Propofol sedation: intensivists' experience with 7304 cases in a children's hospital

Trends and patterns in the practice of pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in Japan: A longitudinal descriptive study from 2012 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging is a standard practice; however, there are few studies on its trends and patterns.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the trends and patterns of pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in Japan and determine the incidence of and risk factors for adverse events/interventions.

METHODS

This longitudinal descriptive study assessed children (age < 15 years) who underwent sedation for magnetic resonance imaging between April 2012 and December 2019 in Japan using a nationwide claims database. We assessed the patients' demographic characteristics, time trends in sedatives, sedative patterns by age, and adverse events/interventions within two post-sedation days. Further, we used multivariable logistic regression models to explore factors related to the incidence of adverse events/interventions.

RESULTS

We identified 29 187 cases (median age, 2.0 years; 55.2% males). The most common sedative was triclofos sodium (n = 18 812, 51.7%). There was an increasing trend in barbiturate use (17.0% [2012] to 25.0% [2019]) and decreasing trends in the use of triclofos sodium (56.4% [2012] to 47.7% [2019]) and chloral hydrate (15.6% [2012] to 10.8% [2019]). We identified 534 adverse events/interventions in 460 cases (1.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that the incidence of adverse events/interventions mainly increased with the number of sedatives (≥3; adjusted odds ratio, 5.10; 95% confidence interval, 3.67-7.10) and unscheduled setting (adjusted odds ratio, 6.28; 95% confidence interval, 4.85-8.61); further, it decreased with high hospital procedure volume (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a Japanese real-world setting, there is an increasing trend in barbiturate use and decreasing trends in the use of triclofos sodium and chloral hydrate in pediatric sedation for magnetic resonance imaging. Low hospital procedure volumes were associated with an increased risk of adverse events/interventions.

Lower-Dose Propofol Use for MRI: A Retrospective Review of a Pediatric Sedation Team's Experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate, in children undergoing procedural sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, whether lower doses of propofol than previously published permitted a high rate of successful MRI completion, whether lower dosages result in a more rapid recovery, and whether age or behavioral diagnosis increases propofol requirements.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the pediatric sedation team's sedation database of children receiving propofol infusion for MRI scans between 2007 and 2016. Data collected included propofol induction dose (in milligrams per kilogram), propofol infusion dose (in micrograms per kilogram per hour), total propofol dose (in milligrams per kilogram and in milligrams per kilogram per hour), and the number of administered ancillary sedative medications. Additional data included the American Society of Anesthesiologist status, sedation duration, recovery duration, and successful completion of MRI. Dosing data were also stratified by age.

RESULTS

A total of 2354 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight percent of patients received propofol infusion alone, 79% received midazolam before their propofol induction, and 13% received a combination of propofol and other drugs. Mean induction dose was 2.2 + 0.9 mg/kg, mean infusion dose was 93.5 + 29.0 μg/kg per minute, and total mean dose was 9.0 + 3.0 mg/kg per hour. Mean recovery time was 44 minutes, and 99.3% of the scans were completed with good images. We noted an increase requirement in the mean induction dose and total dose in children younger than 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol infusion doses lower than commonly reported permit successful completion of scans and similar recovery times in a single institution. Younger children require more propofol for successful procedural sedation.

Creation and Implementation of a Hospitalist-Run Propofol Sedation Program

BACKGROUND

Pediatric hospitalists increasingly provide sedation outside the operating room. Given the large body of safety data available, propofol was identified as a beneficial addition to our hospitalist-run sedation service's medication repertoire. Currently, the training required for hospitalists to provide sedation is defined and determined locally by individual institutions.

METHODS

We convened a task force to develop and implement training for hospitalists in the use of propofol for deep sedation. After implementing training, we analyzed the outcome of patients receiving propofol for deep sedation for MRI, including the adverse event rate and successful completion rate. An adverse event was defined as a significant desaturation, persistent upper airway obstruction, laryngospasm, administration of neuromuscular blockade, conversion to anesthesia, call for additional backup, or if the procedure was not able to be completed. Successful completion was defined as any patient being able to complete the imaging study or procedure with sedation performed by a hospitalist physician.

RESULTS

Between September 2015 and September 2018, sedation services sedated 12 979 patients, 3929 of whom were deeply sedated with propofol. During this period, the trained hospitalists had an adverse event rate of 3.6% and a 98.9% rate of successful completion of all studies or procedures when using propofol for deep sedation.

CONCLUSION

With a comprehensive training program for hospitalists in the administration of propofol, we provided effective sedation for a selective population of patients. We now have a standard approach that uses credentialed hospitalists to train new faculty for propofol administration.

Independent risk factors for adverse events associated with propofol-based pediatric sedation performed by anesthesiologists in the radiology suite: a prospective observational study

This study aimed to identify the types and frequencies of adverse events, as well as the risk factors for respiratory complications related to pediatric sedation. This single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted in a radiology suite at a tertiary university hospital for 2 years. Patients aged under 18 years, who underwent sedation solely by anesthesiologists for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans, were eligible for inclusion. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out to identify the risk factors of adverse events, including respiratory complications, related to the propofol-based sedation. We further performed a sensitivity test with 1-to-5 propensity score matching analysis to assess the robustness of our findings. Among 2569 children, 3.9% experienced respiratory problems related to the sedation. After 1-to-5 propensity matching analysis, cardiac and neurologic comorbidities, crying before sedation, a history of snoring or upper respiratory infection, and prolonged duration of sedation were independently associated with the occurrence of adverse respiratory events.Conclusions: Our protocol for pediatric sedation demonstrates a high success rate and low likelihood of fatal complications, but proactive management prior to propofol-based sedation is critical to prevent adverse respiratory events in children. What is Known: • Propofol-based pediatric sedation is associated with adverse events necessarily even though performed by professional anesthesiologists solely. What is New: • Cardiac and neurologic comorbidities, crying before sedation, a history of snoring or upper respiratory infection, and prolonged duration of sedation were independently associated with the occurrence of respiratory adverse events. • Proactive management prior to sedation is critical to preventing adverse respiratory events for pediatrics.

An international multidisciplinary consensus statement on fasting before procedural sedation in adults and children

The multidisciplinary International Committee for the Advancement of Procedural Sedation presents the first fasting and aspiration prevention recommendations specific to procedural sedation, based on an extensive review of the literature. These were developed using Delphi methodology and assessment of the robustness of the available evidence. The literature evidence is clear that fasting, as currently practiced, often substantially exceeds recommended time thresholds and has known adverse consequences, for example, irritability, dehydration and hypoglycaemia. Fasting does not guarantee an empty stomach, and there is no observed association between aspiration and compliance with common fasting guidelines. The probability of clinically important aspiration during procedural sedation is negligible. In the post-1984 literature there are no published reports of aspiration-associated mortality in children, no reports of death in healthy adults (ASA physical status 1 or 2) and just nine reported deaths in adults of ASA physical status 3 or above. Current concerns about aspiration are out of proportion to the actual risk. Given the lower observed frequency of aspiration and mortality than during general anaesthesia, and the theoretical basis for assuming a lesser risk, fasting strategies in procedural sedation can reasonably be less restrictive. We present a consensus-derived algorithm in which each patient is first risk-stratified during their pre-sedation assessment, using evidence-based factors relating to patient characteristics, comorbidities, the nature of the procedure and the nature of the anticipated sedation technique. Graded fasting precautions for liquids and solids are then recommended for elective procedures based upon this categorisation of negligible, mild or moderate aspiration risk. This consensus statement can serve as a resource to practitioners and policymakers who perform and oversee procedural sedation in patients of all ages, worldwide.

Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

Incidence and risk factors of unplanned intubation during pediatric sedation for MRI

BACKGROUND

It is often difficult for the pediatric patient to cooperate or to remain immobile during MR scans. Therefore, sedation is usually needed for children.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence and contributing factors of unanticipated intubation during sedation for MRI scan in children.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective observational study.

POPULATION/SUBJECTS

In all, 1165 charts were reviewed retrospectively of patients who had been sedated by anesthesiologists at a single institution from May 2015 to June 2016.

ASSESSMENT

Patient's demographics, the region of the MRI scan, total amount of medication, duration of sedation, and any adverse event during MRI were assessed. The adverse events during sedation including airway obstruction, apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension were also assessed.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Risk factors of unplanned intubation during MRI sedation were identified by univariate and multivariate analysis. Firth's exact logistic regression was used for univariate and multivariate analysis. According to the results from multiple logistic regression, a nomogram was developed to predict the risk.

RESULTS

A total of 1165 children aged 7 days to 18 years with sedation used during an MRI scan during the study period showed an incidence of unexpected intubation as ~2% (n = 23, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.0123, 0.0295). Multivariate logistic regression revealed the following risk factors of unplanned intubation: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.212, P < 0.001), premature birth (OR 2.317, P < 0.001), and the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (OR 1.474, P < 0.001) or congenital heart disease (OR 1.118, P < 0.001).

DATA CONCLUSION

This study identified risk factors of unplanned intubation as follows: ASA class III patients, premature birth, and the presence of GERD or congenital heart disease. The physician should screen risk factors of unexpected intubation and maintain adequate sedation during MRI scans in pediatric patients. Level of Evidence 3. Technical Efficacy Stage 5. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1053-1061.

Pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation: a comprehensive systematic review

Background

Although pulmonary aspiration complicating operative general anaesthesia has been extensively studied, little is known regarding aspiration during procedural sedation.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive, systematic review to identify and catalogue published instances of aspiration involving procedural sedation in patients of all ages. We sought to report descriptively the circumstances, nature, and outcomes of these events.

Results

Of 1249 records identified by our search, we found 35 articles describing one or more occurrences of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation. Of the 292 occurrences during gastrointestinal endoscopy, there were eight deaths. Of the 34 unique occurrences for procedures other than endoscopy, there was a single death in a moribund patient, full recovery in 31, and unknown recovery status in two. We found no occurrences of aspiration in non-fasted patients receiving procedures other than endoscopy.

Conclusions

This first systematic review of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation identified few occurrences outside of gastrointestinal endoscopy, with full recovery typical. Although diligent caution remains warranted, our data indicate that aspiration during procedural sedation appears rare, idiosyncratic, and typically benign.

Pharmacologic Considerations for Pediatric Sedation and Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: A Review for Anesthesia and Non-Anesthesia Providers

Understanding the pharmacologic options for pediatric sedation outside the operating room will allow practitioners to formulate an ideal anesthetic plan, allaying anxiety and achieving optimal immobilization while ensuring rapid and efficient recovery. The authors identified relevant medical literature by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for English language publications covering a period from 1984 to 2017. Search terms included pediatric anesthesia, pediatric sedation, non-operating room sedation, sedation safety, and pharmacology. As a narrative review of common sedation/anesthesia options, the authors elected to focus on studies, reviews, and case reports that show clinical relevance to modern day sedation/anesthesia practice. A variety of pharmacologic agents are available for sedation/anesthesia in pediatrics, including midazolam, fentanyl, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, etomidate, and propofol. Dosing ranges reported are a combination of what is discussed in the reviewed literature and text books along with personal recommendations based on our own practice. Several reports reveal that ketofol (a combination of ketamine and propofol) is quite popular for short, painful procedures. Fospropofol is a newer-generation propofol that may confer advantages over regular propofol. Remimazolam combines the pharmacologic effects of remifentanil and midazolam. A variety of etomidate derivatives such as methoxycarbonyl-etomidate, carboetomidate, methoxycarbonyl-carboetomidate, and cyclopropyl-methoxycarbonyl metomidate are in development stages. The use of nitrous oxide as a mild sedative, analgesic, and amnestic agent is gaining popularity, especially in the ambulatory setting. Utilizing a dedicated and experienced team to provide sedation enhances safety. Furthermore, limiting sedation plans to single-agent pharmacy appears to be safer than using multi-agent plans.

Experience with the use of propofol for radiologic imaging in infants younger than 6 months of age

BACKGROUND

There is an increased risk associated with procedural sedation of infants younger than 6 months of age. The use of propofol for radiologic imaging of this age group is not well studied.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesize that adverse events are higher in the infant population receiving propofol for radiologic imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was undertaken of 304 infants younger than 6 months old who received propofol for procedural sedation from October 2012 to February 2015. Patient demographics, propofol dosing, sedation-related adverse events and interventions were collected. Serious adverse events were defined as laryngospasm, aspiration, the need for admission, cardiac arrest or death.

RESULTS

Procedural sedation for radiologic imaging was successful in 301/304 (99%) of infants using propofol. Of these 304 patients, 130 (42.8%) patients were female, and 240 of the 304 (79%) were between 3 and 6 months of age. The majority of patients (172/304 [56.6%]) were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status Class II. There were 57 sedation-related, minor adverse events in 39 out of 304 (12.8%) patients. Thirteen of the 304 (4.3%) patients had 14 serious adverse events, with airway obstruction the most common. Eighty interventions were required in 56/304 (18.4%) patients. The most common interventions were continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in 25/304 patients (8.2%) and jaw thrust in 15/304 (4.9%). The median induction propofol dose was 4.7 mg/kg. A need for an increase in the propofol infusion rate during the procedure was noted in 162/304 (53.3%) infants. No significant predictors of sedation-related adverse events were detected.

CONCLUSION

Propofol can be used for radiologic imaging of infants younger than 6 months of age with a high success rate. Practitioners should be mindful of significantly higher dosing requirements and a higher incidence of airway events, which can be easily identified and managed by a team of experienced sedation providers.

A retrospective comparison of propofol alone to propofol in combination with dexmedetomidine for pediatric 3T MRI sedation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Both propofol and dexmedetomidine have been found to be safe and effective sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Our program experienced an increase in patients arousing and experiencing an adverse airway event during propofol sedation for MRI in the first months of using a new 3T (Tesla) MRI scanner that was found to have a longer reverberation time compared to the previous 1.5 T MRI. In an effort to decrease patient arousal and adverse airway events during MRI, we administered a dexmedetomidine load prior to our standard propofol protocol. The objective was to compare adverse events and other outcome measures of patients sedated with propofol alone (Pro) and propofol preceded by a dexmedetomidine load (D+P).

METHODS

We reviewed a sedation database and medical records for all children undergoing 3T MRI studies while sedated with propofol alone or propofol preceded by a dexmedetomidine load in 2014.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-six sedations were performed for MRI (87 Pro and 169 D+P). The two groups were comparable with regard to age, weight, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists status. Subjects in the D+P cohort had significantly fewer adverse events (10/169 patients (5.9%) vs 23/87 patients (26.4%) [OR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.08-0.39, P < 0.001]), particularly upper airway obstruction. Mean discharge time was longer in the D+P cohort compared to the Pro cohort (87.1, SD 26.3 min vs 69.7, SD 23.6; [mean difference 17.7 min, 95% CI: 10.6-24.8, P < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a dexmedetomidine infusion prior to our propofol MRI sedation protocol resulted in fewer sedation-related adverse events, particularly upper airway obstruction. Further studies are needed to evaluate the potential for a reduction on adverse events with this drug combination.

Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: Update 2016

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase the potential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

Outcomes following implementation of a pediatric procedural sedation guide for referral to general anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging studies

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Guidelines for referral of children to general anesthesia (GA) to complete MRI studies are lacking. We devised a pediatric procedural sedation guide to determine whether a pediatric procedural sedation guide would decrease serious adverse events and decrease failed sedations requiring rescheduling with GA.

METHODS

We constructed a consensus-based sedation guide by combining a retrospective review of reasons for referral of children to GA (n = 221) with published risk factors associated with the inability to complete the MRI study with sedation. An interrupted time series analysis of 11 530 local sedation records from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium between July 2008 and March 2013, adjusted for case-mix differences in the pre- and postsedation guide cohorts, evaluated whether a sedation guide resulted in decreased severe adverse events (SAE) and failed sedation rates.

RESULTS

A significant increase in referrals to GA following implementation of a sedation guide occurred (P < 0.001), and fewer children with an ASA-PS class ≥III were sedated using procedural sedation (P < 0.001). There was no decrease in SAE (P = 0.874) or in SAE plus airway obstruction with concurrent hypoxia (P = 0.435). There was no change in the percentage of failed sedations (P = 0.169).

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are needed to determine the impact of a sedation guide on pediatric procedural sedation services.

Drug utilisation and off-label use of medications in anaesthesia in surgical wards of a teaching hospital

Background and Aims:

When a drug is used in a way that is different from that described in regulatory body approved drug label, it is said to be ‘off label use’. Perioperative phase is sensitive from the point of view of patient safety and off-label drug use in this setup can prove to be hazardous to patient. Hence, it was planned to assess the pattern of drug utilisation and off-label use of perioperative medication during anaesthesia.

Methods:

Preoperatively, demographic details and adverse events check list were filled from a total of 400 patients from general surgery, paediatric surgery and orthopaedics departments scheduled to undergo surgery. The perioperative assessment form was assessed to record all prescriptions followed by refilling of adverse events checklist in case record form. World Health Organization (WHO) prescribing indicators were used for analysis of drug utilisation data. National Formulary of India 2011 was used as reference material to decide off-label drug use in majority instances along with package insert.

Results:

A total of 3705 drugs were prescribed to the 400 participants and average number of drugs per patient was 9.26 ± 3.33. Prescriptions by generic name were 68.07% whereas 85.3% drugs were prescribed from hospital schedule. Off-label drugs overall formed 20.19% of the drugs prescribed. At least one off-label drug was prescribed to 82.5% of patients. Inappropriate dose was the most common form of off-label use. There was 1.6 times greater risk of occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of off-label drugs.

Conclusion:

Prescription indicators were WHO compliant. Off-label drug use was practiced in anaesthesia department with questionable clinical justification in some instances.

Major Adverse Events and Relationship to Nil per Os Status in Pediatric Sedation/Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room

Background

Studies that have attempted to define the incidence of aspiration or pulmonary complications during sedation/anesthesia of children with respect to nil per os (NPO) status or other factors are difficult because of the relatively infrequent rate of these complications.

Methods

The Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium consists of 42 participating institutions with elective sedation services that submit consecutive patient encounter information to a central database. The authors evaluated aspiration episodes and a combined outcome of major adverse events (defined as aspiration, death, cardiac arrest, or unplanned hospital admission) with respect to NPO status, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, age, propofol use, procedure types, and urgency of the procedure.

Results

A total of 139,142 procedural sedation/anesthesia encounters were collected between September 2, 2007 and November 9, 2011. There were 0 deaths, 10 aspirations, and 75 major complications. NPO status was known for 107,947 patients, of whom 25,401 (23.5 %) were not NPO. Aspiration occurred in 8 of 82,546 (0.97 events per 10,000) versus 2 of 25,401 (0.79 events per 10,000) patients who were NPO and not NPO, respectively (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.08 to 4.08; P = 0.79). Major complications occurred in 46 of 82,546 (5.57 events per 10,000) versus 15 of 25,401 (5.91 events per 10,000) (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.93; P = 0.88). Multivariate adjustment did not appreciably impact the effect of NPO status.

Conclusions

The analysis suggests that aspiration is uncommon. NPO status for liquids and solids is not an independent predictor of major complications or aspiration in this sedation/anesthesia data set.

Effect of a neck collar on upper airway size in children sedated with propofol-midazolam combination during magnetic resonance imaging

INTRODUCTION

Propofol and midazolam are widely used for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation. Increasing depth of sedation may be associated with airway obstruction. A neck collar supporting the mandible and maintaining the head in slight extension may be beneficial in maintaining airway patency.

AIM OF THE STUDY

Primary aim: To assess upper airway size with and without a neck collar during pediatric MRI sedation with propofol-midazolam. Secondary aim: To evaluate complications encountered during the procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients aged 2-4 years scheduled for MRI of the brain were selected. They were sedated with intramuscular midazolam 0.1 mg·kg(-1) 30 min before the procedure. Patients were sedated with i.v. propofol 1 mg·kg(-1) and continued with 50-100 μg·kg(-1) ·min(-1) . T1 3D fast-field echo axial sequence from the nasopharyngeal roof to subglottic region was taken with and without application of a neck collar. Airway dimensions were measured and analyzed at the base of the tongue, soft palate, and at the epiglottis.

RESULTS

At the base of the tongue and soft palate, the cross-sectional area (CSA) and the anteroposterior diameter of the airway were respectively statistically significantly higher when the neck collar was applied. The CSA at the epiglottis was significantly less with application of the neck collar. Complications were not significantly different between the two sequences.

CONCLUSION

Application of a soft neck collar in children aged 2-4 years may enhance the retropalatal and retroglossal airway dimensions during pediatric sedation in the supine position.

Pediatric critical care physician-administered procedural sedation using propofol: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium Database

OBJECTIVE

Increasing demand for pediatric procedural sedation has resulted in a marked increase in provision of pediatric procedural sedation by pediatric critical care physicians both inside and outside of the ICU. Reported experience of pediatric critical care physicians-administered pediatric procedural sedation is limited. We used the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to evaluate a multicenter experience with propofol by pediatric critical care physicians in all settings.

SETTING

Review of national Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to identify pediatric procedural sedation provided by pediatric critical care physicians from 2007 to 2012. Demographic and clinical data were collected to describe pediatric procedural sedation selection, location, and delivery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with pediatric procedural sedation-related adverse events and complications.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 91,189 pediatric procedural sedation performed by pediatric critical care physicians using propofol were included in the database. Median age was 60.0 months (range, 0-264 months; interquartile range, 34.0-132.0); 81.9% of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II. Most sedations were performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (80.9%). Procedures were successfully completed in 99.9% of patients. A propofol bolus alone was used in 52.8%, and 41.7% received bolus plus continuous infusion. Commonly used adjunctive medications were lidocaine (35.3%), opioids (23.3%), and benzodiazepines (16.4%). Overall adverse event incidence was 5.0% (95% CI, 4.9-5.2%), which included airway obstruction (1.6%), desaturation (1.5%), coughing (1.0%), and emergent airway intervention (0.7%). No deaths occurred; a single cardiac arrest was reported in a 13-month-old child receiving propofol and ketamine, with no untoward neurologic sequelae. Risk factors associated with adverse event included: location of sedation, number of adjunctive medications, upper and lower respiratory diagnosis, prematurity diagnosis, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, and painful procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric procedural sedation using propofol can be provided by pediatric critical care physicians effectively and with a low incidence of adverse events.

Pediatric procedural sedation with propofol using a higher initial bolus dose

OBJECTIVES

We sought to describe the doses of propofol used for sedation in our pediatric emergency department, along with the range of procedures performed under propofol sedation. We also planned to describe clinically important physiologic changes seen and physician satisfaction with propofol at the doses observed.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational case series. Physicians completed a data collection form after the propofol sedation. The physicians were asked to report physiologic changes that occurred during sedation and rate their satisfaction with propofol as a sedation agent on a 100-mm visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Eight hundred eighty-six sedation events were reported. The median initial dose of propofol given was 2.0 mg/kg and the median total dose was 3.6 mg/kg. Propofol was used for a wide range of procedures. The most common physiologic change was desaturation/hypoxia (desaturation to <90% in 7.2%). No deaths, unplanned intubations, or surgical airway placements were reported. Treating physicians reported a median satisfaction score of 97 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-mg/kg initial bolus dose of propofol for pediatric sedation was well tolerated and useful for a wide range of procedures. Physicians should expect to find a high level of satisfaction with this dose.

Safety and efficacy of propofol administered by paediatricians during procedural sedation in children

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the safety and the efficacy of paediatrician-administered propofol in children undergoing different painful procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study over a 12-year period in three Italian hospitals. A specific training protocol was developed in each institution to train paediatricians administering propofol for painful procedures.

RESULTS

In this study, 36,516 procedural sedations were performed. Deep sedation was achieved in all patients. None of the children experienced severe side effects or prolonged hospitalisation. There were six calls to the emergency team (0.02%): three for prolonged laryngospasm, one for bleeding, one for intestinal perforation and one during lumbar puncture. Nineteen patients (0.05%) developed hypotension requiring saline solution administration, 128 children (0.4%) needed O2 ventilation by face mask, mainly during upper endoscopy, 78 (0.2%) patients experienced laryngospasm, and 15 (0.04%) had bronchospasm. There were no differences in the incidence of major complications among the three hospitals, while minor complications were higher in children undergoing gastroscopy.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre study demonstrates the safety and the efficacy of paediatrician-administered propofol for procedural sedation in children and highlights the importance of appropriate training for paediatricians to increase the safety of this procedure in children.

An update on pediatric hospital-based sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The need for sedation for procedures performed outside the operating room has increased dramatically, and pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) is increasingly performed by practitioners who are not anesthesiologists. With 'sedationists' emerging from various specialties, there are differences in practice and guidelines with regards to presedation assessment, targeted depths of sedation, monitoring requirements, and the training required. Our aim is to identify some of the recent advances in PPS and to describe progress towards greater standardization of practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies report attempts to optimize the efficacy of specific pharmaceuticals used in PPS. Ketamine, a dissociative agent, functions uniquely and requires its own sedation practice guidelines. Utilizing less invasive administration of sedation via transmucosal and inhaled routes is gaining popularity. Additionally, replacing subjective measurement of depths of the sedation continuum and the nonstandardized definitions of adverse events with alternatives based on physiological parameters and/or required rescue interventions is underway. Finally, the use of presedation family-centered counseling and adjuncts that provide visual and auditory distraction are enhancing pharmaceutical methods.

SUMMARY

Further multispecialty collaboration and formation of greater consensus with regards to sedation practice are essential to the development of universal guidelines that optimize patient care.

Retrospective review of propofol dosing for procedural sedation in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the total propofol dose (mg/kg) for non-emergent pediatric procedural sedation and evaluate dosing differences with regard to a patient's sex, age, and body mass index. Adverse events were recorded and evaluated to determine whether certain patient groups were at a higher risk than others.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective observational pilot study including patients 0 to 18 years of age admitted between January 2008 and November 2009 for non-emergent gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures or radiologic imaging, who received propofol for procedural sedation. Data gathered included sex, age, height, weight, chronic medical conditions and medication use, concomitant anesthetic gas, preprocedure midazolam, procedure length, propofol dose in mg/kg, other medications administered during procedure, and adverse events that occurred. Comparisons between adverse event groups and categories of baseline characteristics were made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric and Pearson's chisquare tests, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean dose of propofol required for female patients was 3.7 mg/kg versus 3.4 mg/kg for males (p=0.3). The mean dose of propofol for patients ≤9 years, 10 to 12 years, and >12 years was 3.2, 3.9, and 3.9 mg/kg, respectively (p=0.25). The mean dose of propofol for underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese patients was 4.2, 3.9, 3.6, and 2.6 mg/kg, respectively (p=0.38). Hypotension occurred in 42.6% of patients, and bradycardia occurred in 13.9% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in dose requirements based on sex or age. The difference in dosing between different body weight categories was not statistically significant. The dose of propofol was higher in patients that experienced bradycardia and hypotension, but there was no statistical significance. Given the above, future studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to establish if statistical significance exists.

Procedural sedation for diagnostic imaging in children by pediatric hospitalists using propofol: analysis of the nature, frequency, and predictors of adverse events and interventions

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the nature, frequency, and predictors of adverse events during the use of propofol by pediatric hospitalists.

STUDY DESIGN

We reviewed 1649 charts of patients sedated with propofol by pediatric hospitalists at St Louis Children's Hospital between January 2005 and September 2009.

RESULTS

Hospitalists were able to complete 1633 of the 1649 sedations reviewed (99%). Major complications included 2 patients with aspiration and 1 patient intubated to complete the study. We observed a 74% reduction in the number of patients with respiratory events and airway interventions from 2005 to 2009. Predictors of respiratory events were history of snoring (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.52-3.80), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of ASA 3 (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.22-4.33), age >12 years (OR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.02-7.98), premedication with midazolam (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15-2.98), and use of adjuvant glycopyrrolate (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 2.35-9.40). All except ASA 3 status were also predictors for airway intervention. There was a decline in the prevalence of all of these predictors over the study years (P < .05) except for use of glycopyrrolate.

CONCLUSION

Our pediatric hospitalists implemented a successful propofol sedation program that realized a 74% reduction in respiratory events and airway interventions between 2005 and 2009. Decreased prevalence of the predictors of adverse events that we identified likely contributed to this reduction.

Development of a pediatric hospitalist sedation service: training and implementation

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of propofol versus propofol-ketamine combination in pediatric oncologic procedures performed by non-anesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the best option (short acting sedatives, opioids, or ketamine) in oncologic procedural sedation performed by non-anesthesiologists. The aim of the present prospective study is to compare the safety and efficacy of propofol-ketamine versus propofol alone, managed by trained pediatricians, in children with cancer undergoing painful procedures.

PROCEDURES

Data on 121 children with acute lymphatic leukemia (ALL) undergoing procedural sedations (lumbar punctures and bone marrow aspirations) were prospectively collected and included drug doses, side effects, pain assessment, and sedation degree. Children were randomly assigned to one of the two groups: P (n = 62) receiving propofol alone and K (n = 59) in whom a ketamine-propofol combination was used.

RESULTS

In group K, the total dose of propofol required was significantly lower than in group P (3.9 ± 3.6 mg/kg vs. 5.1 ± 3.6 mg/kg; P < 0.001). The incidence of hypotension was also significantly lower (11% vs. 39%; P < 0.001). Major O(2) desaturations (defined as SatO(2) < 88%) occurred principally in group P (7 vs. 1; P = 0.05). Both best analgesia and shorter recovery time were obtained with the propofol-ketamine association. No differences were observed in the degree of sedation and in the awakening quality score between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propofol and ketamine produced statistically significant clinical advantages combined with a higher profile of safety in children with cancer undergoing painful procedures.

Safety of high-concentration nitrous oxide by nasal mask for pediatric procedural sedation: experience with 7802 cases

OBJECTIVES

Nitrous oxide is an effective sedative/analgesic for mildly to moderately painful pediatric procedures. This study evaluated the safety of nitrous oxide administered at high concentration (up to 70%) for procedural sedation.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study included all patients younger than 18 years who received nitrous oxide for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures at a metropolitan children's facility. Patients' age, highest concentration and total duration of nitrous oxide administration, and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Nitrous oxide was administered on 7802 occasions to 5779 patients ranging in age from 33 days to 18 years (median, 5.0 years) during the 5.5-year study period. No adverse events were recorded for 95.7% of cases. Minor adverse events included nausea (1.6%), vomiting (2.2%), and diaphoresis (0.4%). Nine patients had potentially serious events, all of which resolved without incident. There was no difference in adverse event rates between nitrous oxide less than or equal to 50% and greater than 50% (P = 0.18). Patients aged 1 to 4 years had the lowest adverse event rate (P < 0.001), with no difference between groups younger than 1 year, 5 to 10 years, and 11 to 18 years. Compared with patients with less than 15 minutes of nitrous oxide administration, patients with 15 to 30 minutes or more than 30 minutes of nitrous oxide administration were 4.2 (95% confidence interval, 3.2-5.4) or 4.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.6-9.3) times more likely to have adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Nitrous oxide can be safely administered at up to 70% concentration by nasal mask for pediatric procedural sedation, particularly for short (<15 minutes) procedures. Nitrous oxide seems safe for children of all ages.

Pediatric sedation--evolution and revolution

Pediatric sedation continues to change in terms of the professionals who provide this care, those who produce original research on this topic, guidelines and literature concerning risk, medications employed, and methods for training for new providers. Some of the changes could be categorized as 'evolutionary' or gradual in nature and predictable - such as the changing role of anesthesiologists in the field of pediatric sedation and the use of the well-established dissociative sedative, ketamine. Other changes in pediatric sedation are more radical or 'revolutionary'. They include reconsideration of what is defined as an 'adverse event' during sedation, the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine, and the application of human patient simulation for training. This review will highlight the ongoing changes in the dynamic field of pediatric sedation by focusing on some of the important progress (both evolutionary and revolutionary) that has occurred across the varied specialties that provide this care.

Pediatric sedation: a global challenge

Pediatric sedation is a challenge which spans all continents and has grown to encompass specialties outside of anesthesia, radiology and emergency medicine. All sedatives are not universally available and local and national regulations often limit the sedation practice to specific agents and those with specific credentials. Some specialties have established certification and credentials for sedation delivery whereas most have not. Some of the relevant sedation guidelines and recommendations of specialty organizations worldwide will be explored. The challenge facing sedation care providers moving forward in the 21st century will be to determine how to apply the local, regional and national guidelines to the individual sedation practices. A greater challenge, perhaps impossible, will be to determine whether the sedation community can come together worldwide to develop standards, guidelines and recommendations for safe sedation practice.

Propofol as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation can cause significant arterial hypotension in preterm neonates

BACKGROUND

Propofol is gaining increasing popularity as induction agent for pediatric endotracheal intubation. Recently, propofol has been described for the first time as induction agent for endotracheal intubation in preterm neonates. Propofol seemed to be efficient, safe and ideally suited for the INSURE (Intubation SURfactant Extubation) procedure in preterm neonates. The purpose of this study was to document intubating conditions, vital signs, extubation times and outcome in preterm neonates receiving propofol as induction agent for the INSURE procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Preterm neonates with a gestational age of 29-32 weeks and respiratory distress were eligible for INSURE with propofol if their postnatal age was <8 h. Exclusion criteria were any kind of disease not allowing early extubation.

RESULTS

There were 13 inborn neonates enrolled for INSURE, mean gestational age was 30 weeks + 3 days, and mean birth weight was 1428 g (range 1170-1780 g). We stopped our observational study ahead of time as a result of significant cardiovascular side effects. Propofol generally offered good intubating conditions, but we encountered severe problems with arterial hypotension. A low propofol bolus of 1 mg kg(-1) caused a distinctive decline in mean arterial blood pressure from 38 mmHg (range 29-42 mmHg) prior premedication to 24 mmHg (22-40 mmHg) 10 min after propofol application.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience with propofol as induction agent for endotracheal intubation in preterm neonates reveals distinctive cardiovascular effects, which represent an important risk factor for serious complications of prematurity like intraventricular hemorrhage or periventricular leucomalacia. Propofol should be used with caution in very preterm neonates with respiratory distress during the first hours of life.

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

Objectives. To investigate which skills and competence are imperative to assure optimal effectiveness and safety of procedural sedation (PS) in children and to analyze the underlying levels of evidence. Study Design and methods. Systematic review of literature published between 1993 and March 2009. Selected papers were classified according to their methodological quality and summarized in evidence-based conclusions. Next, conclusions were used to formulate recommendations. Results. Although the safety profiles vary among PS drugs, the possibility of potentially serious adverse events and the predictability of depth and duration of sedation define the imperative skills and competence necessary for a timely recognition and appropriate management. The level of effectiveness is mainly determined by the ability to apply titratable PS, including deep sedation using short-acting anesthetics for invasive procedures and nitrous oxide for minor painful procedures, and the implementation of non-pharmacological techniques. Conclusions. PS related safety and effectiveness are determined by the circumstances and professional skills rather than by specific pharmacologic characteristics. Evidence based recommendations regarding necessary skills and competence should be used to set up training programs and to define which professionals can and cannot be credentialed for PS in children.

Analgesia and sedation for painful interventions in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Painful procedures on children and adolescents often have to be performed with the aid of analgesia and sedation in order to prevent pain and emotional distress. Moreover, many procedures can be performed more rapidly and more effectively in a relaxed patient. Because the combination of analgesia and sedation can cause serious or even life-threatening complications, it must be accompanied by the same safety precautions as a general anesthetic.

METHODS

Selective review of the literature.

RESULTS

A high level of safety can be achieved by adherence to the published guidelines of the societies for anesthesiology and pediatrics. The depth of sedation during procedures performed under combined analgesia and sedation is often equivalent to that resulting from general anesthesia. Therefore, in order to avoid serious complications, combined analgesia and sedation should only be administered by physicians trained in pediatric anesthesia or pediatric critical care. This is particularly so when propofol is used, because it has a narrow therapeutic range and can cause cardiorespiratory respiratory problems without warning. As long as the appropriate safety precautions are followed, non-anesthesiologists can also administer propofol in combination with an analgesic, such as ketamine, to children and adolescents.

CONCLUSION

In children and adolescents, the combination of analgesia and sedation can prevent the emotional trauma that would result from a painful procedure, while often enhancing the quality of the procedure itself. This method should be considered a variant of general anesthesia. Accordingly, any non-anesthesiologist employing this method must be as well versed as an anesthesiologist in the management of its specific side effects and complications.

Efficacy of sedation regimens to facilitate mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Children admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) often receive sedatives to facilitate mechanical ventilation. However, despite their widespread use, data supporting appropriate dosing, safety, and optimal regimens for sedation during mechanical ventilation are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of published data regarding efficacy of sedation to facilitate mechanical ventilation in PICU patients. Our primary objective was to identify and evaluate the quality of evidence supporting sedatives used in PICUs for this purpose.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from 1966 to June 2008 to identify published articles evaluating sedation regimens to facilitate mechanical ventilation in PICU patients.

STUDY SELECTION

We included only those studies of intubated PICU or pediatric cardiac intensive care unit patients receiving pharmacologic agents to facilitate mechanical ventilation that reported quality of sedation as an outcome.

DATA EXTRACTION

We analyzed studies separately for study type and by agents being studied. Studies were appraised using criteria of particular importance for reviews evaluating sedatives.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Our search strategy yielded 39 studies, including 3 randomized trials, 15 cohort studies, and 21 cases series or reports. The 39 studies evaluated a total of 39 different sedation regimens, with 21 different scoring systems, in a total of 901 PICU/cardiac intensive care unit patients ranging in age from 3 days to 19 years old. Most of the studies were small (<30 patients), and only four studies compared one or more agents to another. Few studies thoroughly evaluated drug safety, and only one study met all quality criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the widespread use of sedatives to facilitate mechanical ventilation in the PICU, we found that high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice is still limited. Pediatric randomized, controlled trials with reproducible methods and assessment of drug safety are needed.