Comparative evaluation of intranasal dexmedetomidine, intranasal midazolam, and nitrous oxide for conscious sedation of anxious children undergoing dental treatment: A randomized cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological methods, specifically sedatives, have gained popularity in managing the behavior of children during dental appointments. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare 1 m/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine, 0.3 mg/kg intranasal midazolam, and nitrous oxide in evaluating the level of sedation, behavior of the child, onset of sedation, physiologic signs, and adverse effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-over trial, 15 children aged 6-8 years were randomized to receive intranasal atomized dexmedetomidine, intranasal atomized midazolam, and inhalation nitrous oxide at three separate visits. After administering the sedative agent, a single pulpectomy was performed during each appointment, and the outcomes were recorded. The washout period between each visit was 1 week. RESULTS: All three sedative agents were equally effective in controlling overall behavior. Dexmedetomidine showed lower sedation level scores (agitated; score 9) than the other groups. There was a statistically significant difference in the onset of sedation, with dexmedetomidine having the longest onset of 36.2 ± 9.47 min. Coughing and sneezing were predominantly observed after administration of intranasal midazolam. Oxygen saturation levels were statistically lower in the intranasal midazolam group during local anesthesia administration and post-treatment. CONCLUSION: 0.3 mg/kg intranasal midazolam is as effective as nitrous oxide sedation for controlling behavior and providing adequate sedation in pediatric dental patients. However, 1 m/kg dexmedetomidine did not provide the same level of sedation and had a significantly longer onset. 0.3 mg/kg intranasal midazolam is an effective alternative to nitrous oxide sedation in anxious children.

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-midazolam for patient sedation during flexible bronchoscopy: a prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sedation during flexible bronchoscopy (FB) should maintain an adequate respiratory drive, ensure maximum comfort for the patient, and warrant that the objectives of the procedure are achieved. Nevertheless, the optimal sedation method for FB has yet to be established. This study aimed to compare the standard recommended combination of midazolam-fentanyl (MF) with that of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) for patient sedation during FB. METHODS: Patients subjected to FB were randomly assigned to a DK (n = 25) and an MF group (n = 25). The primary outcome was the rate of critical desaturation events (arterial oxygen saturation < 80% with nasal oxygen supply 2 L/min). Secondary outcomes included sedation depth, hemodynamic complications, adverse events, and patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction. RESULTS: The incidence rates of critical desaturation events were similar between the two groups (DK: 12% vs. MF: 28%, p = 0.289). DK achieved deeper maximum sedation levels (higher Ramsay - lower Riker scale; p < 0.001) and was associated with longer recovery times (p < 0.001). Both groups had comparable rates of hemodynamic and other complications. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups, but bronchoscopist satisfaction was higher with the DK combination (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: DK demonstrated a good safety profile in patients subjected to FB and achieved more profound sedation and better bronchoscopist satisfaction than the standard MF combination without increasing the rate of adverse events.

Prospective Pilot Study: Tolerability of Outpatient Penile Plication Under Nursing-Administered Conscious Sedation vs Anesthesiologist-Administered Deep Sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Penile plication is commonly performed for Peyronie's disease under general or spinal anesthesia. Conscious sedation (CS) offers decreased anesthetic risks, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to perform the procedure in outpatient settings with shorter wait times. We sought to compare tolerability of penile plication under deep intravenous sedation (DIS) administered by anesthesiologists and nursing-administered CS (NACS). METHODS: Tolerability for penile plication was prospectively evaluated, excluding revision surgeries and those with hourglass or hinge deformities. DIS included midazolam and ketamine with infusion of propofol and remifentanil. NACS consisted of midazolam and fentanyl. Baseline characteristics, procedural information, and patient- and surgeon-reported pain assessments were collected. Patients were administered a standardized tolerability questionnaire on follow-up. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled (23 DIS; 17 NACS) with similar baseline characteristics. Median curvature of the DIS cohort was 55° (interquartile range = 43.75-76.25) and 45° (interquartile range = 45-60) in NACS. There was a 100% success rate with no procedure abortion or conversion to general anesthetic. On follow-up, all patients had functional curvature (<20°), and 100% of patients in the DIS and NACS cohorts reported that they would recommend CS to others. Over 93% of patients in both cohorts would choose CS over general anesthetic in the future, with no differences in perioperative and postoperative pain between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Penile plication with CS, whether administered by an anesthesiologist or nursing, is well tolerated with no differences in pain or complications. This indicates that outpatient penile plication with trained nursing staff administering CS can safely reduce costs, risks, and wait times.

[Oral sedation in pediatric outpatient dentistry]. / Primenenie peroral'noi sedatsii pri ambulatornom stomatologicheskom vmeshatel'stve u detei.

THE AIM OF THE STUDY: Was to improve the quality of treatment in pediatric outpatient dentistry with the effective use of oral sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised 60 children aged 3-12 years who were undergoing therapeutic/surgical dental treatment. All children's somatic state was assessed as ASAI-II. All children met a number of psychological, anamnestic and procedural criteria. Midazolam and chloropyramine in a dose calculated for the patient's body weight were used as components of oral sedation. The estimated sedation depth was Ramsay II-III. The study included an analysis of objective (the time of comfortable treatment, the amount of treated or removed teeth per visit, the possibility of treatment without anesthesia during further visits) and subjective (the possibility of contact with the child during treatment, behavioral reactions at home and on further visits) criteria. Negative behavioral reactions and dental effects were also assessed. RESULTS: The treatment features correlated with the age category and gender of the patient. In the older age group of 7-12 years, the amount of comfortable treatment time was higher, the possibility of contact with the child reached 100% (which is twice as much as in the younger one), and also a larger number of patients were treated during further visits without an anesthetic aid. At the same time, in the younger age group of 3-6 years, the volume of treatment per visit was higher, since it takes less time to treat a primary tooth than for a permanent one. Side effects (visual hallucinations, diplopia, hyperactivity, tearfulness and aggressiveness) were more often recorded in the younger age group, but emotional instability was equally manifested in both groups. CONCLUSION: In order to maximize the effectiveness of using oral sedation as a method, it is necessary to take into account the duration and traumatism of the proposed procedure, the peculiarities of age psychology and the peculiarities of the psychological development of boys and girls.

Comparison emergence of sedation, using dexmedetomidine and remimazolam, in spinal anaesthesia - double blinded randomized controlled trial.

Background: Continuous intravenous infusion of remimazolam may be suitable for sedation in patients undergoing regional anaesthesia. However, there have been no studies comparing remimazolam and dexmedetomidine for this purpose. This study compared emergence from sedation between dexmedetomidine and remimazolam following continuous intravenous infusion in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia. Methods: This double-blinded, randomised controlled trial assessed the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and remimazolam. Following spinal anaesthesia, patients were sedated using continuous intravenous infusion of either dexmedetomidine (D group) or remimazolam (R group).The D group received dexmedetomidine administered at 6 mL/kg/h (6 µg/kg/h) for 10 minutes, followed by 1 mL/kg/h (1 µg/kg/h). The R group received remimazolam administered at 6 mL/kg/h (6 mg/kg/h) for 10 minutes, followed by 1 mL/kg/h (1 mg/kg/h). Sedation levels were evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 3 from the start of drug infusion and the time to reach MOAA/S = 5 from the end of infusion were recorded. Hemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate were also monitored. Results: The R group reached MOAA/S ≤ 3 significantly faster than the D group during induction of sedation (4 ± 1 minutes and 11 ± 3 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). The R group also reached MOAA/S = 5 significantly faster than the D group during emergence from sedation (11 ± 3 minutes and 16 ± 5 minutes, respectively, p < 0.001). Both groups maintained stable hemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate without any significant differences, although the mean heart rate was significantly lower in the D group than in the R group after the start of infusion. Conclusion: Remimazolam demonstrated significantly faster induction of and emergence from sedation compared to dexmedetomidine, with no significant differences in haemodynamics or respiratory depression.

Semiautomated electronic medical record based system for monitoring delayed adverse events in pediatric endoscopy and sedation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a semiautomated electronic medical record (EMR) system to track pediatric endoscopic procedural adverse event (AE) at a tertiary referral children's hospital. METHODS: We developed an automated EMR based query for postprocedure AEs. Main outcome measurements within 30 days of procedure: return to emergency department, return to surgery, unplanned admissions and admissions with longer than intended stays. Events were graded using a recently described classification system for postendoscopy events and tracked for a 36-month period, from January 2017 to December 2019. RESULTS: Development of a semi-automated system was successful in comprehensive identification of endoscopy and sedation related AE. A total of 193 AEs (2%) were identified in all three categories. Seventy cases (0.7%) were noted to be a direct result of an endoscopic procedure. Of these cases, 31 (44%) were noted to be Grade 3, 5 cases (7%) Grade 4, and no Grade 5 AE occured. Higher rates of AE were observed after therapeutic procedures versus diagnostic (2.6% vs. 0.3%, p = <0.00001). AEs related to sedation occurred in 0.5% of procedures with the majority (84%) reported in patients with American Society of Anesthesia classification of 3 or greater. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic endoscopy remains a safe procedure and risk of both endoscopy and sedation related AE are low. Therapeutic procedures carry a higher risk but are still overwhelmingly safe. Institutional investment in this EMR based system allowed for sustainability and comprehensive tracking of endoscopy related AE.

Measuring pain or discomfort during routine nursing care in lightly sedated mechanically ventilated intensive care patients: A prospective preliminary cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is routinely measured on mechanically ventilated ICU patients. However, the tools used are not designed to discriminate between pain and non-pain discomfort, a distinction with therapeutic implications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether clinical measurement tools can discern both pain and non-pain discomfort. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted in a General ICU at a tertiary Medical Center in Israel. The Behavior Pain Scale (BPS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of Discomfort were simultaneously assessed by a researcher and bedside nurse on thirteen lightly sedated patients during 71 routine nursing interventions in lightly sedated, mechanically ventilated, adult patients. Patients were asked whether they were in pain due to these interventions. RESULTS: Statistically significant increases from baseline during interventions were observed [median change: 1.00 (-1-5), 1.5(-4-8.5), p < 0.001] as measured by BPS and VAS Discomfort Scale, respectively. BPS scores ranged between 4 and 6 when the majority (53 %) of the patients replied that they had no pain but were interpreted by the clinicians as discomfort. Endotracheal suctioning caused the greatest increase in BPS and VAS, with no statistically significant differences in BPS and VAS Discomfort Scale scores whether patients reported or did not report pain. A BPS>6 had a higher sensitivity and specificity to reported pain (accuracy of 76 %) compared to a BPS of 4-6. CONCLUSIONS: Standard assessments are sensitive to pain caused by routine nursing care interventions. However, this study presents evidence that among lightly sedated ICU patients, moderate BPS scores could also measure non-pain discomfort. ICU nurses should be aware that signs of unpleasantness measured by a pain scale could reflect non-pain discomfort.

Procedural sedation by advanced practice providers in the emergency medical service in the Netherlands: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a technique of administering sedatives to induce a state that allows the patient to tolerate painful procedures while maintaining cardiorespiratory function, a condition that is frequently desired prehospital. Non-physician prehospital clinicians often have a limited scope of practice when it comes to providing analgesia and sedation; sometimes resulting in a crew request for back-up from physician-staffed prehospital services.". This is also the case if sedation is desirable. Advanced practice providers (APPs), who are legally authorized and trained to carry out this procedure, may be a solution when the physician-staffed service is not available or will not be available in time. METHODS: The aim of this study is to gain insight in the circumstances in which an APP, working at the Dutch ambulance service "RAV Brabant MWN" from January 2019 to December 2022, uses propofol for PSA or to provide sedation. With this a retrospective observational document study we describe the characteristics of patients and ambulance runs and evaluates the interventions in terms of safety. RESULTS: During the study period, the APPs administered propofol 157 times for 135 PSA and in 22 cases for providing sedation. The most common indication was musculoskeletal trauma such as fracture care or the reduction of joint dislocation. In 91% of the situations where propofol was used, the predetermined goal e.g. alignment of fractured extremity, repositioning of luxated joint or providing sedation the goal was achieved. There were 12 cases in which one or more adverse events were documented and all were successfully resolved by the APP. There were no cases of laryngospam, airway obstruction, nor anaphylaxis. None of the adverse events led to unexpected hospitalization or death. CONCLUSION: During the study period, the APPs performed 135 PSAs and provided 22 sedations. The success rate of predetermined goals was higher than that stated in the literature. Although there were a number of side effects, their incidences were lower than those reported in the literature, and these were resolved by the APP during the episode of care. Applying a PSA by an APP at the EMS "RAV Brabant MWN" appears to be safe with a high success rate.

A prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA: REST trial design.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy, but its safety and efficacy during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) remains undetermined. The REST trial (NCT06275594) will be a prospective randomized study of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA with conscious sedation. The primary aim is to evaluate whether remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during EBUS-TBNA compared to real-world midazolam and on-label midazolam. METHODS: The REST trial will recruit 330 patients from four university hospitals with mediastinal lesions suspected of being lung cancer who are eligible for EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. The participants will be randomized into groups using remimazolam, real-world midazolam, and on-label midazolam (US prescribing information dosage) to perform EBUS-TBNA for procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be procedural success using composite measures. DISCUSSION: The REST trial will prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam during EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. It will provide information for optimizing sedation modalities and contribute to practical benefits in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06275594). Prospectively registered on 15 February 2024.

Value of integrated pulmonary index monitoring for the detection of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing sedation for gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

Objectives: To determine if the integrated pulmonary index detects changes in ventilation status early in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation, and to determine the risk factors affecting hypoxia. METHODS: The retrospective study was conducted at the endoscopy unit of a tertiary university hospital in Turkey and comprised data between October 2018 and December 2019 related to patients of either gender aged >18 years who were assessed as American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I-III and underwent elective lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Monitoring was done with capnography in addition to standard procedures. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: Of the 154 patients, 94(%) were females and 60(%) were males. The overall mean age was 50.88±11.8 years (range: 20-70 years). Mean time under anaesthesia was 23.58±4.91 minutes and mean endoscopy time was 21.73±5.06 minutes. During the procedure, hypoxia was observed in 42(27.3%) patients, severe hypoxia in 23(14.9%) and apnoea in 70(45.5%). Mean time between apnoea and hypoxia was 12.59±7.99 seconds, between apnoea and serious hypoxia 21.07±17.64 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score 1 and hypoxia 12.91±8.17 sec, between integrated pulmonary index score 1 and serious hypoxia 21.59±14.13 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score <7 and hypoxia 19.63±8.89 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score <7 and serious hypoxia 28.39±12.66 seconds, between end-tidal carbon dioxide and hypoxia 12.95±8.33 seconds, and between end-tidal carbon dioxide and serious hypoxia 21.29±7.55 seconds. With integrated pulmonary index score 1, sensitivity value for predicting hypoxia and severe hypoxia was 88.1% and 95.7%, respectively, and specificity was 67% and 60.3%, respectively. With integrated pulmonary index score <7, the corresponding values were 100%, 100%, 42% and 64.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Capnographic monitoring, especially the follow-up integrated pulmonary index score, was found to be valuable and reliable in terms of finding both time and accuracy of the risk factor in the diagnosis of respiratory events.

Inhaled methoxyflurane - an explorable alternative to nitrous oxide?

Nitrous oxide is a widely used and well-established form of inhalation sedation in dentistry. Its properties have a wide margin of safety and allow for anxious, paediatric and adult patients to receive dental treatment with minimal impact upon discharge. Nitrous oxide has drawbacks, however, including its environmental impact and need for specialist equipment. Methoxyflurane is another drug which could prove to be an alternative to nitrous oxide. Methoxyflurane's use has proved popular within emergency medicine in Australia and New Zealand for its potent analgesic effects and recognition of its anxiolytic effect. As a result, its use in invasive outpatient procedures has now become popular. Unfortunately, there is very limited evidence of its use within dentistry as a form of inhalation sedation and analgesic. A wider evidence base should be established, as methoxyflurane could prove to be an effective and environmentally friendly alternative to nitrous oxide.

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND: Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP. METHODS: Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 µg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 µg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1). RESULTS: The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.