1
|
Wang X, Ma L, Yang X, Zhou Y, Zhang X, Han F. Efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam for sedation in infant with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2024; 24:10. [PMID: 38166622 PMCID: PMC10759416 DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02397-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2023] [Accepted: 12/25/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a great challenge to sedation for infants with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan, because there is the younger age and no consensus on the type, dosage, and route of drug administration. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam as a sedative option for infants with cleft lip and palate under imaging procedures. METHODS Infants scheduled for cleft lip and palate repair surgery were randomly assigned to the IND group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg alone) and the INDM group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg combined with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of infants underwent successful computed tomography (CT) scans under intranasal sedation. The secondary outcomes included onset time and duration of sedation, recovery time, Ramsay sedation scale, hemodynamic parameters during sedation, and adverse events. Data analyses involved the unpaired t-test, the repeated-measures analysis of variance test, and the continuity correction χ2 test. RESULTS One hundred five infants were included in the analysis. The proportion of infants underwent successful CT scans under sedation was significantly greater in the INDM group than in the IND group (47 [95.9%] vs. 45 [80.4%], p = 0.016). Additionally, the INDM group had a shorter onset time and a longer duration of sedation statistically (12 [8.5, 17] min vs. 16 [12, 20] min, p = 0.001; 80 [63.6, 92.5] min vs. 68.5 [38, 89] min, p = 0.014, respectively), and their recovery time was significantly longer (43 [30, 59.5] min vs. 31.5 [20.5, 53.5] min, p = 0.006). The difference in Ramsay sedation scale values 20 min after administration was statistically significant between the groups. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in changes in heart rate and respiratory rate. CONCLUSION Intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam resulted in higher sedation success in comparison with sole dexmedetomidine. However, it has a relatively prolonged duration of sedation and recovery time. TRIAL REGISTRATION ChiCTR2100049122, Clinical trial first registration date: 21/07/2021.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaodong Wang
- Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, NO. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Beijing, 100081, China
| | - Lian Ma
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Beijing, China
| | - Xudong Yang
- Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, NO. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Beijing, 100081, China
| | - Yi Zhou
- Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, NO. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Beijing, 100081, China
| | - Xiang Zhang
- Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, NO. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Beijing, 100081, China
| | - Fang Han
- Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, NO. 22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Beijing, 100081, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhou X, Zhao J, Tu H, Chen K, Hu Y, Jin Y. The effect of age on outpatient pediatric procedural sedation with intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. Eur J Pediatr 2024; 183:169-177. [PMID: 37855928 PMCID: PMC10858144 DOI: 10.1007/s00431-023-05240-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2023] [Revised: 08/29/2023] [Accepted: 09/23/2023] [Indexed: 10/20/2023]
Abstract
Procedural sedation for diagnostic examination is a common practice in children. The study aims to analyze the sedative effect and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with oral midazolam in outpatient pediatric procedural sedation across different age groups and to assess the incidence of sedation failure. From February 2021 to September 2021, children who underwent procedural sedation were retrospectively enrolled. The children were divided into 4 groups based on age: the infant group (0 to 1 year old), toddler group (1 to 3 years old), preschool group (3 to 6 years old), and school-age group (6 to 12 years old). Two-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam were used for sedation. The sedation success rate after rescue, sedation success rate, onset time of sedation, and the sedation time were recorded. The incidence of adverse events and the risk factors for sedation failure were also analyzed. A total of 4758 patients were identified. After exclusion, 3149 patients were ultimately enrolled. The combination of 2-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam resulted in a total success rate of 99.7% and a sedation success rate of 91.4%. The sedation success rate varied among the four groups: 90.2% in the infant group, 93.1% in the toddler group, 92.7% in the preschool group, and 78.4% in the school-age group. The sedation success rate was significantly lower in the school-age group compared to the other three groups (P < 0.001). The onset time of sedation was shorter in infant (22 min, IQR: 18-28 min, P < 0.001) and longer in the school-age group (30 min, IQR: 25-35 min, P < 0.05). Additionally, the infants had a longer sedation time (110 min, IQR: 90-135 min, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of delayed recovery (27.5%, all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was low (4.70%), which bradycardia (2.03%) being the most common. Age (0-1 year and > 6 years), weight, ASA class II, and history of failed sedation were identified as risk factors of sedation failure. Conclusion: Intranasal administration of 2-mcg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with oral administration of 0.5-mg/kg midazolam was found to be efficient and safety for pediatric procedural sedation. Different age groups of children exhibited distinct sedation characteristics, and age was identified as a risk factor affecting the efficacy of sedation. What is Known: • Procedural sedation for diagnostic examination is a common practice in children. • The combination of dexmedetomidine with midazolam can improve sedative effects. What is New: • The success rate of sedation using a combination of 2-mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine and 0.5-mg/kg oral midazolam was significantly lower in school-age children as compared to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. • The onset time of sedation increased with age, and the sedation time was found to be longer in infant patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaqing Zhou
- Department of Anesthesiology, the Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
| | - Jialian Zhao
- Department of Anesthesiology, the Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
| | - Haiya Tu
- Department of Anesthesiology, the Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
| | - Kunwei Chen
- Department of Anesthesiology, the Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
| | - Yaoqin Hu
- Department of Anesthesiology, the Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
| | - Yue Jin
- Department of Anesthesiology, the Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cui Y, Gong T, Mu Q, Wu Q, Kang L, Chen Q, He Y. Predictors of pediatric sedation failure with initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. Pediatr Res 2023; 94:2054-2061. [PMID: 37507474 DOI: 10.1038/s41390-023-02758-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2023] [Revised: 07/09/2023] [Accepted: 07/17/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To assess the sedative failure rate over different dose combinations of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for procedural sedation. METHODS This was a retrospective study. Four groups were established according to the initial dose of sedatives. The primary outcome was the sedative failure rate for different doses of the two-drug combination. The risk factors associated with sedation failure were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 2165 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, 394 children were classified as sedation failure after the initial dose of a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. Although the initial doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam administered to patients varied widely, no significant differences were detected in the sedation outcomes among the groups. Multivariate analysis showed that sedation history, a history of sedation failure, and echocardiography were independent risk factors for sedation failure after an initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. In contrast, patients undergoing lung function and MRI were more likely to be successfully sedated. CONCLUSION A combination of low-dose intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam provides adequate sedation efficacy without any increase in side effects, especially for patients undergoing MRI or lung function examination. IMPACT This is an original article about the risk factors of sedation failure with an initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for procedure sedation. For patients undergoing echocardiogram, it is better to choose other sedatives, while a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam is a good option for patients undergoing MRI or lung function. The selection of sedative drugs should be personalized according to different procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Cui
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, UESTC Chengdu Women's & Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu, 610091, China.
| | - Tianqing Gong
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, UESTC Chengdu Women's & Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu, 610091, China
| | - Qixia Mu
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, UESTC Chengdu Women's & Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu, 610091, China
| | - Qunying Wu
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, UESTC Chengdu Women's & Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu, 610091, China
| | - Lu Kang
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, UESTC Chengdu Women's & Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu, 610091, China
| | - Qin Chen
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, UESTC Chengdu Women's & Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu, 610091, China
| | - Yani He
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, UESTC Chengdu Women's & Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu, 610091, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Caffarelli C, Santamaria F, Piro E, Basilicata S, D'Antonio L, Tchana B, Bernasconi S, Corsello G. Advances for pediatricians in 2022: allergy, anesthesiology, cardiology, dermatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, global health, infectious diseases, metabolism, neonatology, neurology, oncology, pulmonology. Ital J Pediatr 2023; 49:115. [PMID: 37679850 PMCID: PMC10485969 DOI: 10.1186/s13052-023-01522-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/30/2023] [Indexed: 09/09/2023] Open
Abstract
The last year saw intensive efforts to advance knowledge in pediatric medicine. This review highlights important publications that have been issued in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics in 2022. We have chosen papers in the fields of allergy, anesthesiology, cardiology, dermatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, global health, infectious diseases, metabolism, neonatology, neurology, oncology, pulmonology. Novel valuable developments in epidemiology, pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment that can rapidly change the approach to diseases in childhood have been included and discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Caffarelli
- Clinica Pediatrica, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera- Universitaria, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
| | - Francesca Santamaria
- Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy
| | - Ettore Piro
- Department of Sciences for Health Promotion and Mother and Child Care "G. D'Alessandro", University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Simona Basilicata
- Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy
| | - Lorenzo D'Antonio
- Department of Translational Medical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy
| | - Bertrand Tchana
- Cardiologia Pediatrica, Azienda-Ospedaliero Universitaria, Parma, Italy
| | | | - Giovanni Corsello
- Department of Sciences for Health Promotion and Mother and Child Care "G. D'Alessandro", University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gu H, Miao L, Bai J, Lu G, Lei Q, Yang L, Wang D. Combined use of intranasal Dexmedetomidine and an oral novel formulation of Midazolam for sedation of young children during brain MRI examination: a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2022; 22:357. [PMID: 36418946 PMCID: PMC9685922 DOI: 10.1186/s12871-022-01897-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2022] [Accepted: 11/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different dosages of intranasal Dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with oral midazolam for sedation of young children during brain MRI examination. METHODS Included in this prospective single-blind randomized controlled trial were 156 children aged from 3 months to 6 years and weighing from 4 to 20 Kg with ASA I-II who underwent brain MRI examination between March 2021 and February 2022. Using the random number table method, they were divided into group A (using 3 ug/kg intranasal DEX plus 0.2 mg/Kg oral midazolam) and group B (using 2 ug/kg intranasal DEX plus 0.2 mg/Kg oral Midazolam). The one-time success rate of sedation, sedation onset time, recovery time, overall sedation time, and occurrence of adverse reactions during MRI examination were compared between the two groups. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and percutaneous SpO2before and after drug administration were observed in both groups. Differences in sedation scores between the two groups were compared before intranasal drug administration (T0), 10 min after drug administration (T1), at the time of falling asleep (T2), at the end of examination (T3), and at the time of recovery (T4). RESULTS The one-time success rate of sedation in group A and B was 88.31% and 79.75% respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The sedation onset time in group A was 24.97±16.94 min versus 27.92±15.83 min in group B, and the recovery time was 61.88±22.18 min versus 61.16±28.16 min, both showing no significance difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Children in both groups exhibited good drug tolerance without presenting nausea and vomiting, hypoxia, or bradycardia and hypotension that needed clinical interventions. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of abnormal HR, MAP or other adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION 3 ug/kg or 2 ug/kg intranasal DEX in combination with 0.2 mg/kg oral Midazolam both are safe and effective for sedation of children undergoing MRI examination with the advantages of fast-acting and easy application. TRIAL REGISTRATION It was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1800015038 ) on 02/03/2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hongbin Gu
- grid.16821.3c0000 0004 0368 8293Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China ,grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Children’s Hospital (Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center), College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Liyan Miao
- grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Children’s Hospital (Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center), College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China ,grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jie Bai
- grid.16821.3c0000 0004 0368 8293Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China ,grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Children’s Hospital (Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center), College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Guolin Lu
- grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Children’s Hospital (Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center), College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China ,grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Qian Lei
- grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Children’s Hospital (Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center), College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Lijun Yang
- grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Children’s Hospital (Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center), College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China ,grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Denggui Wang
- grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Children’s Hospital (Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center), College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China ,grid.256112.30000 0004 1797 9307Department of Anesthesiology, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chen D, Shen D, Huang L, Hou L, Xiong Y, Zeng L, Wang J. Development of a Novel and Stable Indicating RP-HPLC Method for the Simultaneous Analysis of 12 Impurities in Midazolam and Midazolam Injection Products. Chromatographia. [DOI: 10.1007/s10337-022-04193-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
7
|
Bali A, Dang AK, Gonzalez DA, Kumar R, Asif S. Clinical Uses of Ketamine in Children: A Narrative Review. Cureus 2022; 14:e27065. [PMID: 35989801 PMCID: PMC9389002 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Ketamine is a phencyclidine derivative that acts as a noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate as well as a glutamate receptor antagonist. It also has other minor mechanisms that contribute to its extensive drug profile. Ketamine is a bronchodilator and maintains normal airway reflexes and, thus, permits spontaneous respiration. This, coupled with the fact that it produces potent analgesia, makes it highly suitable for children. Despite its many merits, the drug’s side effects, along with its cultural image of being a drug of abuse, a drug used in veterinary medicine, or a “date-rape drug” have sullied its reputation within the armamentarium of medicine. Even though it is widely used in developing countries, its use in Western nations has diminished. We have strived to explore the various clinical uses of ketamine in children through this article. In addition, the article also highlights how some of the fears associated with using the drug are unfounded and provides ways by which the drug’s side effects can be prevented and managed.
Collapse
|
8
|
Li BL, Luo H, Huang JX, Zhang HH, Paquin JR, Yuen VM, Song XR. Using intranasal dexmedetomidine with buccal midazolam for magnetic resonance imaging sedation in children: A single-arm prospective interventional study. Front Pediatr 2022; 10:889369. [PMID: 35989987 PMCID: PMC9386185 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.889369] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2022] [Accepted: 07/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Although numerous intravenous sedative regimens have been documented, the ideal non-parenteral sedation regimen for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been determined. This prospective, interventional study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of buccal midazolam in combination with intranasal dexmedetomidine in children undergoing MRI. METHODS Children between 1 month and 10 years old requiring sedation for MRI examination were recruited to receive buccal midazolam 0.2 mg⋅kg-1 with intranasal dexmedetomidine 3 μg⋅kg-1. The primary outcome was successful sedation following the administration of the initial sedation regimens and the completion of the MRI examination. RESULTS Sedation with dexmedetomidine-midazolam was administered to 530 children. The successful sedation rate was 95.3% (95% confidence interval: 93.5-97.1%) with the initial sedation regimens and 97.7% (95% confidence interval: 96.5-99%) with a rescue dose of 2 μg⋅kg-1 intranasal dexmedetomidine. The median sedation onset time was 10 min, and a significant rising trend was observed in the onset time concerning age (R = 0.2491, P < 0.001). The wake-up and discharge times significantly correlated with the duration of the procedure (R = 0.323, P < 0.001 vs. R = 0.325, P < 0.001). No oxygen deficiency nor medication intervention due to cardiovascular instability was observed in any of the patients. History of a prior failed sedation was considered a statistically significant risk factor for failed sedation in the multivariate logistic regression model [odds ratio = 4.71 (95% confidence interval: 1.24-17.9), P = 0.023]. CONCLUSION In MRI examinations, the addition of buccal midazolam to intranasal dexmedetomidine is associated with a high success rate and a good safety profile. This non-parenteral sedation regimen can be a feasible and convenient option for short-duration MRI in children between 1 month and 10 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bi Lian Li
- Department of Anesthesiology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Hao Luo
- Department of Anesthesiology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun Xiang Huang
- Department of Anesthesiology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Huan Huan Zhang
- Department of Anesthesiology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Joanna R Paquin
- Department of Anesthesiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Vivian M Yuen
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Hong Kong Children's Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Xing Rong Song
- Department of Anesthesiology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|