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour, unfortunately it is difficult to determine from published research which agents, dosages and techniques are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relative efficacy of the various conscious sedation techniques and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Dissertation Abstracts, SIGLE, the World Wide Web (Google) and the Community of Science Database were searched for relevant trials and references. Searches were carried out for MEDLINE and EMBASE up to June 2003 and for the remaining databases December 2002. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. There were no language restrictions. Trials pre-1966 were not searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in anxious children up to 16 years of age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two authors. Specialist advice was asked to categorise interventions. Authors of trials were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out not using any formal scoring system. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included with 2345 subjects in total. Overall quality of studies was found to be disappointing with poor reporting often the main problem. Data reported could not be easily aggregated into groups to facilitate description of results. Meta-analysis of the available data was also not possible for the same reason. The variety of differing drug regimens compared made it difficult to isolate groups of studies that were sufficiently similar in design to allow sensible comparison. Where groups of studies could be isolated, then the differing outcome measures used made their meta-analysis impossible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Authors were not able to reach any definitive conclusion on which was the most effective drug or method of sedation used for anxious children. A list of proposed areas of study was described.

Adverse effects of sedatives in children

The application of sedation/analgesia in paediatric patients is rapidly expanding as less invasive, non-operative techniques of diagnosis and treatment are applied to the paediatric population. Medical providers who are asked to provide sedation may include radiologists, paediatricians, nurses and emergency physicians, as well as anaesthesiologists and intensive care physicians. At the same time, the range of drugs used in these settings has expanded considerably. As there is no single drug fulfilling the criteria for the ideal sedative (rapid-onset, rapid recovery, no adverse effects, immobility appropriate to procedure being performed), multiple drugs may be used in combination. It is imperative that practitioners using drugs for sedation/analgesia in children be aware of the adverse effect profile(s) of these drugs, both individually and in combination. The purpose of this review is to describe the adverse effects of sedative and reversal agents currently used in paediatric sedation/analgesia.

Caudal block with 4 mg x kg-1 (1.6 ml x kg-1) of bupivacaine 0.25% in children undergoing surgical correction of congenital pyloric stenosis

BACKGROUND

Since 1970, bupivacaine 0.25% in a dose of 4 mg x kg-1 (1.6 ml x kg-1) has been used at the Hospital Infantil de México for caudal block in children undergoing surgical correction of congenital pyloric stenosis (CPS). Although this dose is considered unsafe, in our experience, it has been associated with a high success rate and a low incidence of adverse events. This experience has not been previously documented.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing surgical correction of CPS was studied. Nineteen patients received general anaesthesia while 223 received caudal block. The latter were then grouped according to the sedation technique. The rate of successful caudal blocks and complications were considered the major outcomes of the study, whereas the postsurgical fasting period and hospital stay were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The rate of success of caudal block was 96%. Anaesthetic complications related to bupivacaine were present in 1.3%. Mortality occurred in the postoperatory period in one septic patient who also was suffering from gastroschisis that required general anaesthesia. Postoperatory fasting period and hospital stay tended to be higher with general anaesthesia than caudal block. However, of the 19 patients receiving general anaesthesia, five suffered serious comorbidity and nine were failed caudal blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Caudal block with bupivacaine 0.25% (4 mg x kg-1) was associated with a low rate of anaesthetic complications. Further prospective studies to clarify the risks and benefits are required.