Comparison of propofol/fentanyl versus ketamine/midazolam for brief orthopedic procedural sedation in a pediatric emergency department

Determining the effective dose of esketamine combined with propofol for painless hysteroscopy: a prospective dose-finding study

Background

The combination of esketamine and propofol has become a common choice for total intravenous anesthesia in hysteroscopic procedures. However, the optimal effective dose has not yet been determined. The aim of this study was to determine the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of esketamine compounded with propofol for painless hysteroscopy.

Methods

A total of 40 patients aged 20-60 years and scheduled for painless hysteroscopy under intravenous anesthesia were recruited, and a total of 31 patients were enrolled for the final analysis. Using the Dixon's up and down method, an initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg esketamine was administered intravenously before surgery, and after 1 min, it was followed by 2 mg/kg of propofol. If the hysteroscopy failed (a positive reaction) [defined as inadequate cervical dilatation, patient body movements interfering with surgical procedures during hysteroscopy placement, frowning, or Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score <5 within 5 min], the subsequent patient's esketamine dosage was increased by 0.1 mg/kg. Conversely (a negative reaction), the dosage was decreased by 0.1 mg/kg. The test was not stopped until at least 7 crossovers occurred. The perioperative adverse events of each patient were recorded. The ED50 and ED95 with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using probit regression.

Results

The ED50 and ED95 with 95% (CIs) of esketamine in patients were 0.287 (0.220-0.342) mg/kg and 0.429 (0.365-0.705) mg/kg, respectively. No serious adverse events were observed in any patients.

Conclusion

A dose of 0.429 mg/kg esketamine combined with propofol is recommended for painless hysteroscopy anesthesia, as it enhances anesthesia and postoperative analgesia efficacy without significant adverse reactions. However, potential risks associated with this dosage should be carefully considered in clinical practice.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html, identifier ChiCTR2300075564.

Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates.

RESULTS

We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty).

CONCLUSION

When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

Comparative evaluation of intranasal midazolam-ketamine, dexmedetomidine-ketamine, midazolam-fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine-fentanyl combinations for procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric dental patients: a randomized controlled trial

Background

In order to assess the effectiveness of various analgesio-sedative combinations for pain relief and sedation in pediatric dental patients, a thorough evaluation of clinical studies and patient outcomes is necessary.

Methods

A total of 128 healthy, uncooperative pediatric dental patients were randomly allocated to receive one of the four combinations of drugs via the intranasal (IN) route: Group I received midazolam-ketamine (MK), Group II received dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK), Group III received midazolam-fentanyl (MF), and Group IV received dexmedetomidine-fentanyl (DF) in a parallel-arm study design. The efficacy and safety of the combinations were evaluated using different parameters.

Results

The onset of sedation was significantly faster in the DF group than in the DK, MF, and MK groups (P < 0.001). The depth of sedation was significantly higher in the DK and DF groups than in the MK and MF groups (P < 0.01). DK and DF produced significant intra- and postoperative analgesia when compared with combinations of MK and MF. No significant adverse events were observed for any of the combinations.

Conclusions

The DK and DF groups showed potential as analgesio-sedatives in view of their anxiolytic and analgesic effects.

Procedural (Conscious) Sedation and Analgesia in Emergency Setting: How to Choose Agents?

Pain has long been defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience originating from any region of the body in the presence or absence of tissue injury. Physicians involved in acute medicine commonly undertake a variety of invasive and painful procedures that prompt procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA), which is a condition sparing the protective airway reflexes while depressing the patient's awareness of external stimuli. This state is achieved following obtaining the patient's informed consent, necessary point-ofcare monitoring, and complete recording of the procedures. The most commonly employed combination for PSA mostly comprises short-acting benzodiazepine (midazolam) and a potent opioid, such as fentanyl. The biggest advantage of opioids is that despite all the powerful effects, upper airway reflexes are preserved and often do not require intervention. Choices of analgesic and sedative agents should be strictly individualized and determined for the specific condition. The objective of this review article was to underline the characteristics, effectiveness, adverse effects, and pitfalls of the relevant drugs employed in adults to facilitate PSA in emergency procedures.

Sedative and analgesic effects of propofol–ketamine versus propofol–fentanyl for emergency department procedures

Background:

To manage and reduce painful procedures in the emergency wards, procedural sedation as well as analgesia can be used. Propofol combinations are the most common short-acting intravenous sedative drugs in the field of emergency medicine.

Objectives:

This research aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, and complications of intravenous infusion of ketofol with fentofol in painful emergency procedures.

Methods:

This study was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Sampling was simple and used random assignment; 196 participants were randomly assigned to two groups of 98 patients each. In each group, injection was done with fentanyl–propofol or ketamine–propofol. For data gathering, pre-procedure, and procedure, modified Aldrete’s scoring checklist was used. In order to determine the levels of sedation, we used the Ramsay Sedation Scale. Data analysis was performed via SPSS Version 20 using statistical tests such as mean ± standard division, t-test, chi-square test, and analysis of variance.

Results:

Among the participants in this study, shoulder procedure was performed more than other procedures (56.6%). The mean of recovery time was significantly different in the two groups (ketofol: 5.65 ± 0.35 vs fentofol: 9.33 ± 0.78); the recovery time in group B (fentofol) was longer than that in group A (ketofol) (p = 0.001). Drug complications were statistically significant in the two groups, and complications by ketofol were less than those by fentofol (p = 0.001). “Hypotension and bradycardia” were observed with fentofol and “tachycardia” was observed with ketofol. The performance of these two drugs was not the same when subject to various procedures.

Conclusion:

Results of this study revealed that ketofol provided better analgesia and sedation, faster recovery time, lesser complications and adverse events, and reduced bradycardia and hypotension.

Can ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block be an alternative option for forearm reduction in the emergency department? A prospective randomized study

Objective

Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular nerve block (IB) has become a well-established method in several outpatient procedures; however, its use in emergency departments (EDs) remains limited. The aim of this study was to compare procedural sedation and anlagesia (PSA) and IB in the pain management for patients who underwent forearm fracture reduction in the ED.

Methods

This prospective randomized study included 60 patients aged 18 to 65 years, who visited the ED with forearm fractures. They were randomly divided into two groups: Group PSA (n=30) and Group IB (n=30). The pain scores of patients were evaluated before and during the procedure with the visual analog scale. Complications and patient and operator satisfaction levels were recorded.

Results

There was no difference between the two groups in terms of demographic characteristics. The median (interquartile range) pain scores observed during the procedures were significantly higher in Group PSA than in Group IB (4 [4–6] vs. 2 [0–2], respectively; P<0.001). Patient and operator satisfaction levels were significantly higher in Group IB (P<0.001). Oxygen desaturation was statistically higher in Group PSA than in Group IB (40.00% vs. 3.33%, respectively; P=0.002).

Conclusion

IB was an effective alternative for reducing pain and increasing patient satisfaction in ED patients undergoing forearm fracture reduction.

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.

Analysis of Plastic Surgery Consultations in a High-Volume Paediatric Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Introduction

Consult services influence emergency department (ED) workflow. Prolonged ED length of stay (LOS) correlates with ED overcrowding and as a consequence decreased quality of care and satisfaction of health team professionals. To improve management of paediatric ED patients requiring plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) expertise, current processes were analyzed.

Methods

Patient characteristics and metrics of PRS consultations in our paediatric ED were collected over a 3-month period. Data analysis was followed by feedback education intervention to ED and PRS staff. Data collection was then resumed and results were compared to the pre-intervention period.

Results

One hundred ninety-eight PRS consultations were reviewed, mean patient age was 6.3 years. Most common (52%) diagnoses were burns and hand trauma; 81% of PRS referrals were deemed appropriate; 25% of PRS consults were requested after hour with no differences in patient characteristics compared to regular hours; 60% of consultations involved interventions in the ED. Time between ED registration and PRS consultation request (116.5 minutes), quality of procedural sedation (52% rated inadequate), and overall ED LOS (289.2 minutes) were identified as main areas of concern and addressed during feedback education intervention. Emergency department LOS and quality of sedation did not improve in the post-intervention period.

Conclusion

The study provides detailed insights in the characteristics of PRS consultation in the paediatric ED population. Despite high referral appropriateness and education feedback intervention, significant inefficiencies were identified that call for further collaborative efforts to optimize quality of care for paediatric ED patients and improve satisfaction of involved healthcare professionals.

Comparison of Two Dosages of Ketamine in Preventing Fentanyl-Induced Coughs in Children

BACKGROUND

Fentanyl is a short-acting drug used to induce anesthesia. Here, we aimed to compare the two doses of ketamine to prevent fentanyl-induced cough in children under general anesthesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a randomized, clinical trial which was performed in 2019 in Imam Hossein Hospital in Isfahan, Iran. The study population consisted of children between 6 months and 2 years who were candidates for general anesthesia. Patients were randomized into three groups, each containing 31 patients. Groups 1 and 2 received 0.1 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg intravenous ketamine, respectively, 1 min before fentanyl injections. Group 3 received the same volumes of normal saline 0.9%. Patients were observed and evaluated for the incidence and intensity of coughs 1 min and 3 min after fentanyl injections.

RESULTS

We showed that the frequency of coughs 1 min after fentanyl injection was significantly lower in Group 2 compared to other groups (P < 0.001). Three min after fentanyl injection, the frequencies of coughs were significantly lower in Groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (P < 0.001). We also showed that the intensity of coughs was significantly lower in Group 2 compared to other Groups 1 and 3 min after fentanyl injection (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The administration of 0.2 mg/kg ketamine is more effective than 0.1 mg/kg dosage in the prevention of fentanyl-induced cough. We also showed that this method could bring more stable hemodynamics and oxygenation saturation inpatients. The comparison of the two dosages was a novel issue in the recent literature.

Safety and Complications of Sedation Anesthesia during Pediatric Auditory Brainstem Response Testing

OBJECTIVE

The auditory brainstem response (ABR) test has been widely used in childhood. Although it is a painless procedure, sedation can be needed in pediatric patients. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate safety and complications of sedation anesthesia applied in pediatric patients during ABR testing.

METHODS

Medical records of 75 children who underwent ABR testing between 2018 and 2020 were evaluated retrospectively in terms of applicability, safety, and complications of sedation anesthesia.

RESULTS

The ages ranged from 3 to 9 (mean 6.2) years. Comorbidity was detected in 20% (n = 15); 3 had multiple comorbidities, and the most common comorbidity was Down syndrome (4%). The drugs used in sedation anesthesia were midazolam in 81.3% (n = 61), a combination of propofol and ketamine in 14.7% (n = 11), and only propofol in 4% (n = 3) of the patients. An additional drug use was needed in 44% (n = 33). The mean procedure time was 40 (range 30-55) min. The mean anesthesia duration was 45 (range 35-60) min. The mean recovery time was 10 (range 5-15) min. Complications related to anesthesia developed in 4 (5.33%) of the patients; respiratory distress, agitation, cough, and nausea-vomiting were seen in one of the patients, respectively. Complications like bradycardia and respiratory or cardiac arrest were not seen at all.

CONCLUSIONS

The complication rate of sedation anesthesia performed during ABR testing of pediatric patients is quite low. It may be more beneficial to use combinations of sedation drugs instead of using a single sedation drug. Although sedation anesthesia appears to be safe in general, the potentially life-threatening complications of sedative agents should be remembered, especially in children who have comorbidities.

A comparative study of propofol alone and propofol combined with midazolam for dental treatments in special needs patients

Although dental treatment with sedation is performed increasingly in special needs patients, data on adding midazolam to intravenous propofol sedation are very limited for this group. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors and procedure time associated with the use of intravenous sedation with propofol alone or propofol combined with midazolam in dental patients with special needs.This was a retrospective data analysis. The sedation medications and relevant covariates, including demographic parameters, disability levels, oral health conditions, dental procedures, treatment time, and side effects, of 718 patients with special needs were collected between April 2013 and September 2014. The unfavorable side effects by sedation types were reported. Factors associated with procedure time and the sedation medications were assessed with multiple logistic regression analyses.Of 718 patients, 8 patients experienced unfavorable side effects (vomiting, sleepiness, or emotional disturbance) after the dental procedures; the rate was 0.6% in the 509 patients who received propofol only. In 209 patients who received propofol and midazolam, 2.4% experienced the side effects. Sedation time was associated with body mass index (BMI) < 25 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-2.04) and the performance of multiple dental procedures (aOR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.06-1.97) but not associated with the sedation types. A significant odds ratio for the combined use of propofol and midazolam was shown for adolescents (aOR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.28-3.86), men (aOR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.41-2.98), patients with cognitive impairment (aOR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.21-3.29), and patients undergoing scaling procedures (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.13-2.39).With the acceptable side effects of the use of propofol alone and propofol combined with midazolam, multiple dental procedures increase the sedation time and the factors associated with the combined use of propofol and midazolam are younger age, male sex, recognition problems, and the type dental procedure in the dental treatment of patients with special needs.

Comparison of preadministered and coadministered lidocaine for treating pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration in children: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration can be decreased by administering lidocaine before intranasal midazolam (preadministered lidocaine) or combining lidocaine with midazolam in a single solution (coadministered lidocaine). We hypothesized coadministered lidocaine is non-inferior to preadministered lidocaine for decreasing pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration.

METHODS

Randomized, outcome assessor-blinded, noninferiority trial. Children aged 6 months to 7 years undergoing laceration repair received intranasal midazolam with preadministered or coadministered lidocaine. Pain and distress were evaluated with the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-Revised (OSBD-R) (primary outcome; non-inferiority margin 1.8 units) and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scales and cry duration (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included adverse events, clinician and caregiver satisfaction, and pain and distress associated with intranasal lidocaine administration.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were analyzed. Mean OSBD-R scores associated with intranasal midazolam administration were 6.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5, 7.8) and 7 (95% CI 5.2, 8.9) units for preadministered and coadministered lidocaine, respectively. The difference of 0.6 (95% CI -1.7, 2.8) units represented an inconclusive non-inferiority determination. CHEOPS and FLACC scores and cry duration were similar between groups. OSBD-R, CHEOPS, and FLACC scores and cry duration associated with intranasal lidocaine administration were 3.8, 9.9, and 6 units, and 56 seconds, respectively. Clinicians considered coadministered lidocaine easier to administer.

CONCLUSION

Pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration were similar when using coadministered or preadministered lidocaine, but our non-inferiority determination was inconclusive. Administration of intranasal lidocaine by itself was associated with a measurable degree of pain and distress.Keywords: intranasal, midazolam, anxiolysis, sedation, emergency department, emergency medicine, pain, distress, pediatric, lidocaine, laceration.

Immersive Virtual Reality as Analgesia during Dressing Changes of Hospitalized Children and Adolescents with Burns: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Children and adolescents with severe burns require medical and nursing interventions, associated with pain. As immersive virtual reality (VR) gained prominence as non-pharmacological adjuvant analgesia, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of full immersive VR on pain experienced during dressing changes in hospitalized children and adolescents with severe burns. This exercise included quality and risk of bias assessment. The systematic review resulted in eight studies and 142 patients. Due to missing data, four studies were excluded from the meta-analysis. Fixed effects meta-analysis of the four included studies (n = 104) revealed a large effect size (ES) (Standardized Mean Difference = 0.94; 95% Confidence Interval = 0.62, 1.27; Z = 5.70; p < 0.00001) for adjuvant full immersive VR compared to standard care (SC). In conclusion, adjuvant full immersive VR significantly reduces pain experienced during dressing changes in children and adolescents with burns. We therefore recommend implementing full immersive VR as an adjuvant in this specific setting and population. However, this requires further research into the hygienic use of VR appliances in health institutions. Furthermore, due to the high cost of the hardware, a cost-benefit analysis is required. Finally, research should also verify the long term physical and psychological benefits of VR.

WITHDRAWN: Comparison of Preadministered and Coadministered Lidocaine for Treating Pain and Distress Associated With Intranasal Midazolam Administration in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the authors and editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Comparison of the Analgesic and Sedative Effects of Midazolam-Ketamine and Propofol-Sufentanil Combinations in Painful Procedures of Children with Haematologic Malignancy

OBJECTIVE

Bone marrow aspiration and lumbar puncture play essential roles in the diagnosis and treatment of haematological disorders. These repeated invasive procedures lead to considerable pain and stress in children, which is emotionally stressful for their parents. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and outcomes of two combinations of midazolam-ketamine (MK) and propofol-sufentanil (PS) in painful procedures of children with haematologic malignancy.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial, we enrolled 80 eligible patients with haematologic malignancy aged 2-14 years. We randomly allocated them to the MK and PS groups. We recorded and compared the level of sedation, pain severity, hemodynamic indices, the onset of effect, duration of recovery and complications during and after procedure in the two groups. We analysed the data using the SPSS software. We used Mann-Whitney U, independent t-test, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests to compare continuous and categorical variables.

RESULTS

From initially enrolled patients, 68 patients completed the study (38 in PS and 30 in MK group). The levels of sedation and the mean score of pain intensity were significantly lower in the MK group than those in the PS group (p<0.05). Movements and the needs to repeat the dose were significantly lower in the MK group than those in the PS group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

During bone marrow aspiration and lumbar puncture procedures in children with haematologic malignancy, the findings of this trial suggest that MK combination therapy provides better sedation and analgesia than PS.

A comparison of ventilation with a non-invasive ventilator versus standard O2 with a nasal cannula for colonoscopy with moderate sedation using propofol

The aim of this study was to test the effects of CPAP on moderately sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy. Our hypothesis was that CPAP can reduce the incidence and duration of obstructive apnea and hemoglobin oxygen desaturation in patients undergoing procedural sedation for colonoscopy. Two groups of consenting adult patients scheduled to undergo routine colonoscopy procedures and sedated with propofol and fentanyl were monitored in this study: control and intervention. Patients in the intervention group were connected via a facemask to a ventilator that delivered supplemental oxygen (100%) through a standard air-cushion mask. The mask had a built-in leak to facilitate CO₂ clearance during CPAP. Patients in the control group received 2-10 L/min of oxygen via nasal cannula or non-rebreather mask. Subjects in the control group were collected in a prior study and used as historical controls. The primary outcome measures were the number of apneic events and the cumulative duration of apneic events. An apneic event was defined as a period longer than 10 s without respiration. The secondary outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) for the arterial oxygen saturation less than 90% versus time during sedative and analgesic administration (time (s) below threshold multiplied by percent below threshold). A desaturation event was defined as a period of time during which arterial oxygen saturation was less than 90%. 29 patients were enrolled in the intervention group and 156 patients were previously enrolled in the control group as part of an earlier study. The median number of apneic events in the control group was 7 compared to 0 in the intervention group. The intervention group experienced apnea less than 1% of the total procedure time compared to 17% in the control group (p < 0.001). There were no desaturation events observed in the 29 patients in the intervention group. In contrast, 27 out of 156 patients in the control group experienced a desaturation event. Average AUC of patients in the control group was 70%-s (time (s) * oxygen saturation below < 90%) (95% CI 32.34-108.60%) whereas the average AUC in intervention group patients was 0%-s (% time (s) * oxygen saturation < 90%) (95% CI 0-0%), p = 0.01. This preliminary study found that CPAP via a tight-fitting mask may be an effective tool to reduce the incidence and duration of obstructive apneic events as well as hemoglobin oxygen desaturation during lower endoscopy procedures that use propofol and fentanyl for sedation.Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02623270. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02623270 .

Evaluation of the safety of using propofol for paediatric procedural sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Propofol is one of the most widely used drugs for paediatric procedural sedation owing to its known advantages, but some concerns remain regarding respiratory and/or cardiac complications in patients receiving propofol. Although a considerable number of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been conducted to compare it with other sedative agents or opioids for children undergoing various procedures, propofol is still being used off-label for this indication in many countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of those RCTs to provide an overall summation of evidence that can potentially be considered for further regulatory decisions, including reimbursement policies. We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to January 31, 2018. Our meta-analysis of 30 RCTs confirmed that propofol sedation had advantages in recovery time when compared with other drugs, without excessive concerns for cardiovascular or respiratory adverse events. Its safety profile regarding coughing, nausea or vomiting, and emergence delirium was also similar to that of other drugs. The overall evidence suggests that propofol sedation for paediatric procedures should be considered more positively in the context of regulatory decisions.

Effect of combined propofol-sevoflurane anesthesia on immune function in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Effect of combined propofol-sevoflurane anesthesia on immune function in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was investigated. A retrospective analysis was performed on 150 pediatric patients with ALL who were admitted to Xiangyang No. 1 People's Hospital Affiliated to Hubei University of Medicine from May 2014 to October 2017. All eligible patients were treated with intrathecal chemotherapy and were randomized into three groups according to the type of anesthesia used: group A, propofol used only; group B, sevoflurane used only; and group C, combined propofol and sevoflurane used. Venous blood samples were drawn, respectively, at 30 min before anesthesia (T1) and 24 h after anesthesia (T2). Flow cytometry was used to detect the percentages of T- and B-cell subsets, as well as the ratio of Th1/Th2 in T helper cells (Th cells). Serum levels of IFNγ, IL-4 and TGF-β were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. At T2, the percentages of CD3⁺, CD4⁺ and CD19⁺ cells in group C were significantly higher than those in groups A and B (P<0.05). The percentage of CD8⁺ cells in group C was significantly higher than that in group A (P<0.05). At T2, the percentages of Th1 and Th2 cells and the Th1/Th2 ratio in group C were higher than those in groups A and B (P<0.05). At T2, IL-4 level in group C was significantly higher than that in group A (P<0.05), while TGF-β level was significantly lower (P<0.05). The IFNγ level in group C was higher than those in groups A and B (P<0.05). The IFNγ/IL-4 ratio in group C was higher than that in group A (P<0.05). Combined propofol-sevoflurane anesthesia was more beneficial to the recovery of T/B cell subset activity, to the alleviation of immunosuppression, and the suppression of ALL progression, compared to the sole use of propofol or sevoflurane.

Comparison of Ketamine-Propofol and Ketamine-Thiopental on Bispectral Index Values during Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC) in Minor Traumatic Orthopedic Surgery; A Randomized, Double-Blind, Clinical Trial

Objective:

To compare the effects of ketamine-propofol and ketamine-thiopental on bispectral index values during monitored anesthesia care in minor orthopedic surgeries.

Methods:

This randomized double-blind clinical trial was performed on 90 patients undergoing minor orthopedic surgeries. Participants were randomly allocated to either groups of propofol or thiopental. Bispectral index (BIS), non-invasive arterial blood pressure, SpO2, and electrocardiogram were monitored every 5 minutes. Patients in propofol group received a bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine, plus 0.5 mg/kg propofol. In thiopental group, patients received a bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine, plus 50-75 mg thiopental. After the surgery, recovery duration, patients’ pain score (VAS) and any intra-operative recall or awareness were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.0

Results:

BIS was lower in ketamin-propofol group (p< 0.001). Mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate and O2 saturation showed a significant difference between two groups (p< 0.001), which were lower in ketamin–propofol group. VAS score was higher in ketamin-thiopental group (p< 0.001). Both groups were similar in intra-operative recall/awareness.

Conclusion:

Ketamine-propofol combination deliver a better control over monitored anesthesia during surgery, providing lower BIS, higher O2 saturation and lower heart rate and arterial blood pressure in patients undergoing minor traumatic orthopedic surgeries.

Clinical trial registration:

IRCT6N 2016032320258

Comparison of effects of propofol and ketofol (Ketamine-Propofol mixture) on emergence agitation in children undergoing tonsillectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of propofol and ketofol (ketamine-propofol mixture) on EA in children undergoing tonsillectomy.

METHOD

In this randomized clinical trial, 87 ASA class I and II patients, aged 3-12 years, who underwent tonsillectomy, were divided into two groups to receive either propofol 100 µg/kg/min (group p, n=44) or ketofol : ketamine 25 µg/kg/min + propofol 75 µg/kg/min (group k, n= 43). Incidence and severity of EA was evaluated using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scales on arrival at the recovery room, and 10 and 30 min after that time.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in demographic data between the two groups. In the ketofol group, the need for agitation treatment and also mean recovery duration were lower than in the propofol group (30 and 41%, and 29.9 and 32.7 min), without statistically significant difference (P value=0.143 and P value=0.187). Laryngospasm or bronchospasm occurred in 2 patients in each group and bleeding was observed in only one individual in the ketofol group.

CONCLUSION

Infusion of ketofol in children undergoing tonsillectomy provides shorter recovery time and lower incidence of EA despite the non significant difference with propofol.

Non-operating room anaesthesia in children

Administration of sedation and/or anaesthesia to patients undergoing painful or uncomfortable procedures at off-site locations is referred to as non-operating room anaesthesia (NORA). Sedating/anaesthetising children in an unfamiliar environment, with the lack of support staff, nonavailability of choice of medication and equipment is often challenging. Studies have shown an increased risk of airway-related adverse events, complications, and even death outside the operating room locations. It is crucial to be familiar with the anatomical and physiological variations in children, well versed with the difficult airway algorithm and call for help early. The most common event in NORA claims was inadequate oxygenation/ventilation, which are preventable with vigilant monitoring. English language articles were searched in Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Academic using 'sedation in children', 'remote location anaesthesia', 'peadiatric sedation', and 'nonoperating room anaesthesia' as the mesh words. Full text of the relevant articles was obtained and this review article was synthesised. The article outlines various safety guidelines, sedation techniques, drugs used for sedation, environmental concerns, procedure-specific risks, and complications associated with NORA in children.

Randomized Trial of Intranasal Fentanyl Versus Intravenous Morphine for Abscess Incision and Drainage

OBJECTIVES

Abscess incision and drainage (I&D) are painful and distressing procedures in children. Intranasal (IN) fentanyl is an effective analgesic for reducing symptomatic pain associated with fractures and burns but has not been studied for reducing procedural pain during abscess I&D. Our objective was to compare the analgesic efficacy of IN fentanyl with intravenous (IV) morphine for abscess I&D in children.

METHODS

We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in children aged 4 to 18 years undergoing abscess I&D in a pediatric emergency department. Patients received IN fentanyl (2 μg/kg; maximum, 100 μg) or IV morphine (0.1 mg/kg; maximum, 8 mg). The primary outcome, determined independently by blinded assessors, was the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-Revised (OSBD-R). The prestated margin of noninferiority (Δ) was 1.80. Secondary outcomes included self-reported pain, treatment failure, and patient and parental satisfaction.

RESULTS

We enrolled 20 children (median age, 15.4 years), 10 in each group. The difference between total OSBD-R scores was -13.45 (95% confidence interval, -24.24 to -2.67), favoring IN fentanyl.There was less self-reported pain in patients who received IN fentanyl immediately after the procedure. Four patients (40%) receiving IV morphine had treatment failures and required moderate sedation or had the procedure terminated. More patients who received IN fentanyl were satisfied with the analgesic administered compared with those who received IV morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

In a small sample of children aged 4 to 18 years undergoing abscess I&D, IN fentanyl was noninferior, and potentially superior, to IV morphine for reducing procedural pain and distress.

A comparison of ketamine + midazolam to propofol for procedural sedation for lumbar puncture in pediatric oncology by nonanesthesiologists-a randomized comparative trial

BACKGROUND

Both ketamine-midazolam and propofol are frequently used in pediatric oncology units for procedural sedation. However, there are no prospective, randomized comparative trials (RCT) comparing the two groups when the procedure is performed by nonanesthesiologists.

OBJECTIVE

To compare ketamine + midazolam (group A) and propofol (group B) as sedative agents for intrathecal chemotherapy with regard to efficacy, side effects, time to induction, time to recovery, and smoothness of recovery.

METHODS

A partially-blinded RCT was conducted between August 2015 and March 2017 after gaining institutional ethics committee approval. Children aged 1-12 years requiring intravenous sedation for intrathecal chemotherapy were included. Patients were allocated to two treatment arms using computer-generated randomization tables, after obtaining written consent. The initial doses used were: ketamine 2 mg/kg, midazolam 0.2 mg/kg, and propofol 2.5 mg/kg, as per standard recommendations. The patient, parents, and person analyzing the data were blinded. Time to sedation, dose required, depth of sedation, vital parameters, time and smoothness of recovery, and emergence phenomena were documented.

RESULTS

We enrolled 152 patients (76 each in group A and B). Nine patients had a failure of sedation (all in group B). Mean time to sedation and recovery was shorter in group B (P < 0.001). Transient drop in saturation was more frequent in group B, without statistical significance (P = 0.174). Mean depth of sedation was greater in group A (P < 0.001). Emergence symptoms were more frequently experienced in group A (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine-midazolam combination is safer and more effective. Propofol is faster in onset and recovery, and has smoother emergence with poor efficacy at recommended initial doses.

[Efficacy, safety and satisfaction of sedation-analgesia in Spanish emergency departments]

OBJECTIVES

To offer analgesia and sedation should be a priority in paediatric emergency departments. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of the sedation-analgesia procedure, as well as the satisfaction of the doctors, patients and parents.

METHODS

A multicentre, observational, and prospective analytical study was conducted on the sedation-analgesia procedure performed on children younger than 18 years old in 18 paediatric emergency departments in Spain from February 2015 until January 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 658 procedures were recorded. The effectiveness was good in 483 cases (76.1%; 95%CI: 72.7-79.4%), partial in 138 (21.7%; 95%CI: 18.5-24.9%), and poor in 14 (2.2%; 95%CI: 1.1-3.4). The effectiveness was better when the doctor in charge was an emergency paediatrician (OR: 3.14; 95%CI: 1.10-8.95), and when a deeper level of sedation was achieved (OR: 2.37; 95%CI: 1.68-3.35). Fifty two children (8.4%) developed adverse drug reactions, more usually gastrointestinal, neurological or respiratory ones (89.9% were resolved in <2h). One patient was intubated. The older child and a deeper level of sedation were found to be independent risk factors for adverse reactions (OR: 1.18; 95%CI: 1.09-1.28 and OR: 1.86; 95%CI: 1.22-2.83, respectively). Thirteen children (5%) developed late adverse drug reactions, more commonly, dizziness and nauseas. A combination of midazolam/ketamine had been used in all the cases (RR: 24.46; 95%CI: 11.78-50.76). The perceived satisfaction level (0-10) was obtained from 604 doctors (mean: 8.54; SD: 1.95), 526 parents (mean: 8.86; SD: 1.49), and 402 children (mean: 8.78; SD: 1.70).

CONCLUSIONS

The sedation-analgesia procedure performed in paediatric emergency departments by trained paediatricians seems to be useful, effective and safe, as well as satisfactory for all participants.

Comparison of Ketamine with Midazolam versus Ketamine with Fentanyl for Pediatric Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Procedure: A Randomized Controlled Study

Objectives

To compare the effects of ketamine-fentanyl (KF) and ketamine-midazolam (KM) combinations on hemodynamic parameters, recovery properties, pain, and side effects in pediatric patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) procedure.

Methodology

In this double-blinded, randomized trial, 60 pediatric patients aged between 1 and 13 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Classes I and II, who scheduled for ESWL procedure, were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group KM received 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam +1-1.5 mg/kg of ketamine and Group KF received 1 μg/kg of fentanyl +1-1.5 mg/kg of ketamine intravenously.

Results

There were similar demographic properties, recovery, and discharge times between groups. No statistically significant difference was found in peripheral oxygen saturation, mean and diastolic blood pressure, Ramsey sedation scores, modified Aldrete recovery scores, side effects, and recovery times (Group KM, 16.067 ± 1.2 min; Group KF, 19.46 ± 0.86 min) between groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

KF combination offers better hemodynamic properties, less side effects with lower visual analog scores, and face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability scores than KM in the pediatric ESWL procedure.

Variation in Pediatric Procedural Sedations Across Children's Hospital Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVES

Describe the trends in pediatric sedation use over time and determine variation in use of procedural sedation across children's hospital emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

We analyzed ED data from 35 hospitals within the Pediatric Health Information System for patients <19 years old who received sedation medications and were discharged from 2009 to 2014. Patients with chronic comorbidities or undergoing intubation were excluded. We determined frequency and trends in use of sedation and compared these between EDs. Descriptive statistics with appropriate weighting were used.

RESULTS

Of the 1 448 011 patients potentially requiring sedation who presented to the ED, 99 951 (7.9%) underwent procedural sedation. Medication usage in 2014 included ketamine (73.7%), fentanyl and midazolam (15.9%), ketofol (7.3%), and propofol (2.7%). Use of fentanyl and midazolam increased, whereas use of ketamine, pentobarbital, etomidate, chloral hydrate, and methohexital decreased over time. Significant variation exists in the use of sedation across hospitals; in 2014, the sedation rate ranged 0.2% to 32.0%, with a median of 8.0%. The diagnosis with the largest variation in procedural sedation use was dislocation, with sedation rates ranging from 2% to 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability across pediatric EDs in the use of procedural sedation, suggesting sedations may be performed too often or too little in some hospitals.

Sedation and analgesia for procedures in the pediatric emergency room

OBJECTIVE

Children and adolescents often require sedation and analgesia in emergency situations. With the emergence of new therapeutic options, the obsolescence of others, and recent discoveries regarding already known drugs, it became necessary to review the literature in this area.

DATA SOURCES

Non-systematic review in the PubMed database of studies published up to December 2016, including original articles, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. References from textbooks, publications from regulatory agencies, and articles cited in reviews and meta-analyses through active search were also included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Based on current literature, the concepts of sedation and analgesia, the necessary care with the patient before, during, and after sedoanalgesia, and indications related to the appropriate choice of drugs according to the procedure to be performed and their safety profiles are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedoanalgesia protocols in procedures in the pediatric emergency room should guide the professional in the choice of medication, the appropriate material, and in the evaluation of discharge criteria, thus assuring quality in care.

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

Background

Studies have suggested that benzodiazepines are amnestic drug par excellence, but when taken together, what level of evidence do they generate? Are other sedatives as amnestic as benzodiazepines? The aim of this study was to assess the level of scientific evidence for the amnestic effect of sedatives in pediatric patients who undergo health procedures.

Methods

The literature was searched to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated anterograde and retrograde amnesia in 1-19-year-olds who received sedative drugs during health procedures. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library besides clinical trial registries and grey literature were searched. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool. The meta-analyses were performed by calculating relative risk (RR) to 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Results

Fifty-four studies were included (4,168 participants). A higher occurrence of anterograde amnesia was observed when benzodiazepines, the most well-studied sedatives (n = 47), were used than when placebo was used (n = 12) (RR = 3.10; 95% CI: 2.30–4.19, P<0.001; I² = 14%), with a moderate level of evidence. Higher doses of alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine/dexmedetomidine) produced more anterograde amnesia than lower doses (n = 2) (RR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.03–3.25; P = 0.038; I² = 0%), with a low level of evidence; benzodiazepines’ amnestic effects were not dose-dependent (n = 3) (RR = 1.54; 95% CI: 0.96–2.49; P = 0.07; I² = 12%) but the evidence was low. A qualitative analysis showed that retrograde amnesia did not occur in 8 out of 10 studies.

Conclusions

In children, moderate evidence support that benzodiazepines induce anterograde amnesia, whereas the evidence for other sedatives is weak and based on isolated and small studies. Further clinical trials focused on the amnesia associated with non-benzodiazepine sedatives are therefore needed.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42015017559.

Optimal Volume of Administration of Intranasal Midazolam in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The optimal intranasal volume of administration for achieving timely and effective sedation in children is unclear. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes relevant to procedural sedation associated with using escalating volumes of administration to administer intranasal midazolam.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, single-blinded, 3-arm, superiority clinical trial. Children aged 1 to 7 years and undergoing laceration repair requiring 0.5 mg/kg intranasal midazolam (5 mg/mL) were block-randomized to receive midazolam using 1 of 3 volumes of administration: 0.2, 0.5, or 1 mL. Procedures were videotaped, with outcome assessors blinded to volume of administration. Primary outcome was time to onset of minimal sedation (ie, score of 1 on the University of Michigan Sedation Scale). Secondary outcomes included procedural distress, time to procedure start, deepest level of sedation achieved, adverse events, and clinician and caregiver satisfaction.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine children were enrolled; 96 were analyzed for the primary outcome and secondary outcomes, except for the outcome of procedural distress, for which only 90 were analyzed. Time to onset of minimal sedation for each escalating volume of administration was 4.7 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8 to 5.4 minutes), 4.3 minutes (95% CI 3.9 to 4.9 minutes), and 5.2 minutes (95% CI 4.6 to 7.0 minutes), respectively. There were no differences in secondary outcomes except for clinician satisfaction with ease of administration: fewer clinicians were satisfied when using a volume of administration of 0.2 mL.

CONCLUSION

There was a slightly shorter time to onset of minimal sedation when a volume of administration of 0.5 mL was used compared with 1 mL, but all 3 volumes of administration produced comparable clinical outcomes. Fewer clinicians were satisfied with ease of administration with a volume of administration of 0.2 mL.

Sedative and Analgesic Effects of Propofol-Fentanyl Versus Propofol-Ketamine During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a painful procedure that requires analgesia and sedation.

Objectives

In this study, we compared the analgesic and sedative effects of propofol-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl in patients undergoing ERCP.

Methods

In this clinical trial, 72 patients, aged 30 - 70 years old, who were candidates for ERCP were randomly divided into two groups. Before the start of ERCP, both groups received midazolam 0.5 - 1 mg. The intervention group (PK) received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg, and the control group (PF) received fentanyl 50 - 100 micrograms. All patients received propofol 0.5 mg/kg in a loading dose followed by 75 mcg/kg/minute in an infusion. The patients, the anesthesiologist, and the endoscopist were unaware of the medication regimen. Sedation and analgesia quality (based on a VAS), blood pressure, respiratory rate, heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, recovery time (based on Aldrete scores), and endoscopist and patient satisfation were recorded.

Results

The sedative effects were equal in the two groups (P > 0.05), but the analgesic effects were higher in the PF group than in the PK group (P < 0.05). The PK group had higher blood pressure levels in the eighth minute. Respiratory rate, heart rate, and arterial oxygen saturation showed no significant differences between the groups (P > 0.05). Endoscopist satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and recovery time showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The results showed that the sedative effect of propofol-ketamine was equal to the propofol-fentanyl combination during ERCP. To prevent respiratory and hemodynamic complications during ERCP, the propofol-ketamine combination should be used in patients with underlying disease.

Adaptive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling to predict propofol effect using BIS-guided anesthesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is widely used for hypnosis induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. Its effect can be assessed using the bispectral index (BIS). Many automatic infusion systems are based in pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) models to predict the response of the patient to the drug. However, all these models do not take into account intra and inter-patient variability. An adjusted intraoperative drug administration allows faster recovery and provides post-operative side-effect mitigation

METHODS

BIS evolution and surgery-recorded propofol infusion data of a group of 60 adult patients (30 males/30 females) with ASA I/II physical status were used to test a real time PK/PD compartmental model. This new algorithm tunes three model parameters (ce50, γ and ke0), minimizing a performance function online.

RESULTS

The error in the BIS signal predicted by the real time PK/PD model was smaller than the error measured with fixed parameter equations. This model shows that ce50, γ and ke0 change with time and patients, given a mean (95% confidence interval) of 3.89 (3.52-4.26)mg/l, 4.63 (4.13-5.13) and 0.36 (0.31-0.4)min(-1), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The real time PK/PD model proposed provides a closer description of the patient real state at each sample time. This allows for greater control of the drug infusion, and thus the quantity of drug administered can be titrated to achieve the desired effect for the desired duration, and reduce unnecessary waste or post-operative effects.

Optimal dosing of intravenous ketamine for procedural sedation in children in the ED-a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to compare need for redosing, sedation efficacy, duration, and adverse events between 3 commonly administered doses of parenteral ketamine in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial on a convenience sample of children 3 to 18years who received intravenous ketamine for procedural sedation. Children from each age group (3-6, 7-12, and 13-18years) were assigned in equal numbers to 3 dosing groups (1, 1.5, and 2mg/kg) using random permuted blocks. The primary outcome measure was need for ketamine redosing to ensure adequate sedation. Secondary outcome measures were sedation efficacy, sedation duration, and sedation-related adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 171 children were enrolled of whom 125 (1mg/kg, 50; 1.5mg/kg, 35; 2mg/kg, 40) received the randomized dose and were analyzed. The need for ketamine redosing was higher in the 1mg/kg group (8/50; 16.0% vs 1/35; 2.9% vs 2/40; 5.0%). There was no significant difference in the median Ramsay sedation scores (5.5 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4-6] vs 6 [IQR, 4-6] vs 6 [IQR, 5-6]), FACES-R score (0 [IQR, 0-4] vs 0 [IQR, 0-0] vs 0 [IQR, 0-0]), sedation duration in minutes (23 [IQR, 19-38] vs 24.5 [IQR, 17.5-34.5] vs 23 [IQR, 19-29]), and adverse events (10.0% vs 14.3% vs 10.0%) between the 3 dosing groups. Physician satisfaction was lower in the 1mg/kg group (79.6% vs 94.1% vs 97.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate sedation was achieved with all 3 doses of ketamine. Higher doses did not increase the risk of adverse events or prolong sedation. Ketamine administered at 1.5 or 2.0mg/kg intravenous required less redosing and resulted in greater physician satisfaction.

Comparative evaluation of bispectral index system after sedation with midazolam and propofol combined with remifentanil versus ketamine in uncooperative during dental procedures

Background:

Proper analgesic agents should be used in combination with sedative agents. Remifentanil is a synthetic narcotic/analgesic agent with a short duration effect and decreases the risk of apnea during recovery. Bispectral index system (BIS) is a new noninvasive technique for the evaluation of the depth of sedation. The aim of present clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of intravenous sedation with propofol/midazolam/remifentanil (PMR) in comparison to propofol/midazolam/ketamine (PMK) for dental procedures in children 3-7 years of age.

Materials and Methods:

In this clinical trial, 32 healthy uncooperative children who were candidates for dental treatments under sedation were randomly divided into two groups. Intravenous sedation was induced with PMR in one group and with PMK in the other group. After injection and during procedure BIS index, heart rate and respiratory rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation was evaluated every 5 min. After the procedure, recovery time was measured. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, Friedman, Wilcoxon, and t-test.

Results:

The BIS value was significantly low in ketamin group (P = 0.003) but respiratory rates and heart rates were same in both groups with no statistical difference (P = 0.884, P = 0.775). The recovery time was significantly shorter in remifentanil group (P = 0.008 and P = 0.003).

Conclusion:

It can be concluded that intravenous sedation technique with PMR combination induces effective and safe sedation, with less pain and more forgetfulness and a shorter recovery time for children 3-7 years of age during dental procedures.

Propofol-Based Procedural Sedation with or without Low-Dose Ketamine in Children

Objective Examine comparative dosing, efficacy, and safety of propofol alone or with an initial, subdissociative dose of ketamine approach for deep sedation. Background Propofol is a sedative-hypnotic agent used increasingly in children for deep sedation. As a nonanalgesic agent, use in procedures (e.g., bone marrow biopsies/aspirations, renal biopsies) is debated. Our intensivist procedural sedation team sedates using one of two protocols: propofol-only (P-O) approach or age-adjusted dose of 0.25 or 0.5 mg/kg intravenous ketamine (K + P) prior to propofol. With either approach, an initial induction dose of 1 mg/kg propofol is recommended and then intermittent dosing throughout the procedure to achieve adequate sedation to safely and effectively perform the procedure. Approach: Retrospective evaluation of 754 patients receiving either the P-O or K + P approach to sedation. Results A total of 372 P-O group patients and 382 K + P group. Mean age (7.3 ± 5.5 years for P-O; 7.3 ± 5.4 years for K + P) and weight (30.09 ± 23.18 kg for P-O; 30.14 ± 24.45 kg for K + P) were similar in both groups (p = NS). All patients successfully completed procedures with a 16% combined incidence of hypoxia (SPO2 < 90%). Procedure time was 3 minutes longer for K + P group than P-O group (18.68 ± 15.13 minutes for K + P; 15.11 ± 12.77 minutes for P-O; p < 0.01), yet recovery times were 5 minutes shorter (17.04 ± 9.36 minutes for K + P; 22.17 ± 12.84 minutes for P-O; p < 0.01). Mean total dose of propofol was significantly greater in P-O than in K + P group (0.28 ± 0.20 mg/kg/min for K + P; 0.40 ± 0.26 mg/kg/min for P-O; p < 0.0001), and might explain the shorter recovery time. Conclusion Both sedation approaches proved to be well tolerated and equally effective. Addition of ketamine was associated with reduction in the recovery time, probably explained by the statistically significant decrease in the propofol dose.

Comparison of two analgesia protocols for the treatment of pediatric orthopedic emergencies

SummaryObjective:to compare the efficacy of two analgesia protocols (ketamine versus morphine) associated with midazolam for the reduction of dislocations or closed fractures in children.Methods:randomized clinical trial comparing morphine (0.1mg/kg; max 5mg) and ketamine (2.0mg/kg, max 70mg) associated with midazolam (0.2mg/kg; max 10mg) in the reduction of dislocations or closed fractures in children treated at the pediatrics emergency room (October 2010 and September 2011). The groups were compared in terms of the times to perform the procedures, analgesia, parent satisfaction and orthopedic team.Results:13 patients were allocated to ketamine and 12 to morphine, without differences in relation to age, weight, gender, type of injury, and pain scale before the intervention. There was no failure in any of the groups, no differences in time to start the intervention and overall procedure time. The average hospital stay time was similar (ketamine = 10.8+5.1h versus morphine = 12.3+4.4hs; p=0.447). The median pain (faces pain scale) scores after the procedure was 2 in both groups. Amnesia was noted in 92.3% (ketamine) and 83.3% (morphine) (p=0.904). Parents said they were very satisfied in relation to the analgesic intervention (84.6% in the ketamine group and 66.6% in the morphine group; p=0.296). The satisfaction of the orthopedist regarding the intervention was 92.3% in the ketamine group and 75% in the morphine group (p=0.222).Conclusion:by producing results similar to morphine, ketamine can be considered as an excellent option in pain management and helps in the reduction of dislocations and closed fractures in pediatric emergency rooms.

The use of propofol for procedural sedation in emergency departments

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that propofol is efficacious and safe for procedural sedation (PS) in the emergency department (ED) setting. However, propofol has a narrow therapeutic window and lacks of a reversal agent. The aim of this review was to cohere the evidence base regarding the efficacy and safety profile of propofol when used in the ED setting for PS.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to September week 2 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 2 2013). We searched the Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (September 2013). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction. We re-ran the search in February 2015. We will deal with the one study awaiting classification when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing propofol to alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS in participants of all ages.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (813 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies only included participants 18 years and younger; six studies only included participants 18 years and older; one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age and one study included only adults but did not specify the age range. Eight of the included studies had a high risk of bias. The included studies were clinically heterogeneous. We undertook no meta-analysis.The primary outcome measures of this review were: adverse effects (as defined by the study authors) and participant satisfaction (as defined by the study authors). In one study comparing propofol/fentanyl with ketamine/midazolam, delayed adverse reactions (nightmares and behavioural change) were noted in 10% of the ketamine/midazolam group and none in the propofol/fentanyl group. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in adverse effects between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. Three individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in pain at the injection site between intravenous propofol and alternative interventions. Four individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions (ketamine, etomidate, midazolam). All the studies employed propofol without the use of an adjunctive analgesic and all, except one, were small (fewer than 100 participants) studies. The quality of evidence for the adverse effects and participant satisfaction outcomes was very low.Nine included studies (eight comparisons) reported all the secondary outcome measures of the review except mortality. It was not possible to pool the results of the included studies for any of the secondary outcome measures because the comparator interventions were different and the measures were reported in different ways. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of difference in incidence of hypoxia between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the comparative effects of administering intravenous propofol, with or without an adjunctive analgesic agent, with alternative interventions in participants undergoing PS in the ED setting on adverse effects (including pain at the injection site) and participant satisfaction. The review was limited because no two included studies employed the same comparator interventions, and because the number of participants in eight of the included studies were small (fewer than 100 participants).

Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a core part of modern emergency department (ED) care allowing the rapid provision of important procedures. The safe delivery of a PSA service requires an appropriately staffed and equipped environment backed up by an ongoing system of training, audit and review. Topics covered in this review include: the evidence relating to the agents used; patient care before, during and after the procedure; the outcomes of ED PSA; and, the special considerations relating to PSA in children.

The design of a multicentre Canadian surveillance study of sedation safety in the paediatric emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Procedural sedation and analgesia have become standard practice in paediatric emergency departments worldwide. Although generally regarded as safe, serious adverse events such as bradycardia, asystole, pulmonary aspiration, permanent neurological injury and death have been reported, but their incidence is unknown due to the infrequency of their occurrence and lack of surveillance of sedation safety. To improve our understanding of the safety, comparative effectiveness and variation in care in paediatric procedural sedation, we are establishing a multicentre patient registry with the goal of conducting regular and ongoing surveillance for adverse events in procedural sedation.

METHODS

This multicentre, prospective cohort study is enrolling patients under 18 years of age from six paediatric emergency departments across Canada. Data collection is fully integrated into clinical care and is performed electronically in real time by the healthcare professionals caring for the patient. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who experience a serious adverse event as a result of their sedation. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients who experience an adverse event that could lead to a serious adverse event, proportion of patients who receive a significant intervention in response to an adverse event, proportion of patients who experience a successful sedation, and proportion of patients who experience a paradoxical reaction to sedation. There is no predetermined end date for data collection.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been obtained from participating sites. Results will be disseminated using a multifaceted knowledge translation strategy by presenting at international conferences, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and through established networks.

Emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: A Canadian Community Effectiveness and Safety Study (ACCESS)

Objectives:

To determine the effectiveness and safety of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in a Canadian community emergency department (ED) staffed primarily by family physicians and to assess the role of capnometry monitoring in PSA.

Methods:

One hundred and sixty (160) consecutive procedural sedation cases were reviewed from the ED of a rural hospital in Huntsville, Ont. The ED is mainly staffed by family physicians who have received in-house training in PSA. Safety and effectiveness measures were extrapolated from a standardized PSA form by a blinded research assistant.

Results:

The mean age of the patient population was 33.6 years (standard deviation = 23.6). Fifty-four percent of the patients were male, and 33% of the cases were pediatric. PSA medications included propofol (84%), fentanyl (51%) and midazolam (15%), and the procedural success rate was 95.6%. The adverse event (AE) rate was 18% and included apnea (10%), inadequate sedation (3%), bradycardia (2%), desaturation (1%), hypotension (1%) and bag-valve-mask use (1%). In those aged ≥65 years there was a greater incidence of apnea. There were no episodes of emesis and there were no intubations. A modified jaw thrust manoeuvre was used in 23% of the cases. In the 64% of cases where capnometry was used, there was no association between its use and any AE measures.

Conclusion:

Procedural sedation was safe and effective in our environment. Capnometry recording did not appear to alter outcomes, although the data are incomplete.

Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: a prospective study

Objective:

We evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with the use of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED).

Methods:

All patients receiving propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED between December 1, 2003, and November 30, 2005, were prospectively assessed. Propofol was administered using a standardized protocol, which included an initial dose of 0.25–0.5 mg/kg followed by 10–20 mg/minute until sedated. Efficacy was evaluated using procedural success rate, recovery time and physician satisfaction. Adverse respiratory effects were defined as apnea for more than 30 seconds or an oxygen saturation of less than 90%. Hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure &lt; 90 mm Hg or &gt; 20% decrease from baseline. Patient and physician satisfaction were determined using 5-point Likert scales.

Results:

Our study included 113 patients with a mean age of 50 (standard deviation [SD] 19) years; 62% were male. The most common procedures were orthopedic manipulation (44%), cardioversion (37%), and abscess incision and drainage (13%). The mean total propofol dose required was 1.6 (SD 0.9) mg/kg. Procedural success was achieved in 90% of cases and the mean patient recovery time was 7.6 (SD 3.4) minutes. No patient (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0%–3%) experienced apnea; however, 1 patient (1%, 95% CI 0%–5%) experienced emesis, which resulted in an oxygen saturation &lt;90%. Nine patients (8%, 95% CI 4%–15%) experienced hypotension and 7 (6%, 95% CI 3%–12%) experienced pain on injection. All patients were very satisfied (92%, 95% CI 85%–96%) or satisfied (8%, 95% CI 4%–15%), and 94% (95% CI 88%–98%) reported no recollection of the procedure. The majority of physicians were very satisfied (85%, 95% CI 77%–91%) or satisfied (6%, 95% CI 3%–12%) with the sedation and the conditions achieved.

Conclusion:

When administered as part of a standardized protocol, propofol appears to be a safe and effective agent for performing procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED, and is associated with high patient and physician satisfaction.