Efficacy and Safety of Low Dose Ketamine and Midazolam Combination for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Children

Nalbuphine in Pediatric Emergence Agitation Following Cochlear Implantation: A Randomized Trial

Background

To investigate the effects of nalbuphine on emergency agitation (EA), which affects up to 80% of the children following otolaryngology procedures, in children undergoing cochlear implantation.

Methods

A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted between November 2020 and October 2022. Eligible children, aged 6 months to 3 years old, were randomly assigned to either 0.1 mg/kg, 0.15 mg/kg, 0.2 mg/kg nalbuphine or 0.9% saline groups. EA was defined by the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) score ≥10. Extubation time, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay, severe EA (PAED ≥ 15), peak PAED score, the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale, Ramsay sedation score, and adverse events were also recorded.

Results

A total of 104 children were enrolled, with 26 children in each group. Nalbuphine significantly reduced the EA occurrence from 73.1% in the saline group to 38.5%, 30.8%, and 26.9% in the 0.1 mg/kg, 0.15 mg/kg, and 0.2 mg/kg nalbuphine groups, respectively (P < 0.001), without affecting the extubation time and PACU length of stay. More children (34.6%) in the 0.9% saline group experienced severe EA. Higher dose nalbuphine (0.15 mg/kg, 0.2 mg/kg) showed lower peak PAED score, better analgesia and sedation effect compared with 0.1 mg/kg nalbuphine and saline groups. However, 0.2mg/kg nalbuphine caused undesired over-sedation in two (7.7%) children. No other adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Young children undergoing cochlear implantation surgery were at a high risk of EA and postoperative pain, while 0.2 mg/kg nalbuphine might be an ideal candidate for EA and pain prevention when used under close monitoring.

Trial Registration

ChiCTR2000040407.

The Effect of Preoperative Combined with Intravenous Lidocaine and Ketamine vs. Intravenous Ketamine on Pediatric Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ketamine is widely used in pediatric sedation. New studies have recommended combination therapy to reduce the side effects of ketamine.

Objectives

This study investigated the effect of adding intravenous (IV) lidocaine to ketamine on hemodynamic parameters, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time of children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

This triple-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in Isfahan, Iran (2021). One hundred twenty children between the ages of 1 and 6 were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups. The intervention group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV lidocaine and 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine, and the placebo group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine and placebo 2 minutes before entering the endoscopic room. Patients in both groups were sedated with 1.0 mg/kg of propofol, 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam, and 2.0 ug/kg of fentanyl for the procedure. The pulse rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded 1 minute before injection and every 5 minutes afterward.

Results

The mean (SD) ages of the intervention and control groups were 3.4 (1.5) and 3.4 (1.7), respectively. The mean difference in hemodynamic parameters between the 2 groups was insignificant during the investigation (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were found regarding endoscopist satisfaction scores and length of recovery room stay (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Adding low-dose IV lidocaine to ketamine for pediatric sedation does not significantly affect the hemodynamic status, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time.

Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood and outcomes of subsequent anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Pediatric perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare, and possibly life-threatening. Identification of precise etiology is crucial to circumvent future re-exposures.

AIMS

We aim to evaluate the clinical features and triggers of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in children, and determine the outcomes of subsequent general anesthesia.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed with patients who underwent skin testing for general anesthesia between 2007 and 2019. We noted demographic features and skin tests (neuromuscular blocking agents, induction agents, and antibiotics). We also recorded specific immunoglobulin Es or provocation results of drugs or substances (latex, chlorhexidine, and ethylene oxide) that patients were exposed to antecedent to the reaction. Telephone interviews were performed to determine the current status of the participants and reconsider subsequent anesthesia.

RESULTS

We enrolled 50 children (58% male) with a suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reaction. The median age was 6.67 (4.4-11.5) years, and the median time between the reaction, and skin tests was 4 (1-36) months. The most common potential causative agents were neuromuscular blocking agents (n = 8), midazolam (n = 3), ketamine (n = 2), and propofol (n = 1). Three children exhibited hypersensitivity to more than one general anesthetics, and three patients were allergic to latex. Thirty-one patients received subsequent anesthesia, and only one patient had a hypersensitivity reaction. A previous history multiple of general anesthesia administration (≥2) increased the risk of reaction to neuromuscular blocking agents.

CONCLUSION

Data on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood are rare due to limited diagnostic procedures. Different preference of general anesthetics may change the causative agent. Meticulous evaluation is necessary to safely administer subsequent anesthesia.

Assessment of the practice of pediatrics procedural sedation and analgesia for magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scan at a teaching hospital, Ethiopia, 2020: A clinical audit

BACKGROUND

The main goals of paediatric sedation/general anesthesia vary according to the specific imaging procedure, but generally includes anxiety relief, pain control and control of excessive movement. The quality of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) depends largely on immobility of the patient during the procedure, which is often difficult to achieve without sedation in children. Sedation is the depression of the central nervous system and reflexes by the administration of drugs. Brain imaging is routinely used to identify stroke, hemorrhage, and structural abnormalities. All patients undergoing procedural sedation and those receiving general anesthesia should be evaluated equally.

AIM

The study aimed to perform a clinical audit of sedation and analgesia practices for magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography compared against the guidelines/standards to determine if practice meets the standards and identify areas of non-compliance at a teaching Referral Hospital in Ethiopia.

METHODS

This clinical audit was conducted from January 1 to May 30/2020 for 5 months at a teaching Referral Hospital in Ethiopia. All children below the age of 6 years underwent MRI and CT imaging procedures under sedation during a study period were included. Data were collected through direct observation using checklists of standards by a trained data collector. Descriptive statistics were presented with tables, graphs of sums and percentages of items using SPSS version 20.

RESULTS

A total of 40 children underwent MRI and CT imaging were observed at the Hospital imaging sites. Among the 20 standards, 6 of them had 100% compliance rate, 3 of the standards had 0% complaince rate and 11 of the standards had the compliance rate of between 0 and 100%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In general, even though the practice guidelines of procedural sedation for MRI and CT recommend to practice procedures based on the standards, this study showed there were a number of standards that had <100% compliance rate. Therefore, it is recommended that staff should adopt standards or locally prepared protocols for their day-to-day practice.

Propofol with and without Midazolam for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies in Children

PURPOSE

Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.

Efficacy and safety of midazolam and ketamine in paediatric upper endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Upper endoscopy can be successfully carried out in children under deep sedation and anaesthesia. However, the best method of upper endoscopy for children who require gastrointestinal intervention has yet to be defined. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of the sedation induced by intravenous midazolam and ketamine during upper endoscopy in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included patients ages 3-18years who had undergone upper endoscopy. All subjects received IV midazolam and ketamine. During the intervention, hypoxia, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension, and hypotension were recorded. After the intervention, euphoria, dysphoria, vertigo, visual problems (such as diplopia and nystagmus), and emergencies (such as arrhythmia, convulsion, and hallucination), among other findings, were recorded. Older children who were capable of expressing themselves were questioned to help determine these conditions.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study group was was 11.9±3.42years; 54% of the patients were females, and 46% were males. During the upper endoscopy, hypoxia occurred in 9% of patients, mild hypertension in 14%, hypotension in 5%, tachycardia in 23%, bradycardia in 8%, and flushing-urticaria in 2%. After the upper endoscopy, one of the most common complications was sore throat, which occurred in 24% of patients. Vomiting was observed in 14% of patients, dizziness in 24%, diplopia in 27%, euphoria in 3% (5 patients), dysphoria in 4%, and hallucination in 4%. Of the total patients, 4% required oxygen supply with a face mask.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study showed that the use of IV midazolam and ketamine during upper endoscopy in children was safe and effective.

A comparison of sedation with midazolam-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl during endoscopy in children: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam plus ketamine versus fentanyl plus propofol combination administered to children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) and to determine the most appropriate sedation protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-blind study included patients between the ages of 4 and 17 years who underwent UGE for diagnostic purposes. Patients were divided randomly into groups A (midazolam-ketamine combination, n=119) and B (fentanyl plus propofol combination, n=119). The effectiveness of the sedation and complications during the procedure and recovery period were recorded.

RESULTS

The processes started without an additional dose of the drug for 118 patients (99.1%) in group A and for 101 patients (84.8%) in group B (P=0.001). The average dose of ketamine administered to the patients in group A was 1.03±0.15 mg/kg and the average dose of propofol administered to the patients in group B was 1.46±0.55 mg/kg. None of the patients stopped the endoscopic procedure in group A, but one patient (0.8%) had to discontinue the endoscopic procedure in group B. 27 patients in group A (22.7%) and 41 patients (34.5%) in group B developed complications during the procedure (P=0.044). The rate of complications during the recovery of group A (110 patients, 92.4%) was significantly higher than that in group B (48 patients, 40.3%) (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

In children, UGE procedures can be quite comfortable when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.