Dexmedetomidine or Propofol for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 µg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 µg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months. RESULTS: Of 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 µg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 µg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation in patients susceptible to hypoxemia during procedural sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hypoxemia is one of the most common adverse events during colonoscopy, particularly among patients who are diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or are overweight. Consequently, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) ventilation for patients with high-risk hypoxemia during colonoscopy with sedation. METHODS: In this trial, 127 patients who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the BPAP oxygen group and nasal cannula (NC) group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia. RESULTS: Compared with the use of NC, BPAP ventilation exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of hypoxemia, decreasing it from 23.8% to 6.3% (absolute risk difference, 17.5%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4-29.6; P = .006). Importantly, BPAP ventilation prevented the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (9.5% vs 0%; absolute risk difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-16.7; P = .035). In addition, the BPAP group required fewer airway interventions (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with OSA or overweight status, the use of BPAP ventilation during colonoscopy significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2300073193.).

Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use. RESULTS: A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.

Sedated Colonoscopy may not be Beneficial for Polyp/Adenoma Detection.

BACKGROUND: Sedated colonoscopy has been increasingly selected. However, the effect of sedated colonoscopy on polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR) remains controversial among studies. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the medical records of 11 504 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our department from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 were collected. Patients were divided into sedated and unsedated groups according to the use of intravenous sedation during colonoscopy. Overall PDR/ADR, right-side, transverse, and left-side colon PDR/ADR, and single and multiple PDR/ADR were calculated. By adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, inpatient, screening/surveillance, cecal intubation time, colonoscopy withdrawal time ≥6 min, and an endoscopist's experience ≥5 years, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of sedated colonoscopy with overall PDR/ADR, right-side, transverse, and left-side colon PDR/ADR, and single and multiple PDR/ADR, where the absence of PDR/ADR was used as reference. Odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 2275 patients were included, of whom 293 and 1982 underwent sedated and unsedated colonoscopy, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that sedated colonoscopy was independently associated with lower overall PDR/ADR (OR = 0.640, 95% CI = 0.460-0.889, P = 0.008), right-side colon PDR/ADR (OR = 0.591, 95% CI = 0.417-0.837, P = 0.003), single PDR/ADR (OR = 0.659, 95% CI = 0.436-0.996, P = 0.048), and multiple PDR/ADR (OR = 0.586, 95% CI = 0.402-0.855, P = 0.005), but not transverse or left-side colon PDR/ADR. CONCLUSION: Sedated colonoscopy may not be beneficial in terms of overall PDR/ADR, right-side colon PDR/ADR, and number of polyps/adenomas. Thus, it should be selectively recommended. Additionally, it should be necessary to explore how to improve the quality of sedated colonoscopy.

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine for gastroscopy: a double-blinded, randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination. RESULTS: Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSION: The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction.

Safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation of elderly patients undergoing ERCP.

BACKGROUND: Proper sedation of patients, particularly elderly individuals, who are more susceptible to sedation-related complications, is of significant importance in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing ERCP, compared to a group of middle-aged patients. METHODS: The medical records of 610 patients with common bile duct stones who underwent elective ERCP under deep sedation with a three-drug regimen, including midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol at Shandong Provincial Third Hospital from January 2023 to September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups: middle-aged (50-64 years, n = 202), elderly (65-79 years, n = 216), and very elderly (≥ 80 years, n = 192). Intraoperative vital signs and complications were compared among these groups. RESULTS: The three groups showed no significant difference in terms of intraoperative variation of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.291), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.737), heart rate (P = 0.107), peripheral oxygen saturation (P = 0.188), bispectral index (P = 0.158), and the occurrence of sedation-related adverse events including hypotension (P = 0.170) and hypoxemia (P = 0.423). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a low-dose three-drug regimen consisting of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol seems safe and effective for deep sedation of elderly and very elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, further studies are required to verify these findings and clarify the benefits and risks of this method.

Preprocedural Oxygenation and Procedural Oxygenation During Pediatric Procedural Sedation: Patterns of Use and Association With Interventions.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Preprocedural oxygenation (pre-emptive oxygenation started during presedation and/or induction) and procedural oxygenation (pre-emptive oxygenation started during any phase of sedation) are easy-to-use strategies with potential to decrease adverse events. Here, we describe practice patterns of preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation. We hypothesized that patients who received preprocedural oxygenation or procedural oxygenation would have a lower risk of airway/breathing/circulation interventions during sedation compared with patients without procedural oxygenation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study of pediatric sedations from April 2020 to July 2023 using the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium multicenter database. The patient-level and sedation-level characteristics were described using frequencies and proportions, stratified by preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation status. We determined the site-level frequency of preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation use. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to calculate the risk difference for interventions associated with preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation. RESULTS: This study included a total of 85,599 pediatric sedations; 43,242 (50.5%) patients received preprocedural oxygenation (used oxygen before sedation and/or at induction) and a total of 52,219 (61.0%) received procedural oxygenation pre-emptively at any time during the sedation. There was no statistical difference in overall interventions with either preprocedural oxygenation (risk difference -0.06%; 95% confidence interval -4.26% to 4.14%) or procedural oxygenation (risk difference -1.07%; 95% confidence interval -6.44% to 4.30%). CONCLUSION: Pre-emptive preprocedural oxygenation and procedural oxygenation were not associated with a difference in the use of airway/breathing/circulation interventions in pediatric sedations.

Implications of sedation during the use of noninvasive ventilation in children with acute respiratory failure (SEDANIV Study).

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze the effects of sedation administration on clinical parameters, comfort status, intubation requirements, and the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay (LOS) in children with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: Thirteen PICUs in Spain participated in a prospective, multicenter, observational trial from January to December 2021. Children with ARF under the age of five who were receiving NIV were included. Clinical information and comfort levels were documented at the time of NIV initiation, as well as at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h. The COMFORT-behavior (COMFORT-B) scale was used to assess the patients' level of comfort. NIV failure was considered to be a requirement for endotracheal intubation. RESULTS: A total of 457 patients were included, with a median age of 3.3 months (IQR 1.3-16.1). Two hundred and thirteen children (46.6%) received sedation (sedation group); these patients had a higher heart rate, higher COMFORT-B score, and lower SpO2/FiO2 ratio than did those who did not receive sedation (non-sedation group). A significantly greater improvement in the COMFORT-B score at 3, 6, 12, and 24 h, heart rate at 6 and 12 h, and SpO2/FiO2 ratio at 6 h was observed in the sedation group. Overall, the NIV success rate was 95.6%-intubation was required in 6.1% of the sedation group and in 2.9% of the other group (p = 0.092). Multivariate analysis revealed that the PRISM III score at NIV initiation (OR 1.408; 95% CI 1.230-1.611) and respiratory rate at 3 h (OR 1.043; 95% CI 1.009-1.079) were found to be independent predictors of NIV failure. The PICU LOS was correlated with weight, PRISM III score, respiratory rate at 12 h, SpO2 at 3 h, FiO2 at 12 h, NIV failure and NIV duration. Sedation use was not found to be independently related to NIV failure or to the PICU LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Sedation use may be useful in children with ARF treated with NIV, as it seems to improve clinical parameters and comfort status but may not increase the NIV failure rate or PICU LOS, even though sedated children were more severe at technique initiation in the present sample.

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.

Nontraditional approaches to sedation for anterior segment surgery: a narrative review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Surgical and anesthetic technological advancement have made both cataract and noncataract anterior segment surgery significantly less invasive and time-intensive, facilitating the transition of some of these procedures from the operating room under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to the office-based setting without MAC. This transition has been aided by the popularization of nonintravenous approaches to achieving patient sedation for these procedures. In this review, we discuss the literature surrounding traditional and nontraditional methods of achieving patient sedation for anterior segment surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Our survey of the literature suggests that nonintravenous (IV) approaches to sedation for these procedures may be just as safe, effective, and satisfactory to patients as traditional IV approaches. SUMMARY: As anterior segment surgery becomes less invasive and less time-intensive, providers considering transitioning their cataract and anterior segment surgery out of the operating room and into the office-based setting without MAC anesthesia should consider the non-IV sedation options outlined in this review to achieve adequate patient sedation and comfort.

Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

Association of ketamine use during procedural sedation with oxygen desaturation and healthcare utilisation: a multicentre retrospective hospital registry study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effects of ketamine on desaturation and the risk of nursing home discharge in patients undergoing procedural sedation by anaesthetists. METHODS: We included adult patients who underwent procedures under monitored anaesthetic care between 2005 and 2021 at two academic healthcare networks in the USA. The primary outcome was intraprocedural oxygen desaturation, defined as oxygen saturation <90% for ≥2 consecutive minutes. The co-primary outcome was a nursing home discharge. RESULTS: Among 234,170 included patients undergoing procedural sedation, intraprocedural desaturation occurred in 5.6% of patients who received ketamine vs 5.2% of patients who did not receive ketamine (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.29, P<0.001; adjusted absolute risk difference [ARDadj] 1%, 95% CI 0.7-1.3%, P<0.001). The effect was magnified by age >65 yr, smoking, or preprocedural ICU admission (P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 1.35, 95% CI 1.25-1.45, P<0.001; ARDadj 2%, 95% CI 1.56-2.49%, P<0.001), procedural risk factors (upper endoscopy of longer than 2 h; P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 2.91, 95% CI 1.85-4.58, P<0.001; ARDadj 16.2%, 95% CI 9.8-22.5%, P<0.001), and high ketamine dose (P-for-trend <0.001, ORadj 1.61, 95% CI, 1.43-1.81 for ketamine >0.5 mg kg-1). Concomitant opioid administration mitigated the risk (P-for-interaction <0.001). Ketamine was associated with higher odds of nursing home discharge (ORadj 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21, P=0.012; ARDadj 0.25%, 95% CI 0.05-0.46%, P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine use for procedural sedation was associated with an increased risk of oxygen desaturation and discharge to a nursing home. The effect was dose-dependent and magnified in subgroups of vulnerable patients.

Effect of moderate versus deep sedation on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in older patients: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in older patients, the optimal level of sedation remains open to debate. In this study, our objective was to compare the effects of moderate sedation (MS) and deep sedation (DS) on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in elderly patients. METHODS: In this randomized, partially blinded, controlled trial, we randomly divided 270 patients older than 60 years who were scheduled for elective outpatient gastroscopy into the MS or DS group based on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The primary outcome was the duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included the duration of the total hospital stay, frequency of retching, bucking, and body movements during the examination, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, and sedation-associated adverse events during the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients completed the study, of whom 131 received MS and 133 received DS. MS was associated with a shorter PACU stay [16.15 ± 9.01 min vs. 20.02 ± 11.13 min, P < 0.01] and total hospital stay [27.32 ± 9.86 min vs. 30.82 ± 12.37 min, P < 0.05], lesser hypoxemia [2.3% (3/131) vs. 12.8% (17/133), P < 0.01], use of fewer vasoactive drugs (P < 0.001), and more retching (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bucking and body movements or endoscopist and patient satisfaction between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to deep sedation, moderate sedation may be a preferable choice for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I-III elderly patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopies, as demonstrated by shorter PACU stays and total hospital stays, lower sedation-associated adverse events, and similar levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

Unsedated colonoscopy utilizing virtual reality distraction: a pilot-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Sedation increases colonoscopy risks and prolongs recovery time. We examined whether virtual reality (VR) can substitute for sedation. The primary outcome was the overall satisfaction of patients who underwent colonoscopy with VR headset compared with patients who underwent standard sedation. Pain during the procedure, polyp detection rate (PDR), colonoscopy duration, post-colonoscopy adverse events, post-colonoscopy recovery, time-to-return to daily functions, and turnaround time at the endoscopy unit were secondary outcomes. METHODS: The study was approved by Sheba Medical Center's ethics committee IRB number 21-8177-SMC. Sixty patients were sequentially enrolled in a 1:1 ratio to either standard sedated colonoscopy or VR-unsedated procedure, and all patients signed a written informed consent. 28/30 patients successfully completed the colonoscopy using VR headset. Overall satisfaction score was comparable between the groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between VR and controls in colonoscopy duration, or PDR. VR patients had numerically lower rate of post-colonoscopy adverse events than controls. The proportion of VR patients who reported resuming daily activities on the day of the procedure was significantly higher than in the control group. The VR group patients spent significantly less time in the hospital compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: VR technology can provide adequate substitution for sedation for most patients undergoing colonoscopy and offers comparable patient satisfaction and faster return to daily activities.

Procedural sedation and analgesia in Swiss Pediatric Emergency Departments: a national subgroup analysis of a European cross-sectional survey.

This study aims to provide a national overview of procedural sedation and analgesia practices within Pediatric Emergency Departments in Switzerland, focusing on the availability of pharmacologic agents, the presence of safety protocols, the utilization of non-pharmacological interventions, and to identify specific local limitations. We conducted a detailed subgroup analysis of Swiss data from a European cross-sectional survey on emergency department pediatric Procedural Sedation and Analgesia (PSA) practice, isolating data from Swiss sites. The survey, conducted between November 2019 and March 2020, covered various aspects of procedural sedation and analgesia practices. The survey included nine Swiss sites, treating a total of 252,786 patients in 2019. Topical analgesia, inhaled equimolar nitrous oxide-oxygen mixture, and ketamine were largely available. All sites had nurse-directed triage protocols in place; however, opioid administration was included in the protocols in only 66% of sites. Only 33% of hospitals reported common use of intravenous sedation. Barriers to procedural sedation and analgesia implementation included staffing shortages (89% of sites) and lack of dedicated spaces (78%).Conclusions: Despite a broad array of pharmacological and options available in Swiss Pediatric Emergency Departments, challenges remain in standardizing practices across the country. Limited space and staffing and enhancing training on non-pharmacological interventions were identified as potential areas for improving pain and anxiety management in pediatric emergency care. This study underscores the need for national guidelines to harmonize emergency department PSA practices across Switzerland, ensuring all children have access to effective and evidence-based procedural comfort. What is Known: • Recent research, conducted in European emergency departments, suggests that in pediatric Procedural Sedation and Analgesia (PSA) resources are limited, and practice is heterogeneous What is New: • Swiss pediatric hospitals offer a wide range of pharmacological options for pain and anxiety management. However, significant barriers to PSA were identified. These include external control of intravenous sedation and insufficient integration of non-pharmacological interventions, such as child life specialists and procedural hypnosis. National guidelines are needed to harmonize PSA practices.

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.

Patient-Reported Quality of Recovery after Sedation for Endoscopy in the Elderly.

INTRODUCTION: Although sedation is critical in minimizing discomforts in patients, conflicting data regarding the safety of sedation among the elderly population exist. This prospective study aimed to compare the quality of recovery (QoR) from gastrointestinal endoscopy performed under sedation between elderly and younger patients. METHODS: We included 177 patients aged 40-64 (group 1, n = 66), 65-79 (group 2, n = 76), and ≥80 (group 3, n = 35) years. QoR was assessed 1 day after the procedure using the quality of recovery 15 (QoR-15) questionnaire, which is a 15-item questionnaire with scores ranging from 0 to 150. Patient demographic, procedural, and sedation data were collected, and neurocognitive function was assessed before and a day after sedation. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 3 differed according to the Mini-Cog test and 3-word memory test performed before the procedure (p < 0.001). QoR-15 scores between groups were not different (139 ± 19 group 1, 141 ± 17 group 2, and 147 ± 26 group 3; p > 0.05). Patients in groups 3 and 2 were administered lower doses of propofol and midazolam than those in group 1. The incidence of oxygen desaturation (SaO2 <90% for >30 s) was lower in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3 (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: As indicated by the QoR-15 questionnaire, the QoR from sedation was not significantly different between the study groups.

Comparison of Remimazolam and Dexmedetomidine for Sedation in Awake Endotracheal Intubation in Scoliosis Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND Awake endotracheal intubation (AEI) involves the placement of an endotracheal tube in patients who can maintain spontaneous respirations. This retrospective study aimed to compare sedation with remimazolam during AEI with that of dexmedetomidine in patients who underwent scoliosis correction surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS This is a retrospective study based on data from 98 patients who had AEI procedures between January and December 2023. The remimazolam group included 55 patients, and the dexmedetomidine group included 43 patients. Remimazolam 0.05 mg/kg was injected 1 min before intubation, while dexmedetomidine 1 ug/kg was pumped 10 min before intubation. Evaluations of AEI, hemodynamics, and respiratory adverse events were then compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS There was no significant difference in demographic data between the groups. After administrating sedation, dexmedetomidine led to a larger reduction of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) than did remimazolam (11.30±1.86 vs 8.33±2.28 mmHg, P<0.001; 12.28±2.50 vs 2.85±1.82 beats/min, P<0.001). When conducting intubation, the increase of MAP in the remimazolam group was lower than that in the dexmedetomidine group (7.40±2.81 vs 9.26±5.08 mmHg, P=0.024), while the difference in HR change was not significant (7.53±5.41 vs 8.37±5.31 beats/min, P=0.441). When combined with local anesthesia, the success rate of AEI, time of AEI procedure, attempt times, increase of MAP during intubation, depth of sedation, and respiratory adverse events were comparable between the groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS With local anesthesia, remimazolam and dexmedetomidine sedation can facilitate AEI for patients with scoliosis. However, remimazolam is associated with more stable hemodynamics.

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.

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.