Trends in analgesia-sedation of pediatric patients receiving I-131 MIBG in the pediatric intensive care unit: A report from the Pediatric Health Information System database.

BACKGROUND: Children with neuroblastoma receiving I-131 metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) therapy require sedation-analgesia for strict radiation safety precautions during MIBG infusion and clearance. We evaluated the sedation-analgesia trends of patients undergoing MIBG therapy using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective data from 476 patient encounters from the PHIS from 2010 to 2019. RESULTS: Total 240/476 (50.45%) children evaluated were under 6 years of age. Compared to 2010, in 2018 there was a decrease in benzodiazepine infusion use (60% vs. 40%, p < .04), as well as a decrease in use of opiate infusion (35% vs. 25%, p < .001). Compared to 2010, in 2018 we report an increase in the use of ketamine (from 5% to 10%, p < .002), as well as an increase in dexmedetomidine use (0% vs. 30%, p < .001). Dexmedetomidine was the most used medication in the 0-3 years age group compared to children older than 3 years of age (14.19% vs. 5.80%, p < .001). Opiate was the most used medication in children greater than 3 years compared to the 0-3-year age group (36.23 vs. 23.87, p < .05). CONCLUSION: Using PHIS data, we discovered considerable variability in the medications used for sedation in patients undergoing MIBG therapy. Although benzodiazepines and opioids were the most used agents, there was a trend toward decreasing use of benzodiazepines and opioids in these patients. Furthermore, there has been an increasing trend in the use of dexmedetomidine and ketamine.

Utilization of immediate extubation in a multidisciplinary pathway for pediatric liver transplantation associated with improved postoperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Immediate extubation is becoming more common in liver transplantation. However, limited data exist on how to identify pediatric patients with potential for successful immediate extubation and how this intervention may affect recovery. METHODS: This retrospective review evaluated patients who underwent liver transplantation from 2015 to 2021 at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. Preoperative status and intraoperative management were evaluated and compared. Outcomes comprised thrombosis, surgical reexploration, retransplantation, as well as reintubation, high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) usage, postoperative infection, the length of stay (LOS), and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were analyzed, with 121 patients (69.9%) extubated immediately. The extubation group had older age (median 4.0 vs 1.25 years, p = .048), lower PELD/MELD (28 vs. 34, p = .03), decreased transfusion (10.2 vs. 41.7 mL/kg, p < .001), shorter surgical time (332 vs. 392 min, p < .001), and primary abdominal closure (81% vs. 40.4%, p < .001). Immediate extubation was associated with decreased HFNC (0.21 vs. 0.71 days, p = .02), postoperative infection (9.9% vs. 26.9%, p = .007), mortality (0% vs. 5.8%, p = .036), and pediatric intensive care unit LOS (4.7 vs. 11.4 days, p < .001). The complication rate was lower in the extubation group (24.8% vs. 36.5%), but not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 70% of patients were able to be successfully extubated immediately, with only 2.5% requiring reintubation. Those immediately extubated had decreased need for HFNC, lower infection rates, shorter LOS, and decreased mortality. Our results show that with proper patient selection and a multidisciplinary approach, immediate extubation allows for improved recovery without increased respiratory complications after pediatric liver transplantation.

Pediatric Sedation/Anesthesia for MRI: Results From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most common imaging procedure requiring sedation/anesthesia in children. Understanding adverse events associated with sedation/anesthesia is important in making decisions regarding MRI vs. other imaging modalities. No large studies have evaluated the practice of pediatric sedation/anesthesia for MRI by a variety of pediatric specialists. PURPOSE: Utilize a large pediatric sedation database to characterize the patients and adverse events associated with sedation/anesthesia for pediatric MRI. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SUBJECTS: The Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC) has 109,947 entries for sedations for MRI from November 10, 2011 through December 18, 2017. ASSESSMENT: Patient demographics, sedative medications, interventions, and adverse events are described. Associations with adverse events were assessed. Trends in sedative medications used over time are examined. STATISTICAL TESTS: Descriptive statistics, Chi-Squared and Fisher's Exact tests for categorical variables, logistic regression and assessment of trend using logistic regression and other method. RESULTS: A total of 109,947 MRI-related sedations were examined. Most subjects (66.2%) were 5 years old or younger. Seizure or other neurologic issue prompted MRI in 63.7% of cases. Providers responsible for sedation/anesthesia included intensivists (49.3%), emergency medicine physicians (28.2%), hospitalists (10.2%), and anesthesiologists (9.8%). The most commonly used sedative agent was propofol (89.1%). The most common airway intervention was supplemental oxygen (71.7%), followed by head/airway repositioning (20.6%). Airway-related adverse events occurred in 8.4% of patients. Serious adverse events occurred in only 0.06% of patients, including three cases of cardiac arrest. No mortality was recorded. There was a statistically significant increase in the use of dexmedetomidine over time. DATA CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adverse event rates were low. Sedation/anesthesia with propofol infusion and natural airway was the most common method used by this varied group of sedation providers. The use of dexmedetomidine increased over time. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Management of esophageal button battery ingestions: resource utilization and outcomes.

PURPOSE: Institutions are adopting the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) guidelines for pediatric esophageal button battery ingestion (EBBI). Our objective was to evaluate the guidelines' impact on in-hospital resource utilization and short-term clinical outcomes in hemodynamically stable patients after endoscopic battery removal. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review of all EBBI admissions from 2010 to 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on adoption of national guidelines: pre-guideline (2010-2015) and post-guideline (2016-2020). RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were studied (pre-guideline n = 23; post-guideline n = 42). Compared with pre-guideline, post-guideline use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) increased (2/23 [8.7%]; 30/42 [71.4%]; p < 0.001). Post-guideline increases resulted for median days (IQR) receiving antibiotics (0 [0, 4]; 6 [3, 8]; p = 0.01), total pediatric intensive care unit admission (0 [0, 1]; 3 [0, 6]; p < 0.001), and total hospital length of stay (5 [2, 11]; 11.5 [4, 17]; p = 0.02). Two patients in the post-guideline group had delayed presentations despite normal imaging: one with TEF and one with aorto-esophageal fistula. All survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: In EBBI cases managed using the consensus based NASPHAGN guidelines, we report increased resource utilization without improved patient outcomes. Further research should evaluate post-guideline costs and resource utilization.

Long-term evidence of neonatal anaesthesia neurotoxicity linked to behavioural phenotypes in monkeys: where do we go from here?

Whether anaesthesia exposure early in life leads to brain damage with long-lasting structural and behavioural consequences in primates has not been conclusively determined. A study in the British Journal of Anaesthesia by Neudecker and colleagues found that 2 yr after early anaesthesia exposure, monkeys exhibited signs of chronic astrogliosis which correlate with behavioural deficits. Given the increasing frequency of exposure to anaesthetics in infancy in humans, clinical trials are greatly needed to understand how sedative/anaesthetic agents may be impacting brain and behaviour development.

Sedatives used in children to obtain head CT in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Children in the emergency department who require computerized tomography (CT) of the head often are given sedative medications to facilitate completion of the study with adequate imaging. A prior study found the two most common medications used to obtain head CT in children were pentobarbital and chloral hydrate; however, these medications have become less popular. We hypothesized that there was variability in medication choice amongst providers in the emergency department and there has been a change in the preferred sedatives used in the last decade. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional study of children 0-18 years old who received a medication with sedative properties and underwent head CT while in the emergency department from 2007 to 2018, using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of administration of drugs within an individual sedative class. RESULTS: We analyzed 24,418 patient encounters, of whom 53% received an opioid and 41% received a benzodiazepine. There were statistically significant decreases in the use of barbiturates, chloral hydrate, anti-emetic sedatives, and opioids, while increases in barbiturate combination drugs, benzodiazepines and dexmedetomidine were observed over the study period. The majority of medications were administered parenterally. CONCLUSION: There is wide variability in sedatives used in children to obtain head CT and the preferred drugs have shifted over the last decade.

Evaluating the Need for Pediatric Procedural Sedation Training in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Fellowship.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric procedural sedation has been increasingly performed by pediatric intensivists over the past decade. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellowship guidelines do not specify how fellows obtain proficiency in pediatric procedural sedation. We sought to survey the state of pediatric procedural sedation training during fellowship and whether fellows thought it was sufficient. DESIGN: A 21-question survey gathered data on pediatric procedural sedation training provided to Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellows. Surveys were sent to fellowship directors with instructions to distribute to second- and third-year fellows or recent graduates. Over 2 months, up to three e-mail reminders were sent to fellowship directors whose program had not completed at least one survey. SUBJECTS: Senior fellows and graduates of 65 active Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellowship programs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of fellowship programs (42/65) returned at least one response. Ninety senior fellows and 27 recent graduates responded. Of respondents, 38% received pediatric procedural sedation training during the fellowship, and 32% reported mandatory training. Nine percent of programs used simulation. Although 61% who received training felt adequately prepared to perform pediatric procedural sedation, 25% needed additional preceptorship to sedate independently. Nearly one third (31%) reported that completion of a predetermined number of cases was required to sedate independently. Forty-eight percent reported a minimum number of cases was required for hospital credentialing. Nearly 45% were allowed to perform pediatric procedural sedation off the unit after receiving credentials. When asked if inadequate pediatric procedural sedation training would be a deterrent to applying for a position that included pediatric procedural sedation, 8.6% replied yes, 52.6% replied no, and 38.8% replied they were unsure. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric procedural sedation lacks a clearly defined training pathway. Most fellows find pediatric procedural sedation a valuable skill set. We propose that all Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellows receive training that includes pediatric procedural sedation critical incident simulation and cases performed outside the PICU to establish proficiency.

Radiologic Imaging in Trauma Patients with Cervical Spine Immobilization at a Pediatric Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric trauma patients with cervical spine (CS) immobilization using a cervical collar often require procedural sedation (PS) for radiologic imaging. The limited ability to perform airway maneuvers while CS immobilized with a cervical collar is a concern for emergency department (ED) staff providing PS. OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of PS and analgesia for radiologic imaging acquisition in pediatric trauma patients with CS immobilization. METHODS: Retrospective medical record review of all trauma patients with CS immobilization at a high-volume pediatric trauma center was performed. Patient demographics, imaging modality, PS success, sedative and analgesia medications, and adverse events were analyzed. Patients intubated prior to arrival to the ED were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 1417 patients with 1898 imaging encounters met our inclusion criteria. A total of 398 patients required more than one radiographic imaging procedure. The median age was 8 years (range 3.8-12.75 years). Computed tomography of the head was used in 974 of the 1898 patients (51.3%). A total of 956 of the 1898 patients (50.4%) required sedatives or analgesics for their radiographic imaging, with 875 (91.5%) requiring a single sedative or analgesic agent, and 81 (8.5%) requiring more than one medication. Airway obstruction was the most common adverse event, occurring in 5 of 956 patients (0.3%). All imaging procedures were successfully completed. CONCLUSION: Only 50% of CS immobilized, nonintubated patients required a single sedative or analgesic medication for their radiologic imaging. Procedural success was high, with few adverse events.

Reducing Childhood Admissions to the PICU for Poisoning (ReCAP2) by Predicting Unnecessary PICU Admissions After Acute Intoxication.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate clinical prediction models to identify children at low risk of clinically significant intoxications for whom intensive care admission is unnecessary. DESIGN: Retrospective review of data in the National Poison Data Systems from 2011 to 2014 and Georgia Poison Center cases from July to December 2016. SETTING: United States PICUs and poison centers participating in the American Association of Poison Control Centers from 2011 to 2016. PATIENTS: Children 18 years and younger admitted to a United States PICU following an acute intoxication. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary study outcome was the occurrence of clinically significant intoxications defined a priori as organ system-based clinical effects that require intensive care monitoring and interventions. We analyzed 70,364 cases. Derivation (n = 42,240; 60%) and validation cohorts (n = 28,124; 40%) were randomly selected from the eligible population and had similar distributions of clinical effects and PICU interventions. PICU interventions were performed in 1,835 children (14.1%) younger than 6 years, in 374 children (15.4%) 6-12 years, and in 4,446 children (16.5%) 13 years and older. We developed highly predictive models with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.834 (< 6 yr), 0.771 (6-12 yr), and 0.786 (≥13 yr), respectively. For predicted probabilities of less than or equal to 0.10 in the validation cohorts, the negative predictive values were 95.4% (< 6 yr), 94.9% (6-12 yr), and 95.1% (≥ 13 yr). An additional 700 patients from the Georgia Poison Center were used to validate the model and would have reduced PICU admission by 31.4% (n = 110). CONCLUSIONS: These validated models identified children at very low risk of clinically significant intoxications for whom pediatric intensive care admission can be avoided. Application of this model using Georgia Poison Center data could have resulted in a 30% reduction in PICU admissions following intoxication.

Procedural sedation in children with autism spectrum disorders: A survey of current practice patterns of the society for pediatric sedation members.

BACKGROUND: Children with autism spectrum disorder are challenging to sedate because of communication, sensory, and behavioral challenges. AIMS: The aim of this survey was to determine how procedural sedation is provided to children with autism spectrum disorders and whether sedation programs have specialized protocols for procedural sedation of these children. METHODS: We surveyed physician Medical Directors of sedation programs who are members of the Society for Pediatric Sedation, asking about practice characteristics and resource utilization during procedural sedation of children with autism spectrum disorders. RESULTS: Of 58 directors, 47 (81%) responded. Of the programs surveyed, 53% were either a large university medical center and 40% were a freestanding children's hospital. Only (12/47, 25.5%) of the programs used an individualized autism coping plan. To accomplish procedural sedation in this study cohort, 36% of the programs used additional nurses, whereas a child life specialist was used in 55% of the programs surveyed. Only 28% of the centers allotted additional time to accommodate children with autism spectrum disorders. Distraction methods were used in 80% whereas restrains were used in 45% programs for were used most commonly for i.v. catheter placement. Propofol was the preferred agent for 70% of programs for imaging, while propofol + fentanyl was used by 66% of programs for painful procedures. Although 57% of directors reported that their program staff was extremely comfortable providing procedural sedation for children with autism spectrum disorder, 79% of the directors wanted more education about behavioral management strategies for procedural sedation of these children. CONCLUSION: Among the Society for Pediatric Sedation programs, significant institutional variation exists on the delivery of procedural sedation to children with autism spectrum disorders. A better understanding of resources required, standardization of behavioral management strategies and pharmacologic approaches, and protocol development may help optimize care to this vulnerable population.

Factors affecting same-day cancelation of outpatient pediatric oncologic procedural sedation.

BACKGROUND: Children with cancer undergo serial invasive, painful procedures as a part of their diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance regimens that require procedural sedation (PS). Some may have a delay in their treatment plan due to same-day cancelation (SDC) of the procedure due to issues related to sedation or other factors. The objective of this report was to evaluate the factors resulting in the SDC of hematology and oncology patients in an outpatient pediatric sedation service. METHODS: Retrospective review of children with cancer or other hematologic disorders undergoing outpatient procedures using a dedicated pediatric sedation team from January 2012 to December 2017. The children with SDC were compared to controls (ie, patients not canceled) during the above study period. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients had SDC during the study. The median age was 10 years (25th percentile to 75th percentile: 7-10 years). The overall SDC rate was 3% and 78/100 (78%) had acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Most common procedure was lumbar puncture with intrathecal chemotherapy in 82/100 (82%) patients. Inadequate blood counts, acute illness, and not nil per os (NPO) accounted for 83% of the reasons for SDC. Type of health insurance, estimated household income, or distance traveled to the clinic did not impact SDC. CONCLUSIONS: The most common factors for SDC included inadequate blood counts, acute illness, and not meeting NPO guidelines. Understanding factors affecting SDC may help improve the efficiency of time-sensitive care delivered to children with cancer and other hematologic concerns by a pediatric sedation service.

Analysis of Interventions Required in 12,021 Children With Acute Intoxications Admitted to PICUs.

OBJECTIVES: Acute intoxications in children account for 4.6% of annual admissions to the PICU. We aimed to describe the interventions and monitoring required for children admitted to the PICU following intoxications with the ultimate goal of determining patient and intoxication characteristics associated with the need for PICU interventions. DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from Virtual Pediatric Systems, LLC. SETTING: United States PICUs participating in the Virtual Pediatric Systems database from 2011 to 2014. PATIENTS: Less than or equal to 18 years old admitted to a PICU with a diagnostic code for poisoning, ingestion, intoxication, or overdose. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 12,021 patients were included with a median PICU length of stay of 0.97 days (interquartile range, 0.67-1.60). Seventy-eight percent of the intoxications were intentional. The top five classes of medications ingested were unknown substances (21.6%), antidepressants (11.5%), other chemicals (10.7%), analgesics (7.3%), and antihypertensives (6.2%). Seventy-six (0.61%) patients died. Any of the interventions reported in the Virtual Pediatric Systems database were performed in only 29.1% of the total cases. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cases (70.9%) admitted to the PICU following an intoxication did not undergo any significant intervention. Future studies should focus on distinguishing patient and intoxication characteristics associated with need for PICU intervention to optimize patient safety and minimize resource burden.

Pediatric Procedural Sedation Using the Combination of Ketamine and Propofol Outside of the Emergency Department: A Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.

OBJECTIVES: Outcomes associated with a sedative regimen comprised ketamine + propofol for pediatric procedural sedation outside of both the pediatric emergency department and operating room are underreported. We used the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to describe a multicenter experience with ketamine + propofol by pediatric sedation providers. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of children receiving IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation outside of the operating room and emergency department using data abstracted from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium during 2007-2015. SETTING: Procedural sedation services from academic, community, free-standing children's hospitals, and pediatric wards within general hospitals. PATIENTS: Children from birth to less than or equal to 21 years old. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 7,313 pediatric procedural sedations were performed using IV ketamine + propofol as the primary sedative regimen. Median age was 84 months (range, < 1 mo to ≤ 21 yr; interquartile range, 36-144); 80.6% were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status less than III. The majority of sedation was performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (76.1%). Procedures were successfully completed in 99.8% of patients. Anticholinergics (glycopyrrolate and atropine) or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) were used in 14.2% and 41.3%, respectively. The overall adverse event and serious adverse event rates were 9.79% (95% CI, 9.12-10.49%) and 3.47% (95% CI, 3.07-3.92%), respectively. No deaths occurred. Risk factors associated with an increase in odds of adverse event included ASA status greater than or equal to III, dental suite, cardiac catheterization laboratory or radiology/sedation suite location, a primary diagnosis of having a gastrointestinal illness, and the coadministration of an anticholinergic. CONCLUSIONS: Using Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium data, we describe the diverse use of IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation in the largest reported cohort of children to date. Data from this study may be used to design sufficiently powered prospective randomized, double-blind studies comparing outcomes of sedation between commonly administered sedative and analgesic medication regimens.

Trend and Outcomes of Video Laryngoscope Use Across PICUs.

OBJECTIVE: Video (indirect) laryngoscopy is used as a primary tracheal intubation device for difficult airways in emergency departments and in adult ICUs. The use and outcomes of video laryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy has not been quantified in PICUs or cardiac ICUs. DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected observational data from a multicenter tracheal intubation database (National Emergency Airway Registry for Children) from July 2010 to June 2015. SETTING: Thirty-six PICUs/cardiac ICUs across the United States, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Singapore. PATIENTS: Any patient admitted to a PICU or a pediatric cardiac ICU and undergoing tracheal intubation. INTERVENTIONS: Use of direct laryngoscopy versus video laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 8,875 tracheal intubations reported in the National Emergency Airway Registry for Children database, including 7,947 (89.5%) tracheal intubations performed using direct laryngoscopy and 928 (10.5%) tracheal intubations performed using video laryngoscopy. Wide variability in video laryngoscopy use exists across PICUs (median, 2.6%; range, 0-55%). Video laryngoscopy was more often used in older children (p < 0.001), in children with history of a difficult airway (p = 0.01), in children intubated for ventilatory failure (p < 0.001), and to facilitate the completion of an elective procedure (p = 0.048). After adjusting for patient-level covariates, a secular trend, and site-level variance, the use of video laryngoscopy significantly increased over a 5-year period compared with fiscal year 2011 (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.7-26.8 for fiscal year 2014 and odds ratio, 11.2; 95% CI, 3.2-38.9 for fiscal year 2015). The use of video laryngoscopy was independently associated with a lower occurrence of tracheal intubation adverse events (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.77; p < 0.001) but not with a lower occurrence of severe tracheal intubation adverse events (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.32; p = 0.49) or fewer multiple attempts at endotracheal intubation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.22; p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Using National Emergency Airway Registry for Children data, we described patient-centered adverse outcomes associated with video laryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in the largest reported international cohort of children to date. Data from this study may be used to design sufficiently powered prospective studies comparing patient-centered outcomes for video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during endotracheal intubation.

Evaluation of methohexital as an alternative to propofol in a high volume outpatient pediatric sedation service.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is a preferred agent for many pediatric sedation providers because of its rapid onset and short duration of action. It allows for quick turn around times and enhanced throughput. Occasionally, intravenous (IV) methohexital (MHX), an ultra-short acting barbiturate is utilized instead of propofol. OBJECTIVE: Describe the experience with MHX in a primarily propofol driven outpatient sedation program and to see if it serves as an acceptable alternative when propofol is not the preferred pharmacologic option. METHODS: Retrospective chart review from 2012 to 2015 of patients receiving IV MHX as their primary sedation agent. Data collected included demographics, reason for methohexital use, dosing, type of procedure, success rate, adverse events (AE), duration of the procedure, and time to discharge. RESULTS: Methohexital was used in 240 patient encounters. Median age was 4years (IQR 2-7), 71.8% were male, and 80.4% were ASA-PS I or II. Indications for MHX use: egg+soy/peanut allergy in 93 (38.8%) and mitochondrial disorder 9 (3.8%). Median induction bolus was 2.1mg/kg (IQR, 1.9-2.8), median maintenance infusion was 4.5mg/kg/h (IQR, 3.0-6.0). Hiccups 15 (6.3%), secretions requiring intervention 14 (5.8%), and cough 12 (5.0%) were the most commonly occurring minor AEs. Airway obstruction was seen in 28 (11.6%). Overall success rate was 94%. Median time to discharge after procedure completion was 40.5min (IQR 28-57). CONCLUSION: Methohexital can be used with a high success rate and AEs that are not inconsistent with propofol administration. Methohexital should be considered when propofol is not a preferred option.

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.

Deep procedural sedation by a sedationist team for outpatient pediatric renal biopsies.

To date, no study has analyzed the use of deep PS for pediatric renal biopsies by a dedicated sedation team in an outpatient setting. Retrospective analysis of renal biopsies performed at CHOA from 2009 to 2013. Patient demographics, procedure success, and sedation-related events were analyzed. Logistic regression techniques were applied to identify characteristics associated with procedure safety and success. A total of 174 biopsies from 136 patients, aged 2-21 yr, were reviewed. Of the 174 biopsies, 63 of 174 (36%) were from native, and 111 of 174 (64%) were from transplanted kidneys, respectively. No deaths, allograft losses, or unanticipated hospital admissions occurred. The most commonly utilized interventions during sedation were blow-by oxygen (29.9%) and CPAP (12.1%). Children receiving the combination of F + P had significantly higher biopsy success rates vs. other drug combinations (96.1% vs. 79%; p = 0.014). There was no difference in complication rates regardless of drug combination or biopsy type (transplanted vs. native). The combination of F + P yields a high procedural success rate for outpatient native and transplanted kidney biopsies. We identified a number of sedation-related events that can be easily managed by a well-trained sedationist team.

Procedural Sedation Outside of the Operating Room Using Ketamine in 22,645 Children: A Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies of ketamine administered to children for procedural sedation are limited to emergency department use. The objective of this study was to describe the practice of ketamine procedural sedation outside of the operating room and identify risk factors for adverse events. DESIGN: Observational cohort review of data prospectively collected from 2007 to 2015 from the multicenter Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. SETTING: Sedation services from academic, community, free-standing children's hospitals and pediatric wards within general hospitals. PATIENTS: Children from birth to 21 years old or younger. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Describe patient characteristics, procedure type, and location of administration of ketamine procedural sedation. Analyze sedation-related adverse events and severe adverse events. Identify risk factors for adverse events using multivariable logistic regression. A total of 22,645 sedations performed using ketamine were analyzed. Median age was 60 months (range, < 1 mo to < 22 yr); 72.0% were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status less than III. The majority of sedations were performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (64.6%). Anticholinergics, benzodiazepines, or propofol were coadministered in 19.8%, 57.9%, and 35.4%, respectively. The overall adverse event occurrence rate was 7.26% (95% CI, 6.92-7.60%), and the frequency of severe adverse events was 1.77% (95% CI, 1.60-1.94%). Procedures were not completed in 39 of 19,747 patients (0.2%). Three patients experienced cardiac arrest without death, all associated with laryngospasm. CONCLUSIONS: This is a description of a large prospectively collected dataset of pediatric ketamine administration predominantly outside of the operating room. The overall incidence of severe adverse events was low. Risk factors associated with increased odds of adverse events were as follows: cardiac and gastrointestinal disease, lower respiratory tract infection, and the coadministration of propofol and anticholinergics.

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.

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.