What is the level of evidence for the amnestic effects of sedatives in pediatric patients? A systematic review and meta-analyses

Influences of Propofol, Ciprofol and Remimazolam on Dreaming During Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Double-Blind Parallel-Design Trial

Purpose

To compare the influences of propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam on dreaming during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

This study was a single-center, prospective, parallel-design, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Between May 2023 and October 2023, patients undergoing elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were recruited and randomly allocated into one of the three groups. Demographic data, intraoperative information, incidence of dreaming, insufficient anesthesia and intraoperative awareness, type of dream, patient satisfaction score, adverse events, and improvement of sleep quality were collected.

Results

The difference in incidence of dreaming among the three groups was not significant (33.33% vs 48.33% vs 41.67%, p=0.061). The number of patients with intraoperative hypotension in the propofol group was larger than that of the remimazolam group (32 vs 12, p=0.001). However, the cases of intraoperative hypotension between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group were comparable (32 vs 22, p=0.122; 22 vs 12, p=0.064). The percentage of insufficient anesthesia between propofol group and remimazolam group was significant (13.33% vs 1.67%, p=0.001), while no statistical difference was detected between propofol group and remimazolam group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (13.33% vs 5.00%, p=0.025; 5.00% vs 1.67%, p=0.150). The ability of propofol to improve sleep quality at 1st post-examination day was significantly better than that of remimazolam (86.21% vs 72.88%, p=0.015), while it was not significant between propofol group and ciprofol group or ciprofol group and remimazolam group (86.21% vs 80.36%, p=0.236; 72.88% vs. 72.88%, p=0.181). Incidence of intraoperative awareness, intraoperative hypoxia, type of dream, satisfaction score, adverse events during recovery, and sleep improvement on the 7th post-examination day was not significant among the groups.

Conclusion

Anesthesia with propofol, ciprofol and remimazolam, respectively, for gastrointestinal endoscopy did not induce statistical difference in the incidence of dreaming, despite that all of them are more likely to induce pleasant dreams.

Association of Neonatal Midazolam Exposure With Hippocampal Growth and Working Memory Performance in Children Born Preterm

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Early exposure to analgesics and sedatives is a key concern for later learning disorders in children. The hippocampus, a key region for learning and memory, may be selectively affected by exposure to benzodiazepines that are commonly used for sedation, particularly in the neonatal period. In this prospective cohort study, the long-term association of neonatal midazolam exposure, a widely used benzodiazepine in neonatal intensive care, with school age hippocampal growth was examined. Higher-order cognitive function in preterm born children was assessed in relation to hippocampal volumes.

METHODS

Very preterm born children underwent MRI to characterize the hippocampus and its subfields and neuropsychological testing. Generalized linear models were used to determine the predictors of 8-year hippocampal volumes. Children were assessed on the Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence, Second Edition, and the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V).

RESULTS

A total of 140 preterm children who were 8 years of age participated, and 25 (18%) were exposed to midazolam as neonates. Reduced hippocampal volumes at age 8 years were associated with neonatal midazolam exposure (B = -400.2, 95% CI -14.37 to -786.03, p = 0.04), adjusting for neonatal clinical care factors. Boys exposed to higher doses of midazolam as neonates had smaller hippocampal volumes (χ2 = 14.4, p = 0.002) compared with nonexposed boys and girls (both, p < 0.03). Analysis of the hippocampal subfields in relation to neonatal midazolam dose revealed that higher doses were associated with smaller volumes of the subiculum (p = 0.008), a hippocampal-cortical relay region implicated in memory processes. Furthermore, smaller school age subiculum volumes predicted significantly lower working memory scores on the WISC-V (B = 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.07, p = 0.017).

DISCUSSION

Early midazolam exposure and the association with impaired hippocampal growth seem long-lasting and are most apparent in boys. Alterations in subiculum volumes may underlie hippocampus-dependent memory formation processes in preterm born children exposed to midazolam as neonates.

Perioperative dexmedetomidine compared to midazolam in children undergoing open-heart surgery: A pilot randomised controlled trial

Objective

There is a need for evidence on the best sedative agents in children undergoing open heart surgery for congenital heart disease. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of dexmedetomidine in this group compared with midazolam.

Design

Double blinded, pilot randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Cardiac operating theatre and paediatric intensive care unit in Brisbane, Australia.

Participants

Infants (≤12 months of age) undergoing their first surgical repair of a congenital heart defect.

Interventions

Dexmedetomidine (up to 1.0mcg/kg/hr) versus midazolam (up to 80mcg/kg/hr), commenced in the cardiac operating theatre prior to surgery.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the time spent in light sedation (Sedation Behavior Scale [SBS] -1 to +1); Co-primary feasibility outcome was recruitment, retention and protocol adherence. Secondary outcomes were use of supplemental sedatives, ventilator free days, delirium, vasoactive drug support, and adverse events. Neurodevelopment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were assessed at 12 months post-surgery.

Results

Sixty-six participants were recruited. The number of SBS scores in the light sedation range were greater in the dexmedetomidine group at 24 hours, 48 hours, and overall study duration (0-14 days) versus the midazolam group (24hr: 76/170 [45%] vs 60/178 [34%], aOR 4.14 [95% CI 0.48, 35.92]; 48hr: 154/298 [52%] vs 122/314 [39%], aOR 6.95 [95% CI 0.77, 63.13]; 0-14 days: 597/831 [72%] vs 527/939 [56%], aOR 3.93 [95% CI 0.62, 25.03]). Feasibility was established with no withdrawals or loss to follow-up at 14 days and minimal protocol deviations. There were no differences between the groups relating to clinical, safety, neurodevelopment or HRQoL outcomes.

Conclusions

The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with more time spent in light sedation when compared with midazolam. The feasibility of conducting a blinded RCT of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in children undergoing open heart surgery was also established. The findings justify further investigation in a larger trial.

Clinical trial registration

ACTRN12615001304527.

Amnesia after Midazolam and Ketamine Sedation in Children: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

The incidence of peri-procedural amnesia following procedural sedation in children is unclear and difficult to determine. This study aimed to apply quantitative and qualitative approaches to better understand amnesia following dental sedation of children. After Institutional Review Board Approval, children scheduled for sedation for dental procedures with oral midazolam (OM), oral midazolam and ketamine (OMK), or intranasal midazolam and ketamine (IMK) were recruited for examination of peri-procedural amnesia. Amnesia during the dental session was assessed using a three-stage method, using identification of pictures and an animal toy. On the day following the sedation, primary caregivers answered two questions about their children's memory. One week later, the children received a semi-structured interview. Behavior and level of sedation during the dental session were recorded. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and comparison tests. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. Triangulation was used. Thirty-five children (age: 36 to 76 months) participated in the quantitative analysis. Most children showed amnesia for the dental procedure (82.9%, n = 29/35) and remembered receiving the sedation (82.1%, n = 23/28 for oral administration; 59.3%, n = 16/27 for intranasal administration). The occurrence of amnesia for the dental procedure was slightly higher in the oral midazolam group compared with the other groups (44.8%, n = 13/29 for OM, 13.8%, n = 4/29 for OMK, and 41.4%, n = 12/29 for IMK). Twenty-eight children participated in the qualitative approach. The major theme identified was that some children could remember their procedures in detail. We conclude that peri-procedural amnesia of the dental procedure was common following sedation.

Oral Lorazepam is not Superior to Placebo for Lowering Stress in Children Before Digestive Endoscopy: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Digestive endoscopies must be performed within a safe and comfortable environment. We have previously shown that the quality of intravenous sedation is influenced by preoperative stress.

AIM

Our primary objective was to compare the effects of oral lorazepam and placebo on the salivary cortisol response of children undergoing a digestive endoscopy. Secondary objectives were the assessment of procedural pain and comfort as well as the occurrence of adverse events.

METHODS

Participants were randomized and received either lorazepam, placebo, or no premedication. Saliva was collected upon arrival at the hospital and 1 h following randomization. The sedation protocol included midazolam and fentanyl ± ketamine. Procedural pain was evaluated with the Nurse Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS). Patients completed a postoperative questionnaire. The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of children having a cortisol decrease ≥ 15 nmol/L.

RESULTS

101 participants (54 females) were included. The rate of children having a cortisol decrease ≥ 15 nmol/L was 27.3%, 35.3%, and 19.4% for lorazepam, placebo, and no premedication, respectively (p = 0.356). The median (IQR) NAPCOMS pain score was 3.0 (0-6) for lorazepam, 4.4 (0-6) for placebo, and 3.4 (3-4) for no premedication (p = 0.428). With lorazepam, 75.9% of children reported experiencing a comfortable procedure, compared with 41.9% taking placebo and 34.5% with no premedication (p = 0.013). Transient tachycardia was the most frequent intraoperative adverse event, particularly with lorazepam (62.5%, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral lorazepam had no effect on patients' preoperative stress, as measured by salivary cortisol, but was associated with a higher rate of comfortable procedures.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT03180632.

Clonidine in pediatric anesthesia: the new panacea or a drug still looking for an indication?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clonidine, an α2-receptor agonist is a widely used drug in pediatrics with a large scope of indications ranging from prevention of postoperative emergence agitation, analgesia, anxiolysis, sedation, weaning to shivering. In the era of 'opioid-free' medicine with much attention be directed toward increasing problems with opioid use, clonidine due to its global availability, low cost and safety profile has become an even more interesting option.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence from randomised clinical trials support the use of clonidine in healthy children in the perioperative setting. Clonidine appears to significantly reduce postoperative emergence agitation, opioid consumption, shivering, nausea and vomiting. In addition, emerging evidence support the use of clonidine for sedation of critically ill children in ICUs. In this review, the current evidence for clonidine in pediatrics is described and analyzed including a meta-analysis for prevention of emergence agitation.

SUMMARY

Clonidine appears a safe and beneficial drug with moderate to high-quality evidence supporting its use in pediatric anesthesia. However, for some indications and populations such as children younger than 12 months old and those with hemodynamic instability, there is an urgent need for high-quality trials.

Crossover Studies of Pediatric Dental Sedation are Inappropriate

Crossover studies continue to be published in spite of warnings about their inherent risks in relation to behavioral outcomes. This study took the opportunity of access to secondary data analysis in order to demonstrate the impact of a crossover design on the outcomes of randomized clinical trials aimed at the behavior of children during dental treatment. We evaluated the effect of the sequence of sedative administration, the sedative and the participant's age on the behavior of children undergoing two sequential dental visits. Eighteen uncooperative healthy young children were equally randomly assigned to: (G1) 1.0 mg/kg oral midazolam (first session) and oral placebo (second session); (G2) oral placebo (first) and 1.0 mg/kg oral midazolam (second). One trained observer assessed children's behavior. Data were analyzed by three-way mixed ANOVA. Both midazolam [mean(SD); 71.7%(16.5)] and placebo [48.6%(33.1)] produced more struggling behavior when they were administered in the first session compared to the second one (p=0.001). For the placebo, children aged 2-3 years exhibited more struggling behavior [G1 54.9%(36.2); G2 80.5%(8.3)] than those aged 4-5 years (p=0.04). Also, the reduction of percentage of struggling behavior was higher in G1 for older children (76.2%) and in G2 for younger children (32.9%). There were significant interactions between drug and sequence of administration, and between drug and age. The results of our study confirm the conventional wisdom that crossover study design is inappropriate to evaluate children's behavior/anxiety related-dental treatment under sedation and the results of crossover studies of dental sedation should be treated with extreme caution.