Pediatric anesthesia in North America.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This educational review outlines the current landscape of pediatric anesthesia training, care delivery, and challenges across Canada, Barbados, and the United States. DESCRIPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 5% of Canadian children undergo general anesthesia annually, administered by fellowship-trained pediatric anesthesiologists in children's hospitals, general anesthesiologists in community hospitals, or family practice anesthesiologists in underserved regions. In Canada, the focus is on national-level evaluation and accreditation of pediatric anesthesia fellowship training, addressing challenges arising from workforce shortages, particularly in remote areas. Barbados, a Caribbean nation, lacks dedicated pediatric hospitals but has provided pediatric anesthesia since 1972 through anesthetists with additional training. Challenges in its development, common to low-middle-income countries, include inadequate infrastructure and workforce shortages. Increased awareness of pediatric anesthesia as a sub-specialty could enhance perioperative care for Barbadian children. Pediatric anesthesia encompasses various specialties in the United States, with pediatric anesthesiologists playing a foundational role. Challenges faced include recruitment and retention difficulties, supply-chain shortages, and the proliferation of anesthesia sites, all impacting the delivery of modern, high-quality, and cost-effective patient care. Collaborative efforts at national and organizational levels strive to improve the quality and safety of pediatric anesthesia care in the United States.

Continued challenges in pediatric anesthesia during COVID-19 in 2022: An international survey from the pediatric anesthesia COVID-19 collaborative.

INTRODUCTION: This international survey explored the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on pediatric anesthesiology. It assessed COVID-19's impact on the practice of pediatric anesthesiology, staffing, job satisfaction, and retention at the beginning of 2022 and addressed what should be done to ameliorate COVID-19's impact and what initiatives hospitals had implemented. METHODS: This survey focused on five major domains: equipment/medication, vaccination/testing, staffing, burnout, and economic repercussions. Pilot testing for questionnaire clarity was conducted by members of the Pediatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative. The survey was administered by e-mail to a representative of the 72 collaborative centers. Respondents were instructed to answer based on their institution's practice from February through April of 2022. Descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals are reported. RESULTS: Seventy of seventy-two institutions participated in this survey (97% response rate). Fifty-nine (84%) were from the United States, and 11 (16%) included other countries. The majority experienced equipment (68%) and medication (60%) shortages. Many institutions reported staffing shortages in nursing (37%), perioperative staff (27%), and attending anesthesiologists (11%). Sixty-two institutions (89%) indicated burnout was a frequent topic of conversation among pediatric anesthesiologists. Forty-three institutions (61%) reported anesthesiologists leaving current practice and 37 (53%) early retirement. Twenty-eight institutions (40%) canceled elective cases. The major suggestions for improving job retention included improving financial compensation (76%), decreasing clinical time (67%), and increasing flexibility in scheduled clinical time (66%). Only a minority of institutions had implemented the following initiatives: improving financial compensation (19%), increased access to mental health/counseling services (30%), and assistance with child or elder care (7%). At the time of the survey, 34% of institutions had not made any changes. CONCLUSION: Our study found that COVID-19 has continued to impact pediatric anesthesiology. There are major discrepancies between what anesthesiologists believe are important for job satisfaction and faculty retention compared to implemented initiatives. Data from this survey provide insight for institutions and departments for addressing these challenges.

Patient and Process Outcomes among Pediatric Patients Undergoing Appendectomy during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 forced healthcare systems to make unprecedented changes in clinical care processes. The authors hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic adversely impacted timely access to care, perioperative processes, and clinical outcomes for pediatric patients undergoing primary appendectomy. METHODS: A retrospective, international, multicenter study was conducted using matched cohorts within participating centers of the international PEdiatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative (PEACOC). Patients younger than 18 yr old were matched using age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, and sex. The primary outcome was the difference in hospital length of stay of patients undergoing primary appendectomy during a 2-month period early in the COVID-19 pandemic (April to May 2020) compared with prepandemic (April to May 2019). Secondary outcomes included time to appendectomy and the incidence of complicated appendicitis. RESULTS: A total of 3,351 cases from 28 institutions were available with 1,684 cases in the prepandemic cohort matched to 1,618 in the pandemic cohort. Hospital length of stay was statistically significantly different between the two groups: 29 h (interquartile range: 18 to 79) in the pandemic cohort versus 28 h (interquartile range: 18 to 67) in the prepandemic cohort (adjusted coefficient, 1 [95% CI, 0.39 to 1.61]; P < 0.001), but this difference was small. Eight centers demonstrated a statistically significantly longer hospital length of stay in the pandemic period than in the prepandemic period, while 13 were shorter and 7 did not observe a statistically significant difference. During the pandemic period, there was a greater occurrence of complicated appendicitis, prepandemic 313 (18.6%) versus pandemic 389 (24.1%), an absolute difference of 5.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.59]; P = 0.003). Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing was associated with significantly longer time-to-appendectomy, 720 min (interquartile range: 430 to 1,112) with testing versus 414 min (interquartile range: 231 to 770) without testing, adjusted coefficient, 306 min (95% CI, 241 to 371; P < 0.001), and longer hospital length of stay, 31 h (interquartile range: 20 to 83) with testing versus 24 h (interquartile range: 14 to 68) without testing, adjusted coefficient, 7.0 (95% CI, 2.7 to 11.3; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: For children undergoing appendectomy, the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly impact hospital length of stay.

Clinical Outcomes Associated With Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Sedation in Children.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the quality of sedation and additional clinically-meaningful outcomes associated with different intranasal dexmedetomidine-based regimens in children undergoing nonpainful procedures. METHODS: A multicenter prospective observational study of children aged 2 months to 17 years undergoing intranasal dexmedetomidine sedation for MRI, auditory brainstem response testing, echocardiogram, EEG, or computed tomography scan. Regimens varied by dose of dexmedetomidine and use of adjunct sedatives. Quality of sedation was assessed using the Pediatric Sedation State Scale and by determining proportion of children who achieved an acceptable sedation state. Procedure completion, time-based outcomes, and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 578 children across 7 sites. Median age was 2.5 years (interquartile range 1.6-3) and 37.5% were female. The most common procedures were auditory brainstem response testing (54.3%) and MRI (22.8%). The most common dose was 3 to 3.9 mcg/kg (55%), with 25.1% and 14.2% of children receiving oral or intranasal midazolam, respectively. Acceptable sedation state and procedure completion was achieved in 81.1% and 91.3% of children, and mean time to onset of sedation and total sedation time were 32.3 and 114.8 minutes, respectively. Twelve interventions were performed in 10 patients in response to an event; no patients required a serious airway, breathing, or cardiovascular intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal dexmedetomidine-based regimens can achieve acceptable sedation states and high rates of procedure completion in children undergoing sedation for nonpainful procedures. Our findings delineate clinical outcomes associated with intranasal dexmedetomidine-based sedation that can be used to guide the implementation and optimization of such regimens.

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.

Unique Issues Related to Regional Anesthesia in Pediatric Orthopedics.

This article will narrow its focus largely to notable issues related to regional anesthesia in pediatrics. First, the controversy surrounding awake versus anesthetized block placement will be addressed. There will also be a discussion on the use of regional anesthetics in orthopedics cases and the risk of compartment syndrome. Subsequently, the concern for regional anesthetics in the setting of an instrumented spine (eg, following spine fusion, baclofen pump placement) will be reviewed as such can have significant ramifications for patients. Finally, this article will consider ambulatory regional catheters and their increasing use in pediatric orthopedic anesthesia. Their utilization during the COVD epidemic played a key role in facilitating procedures that would have been canceled due to the protracted hospital bed shortage.

Predictors of Laryngospasm During 276,832 Episodes of Pediatric Procedural Sedation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Laryngospasm is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication of sedation. The objective of this study was to perform a predictor analysis of biologically plausible predictors and the interventions and outcomes associated with laryngospasm. METHODS: Secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutively sedated patients, less than or equal to 22 years of age, at multiple locations at 64 member institutions of the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. The primary outcome was laryngospasm. The independent variables in the multivariable model included American Society of Anesthesiologists category, age, sex, concurrent upper respiratory infection, medication regimen, hospital sedation location, whether the procedure was painful, and whether the procedure involved the airway. The analysis included adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and predicted probabilities. RESULTS: We analyzed 276,832 sedations with 913 reported events of laryngospasm (overall unadjusted prevalence 3.3:1,000). A younger age, a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists category, a concurrent upper respiratory infection (aOR 3.94, 2.57 to 6.03; predicted probability 12.2/1,000, 6.3/1,000 to 18.0/1,000), and airway procedures (aOR 3.73, 2.33 to 5.98; predicted probability 9.6/1,000, 5.2/1,000 to 13.9/1,000) were associated with increased risk. Compared with propofol alone, propofol combination regimens had increased risk (propofol+ketamine: aOR 2.52, 1.41 to 4.50; predicted probability 7.6/1,000, 3.1/1,000 to 12/1,000; and propofol+dexmedetomidine: aOR 2.10, 1.25 to 3.52; predicted probability 6.3/1,000, 3.7,/1,000 to 8.9/1,000). Among patients with laryngospasm, the resulting outcomes included desaturation less than 70% for more than 30 seconds (19.7%), procedure not completed (10.6%), emergency airway intervention (10.0%), endotracheal intubation (5.3%), unplanned admission/increase in level of care (2.3%), aspiration (1.1%), and cardiac arrest (0.2%). CONCLUSION: We found increased associations of laryngospasm in pediatric procedural sedation with multiple biologic factors, procedure types, and medication regimens. However, effect estimates showed that the laryngospasm prevalence remained low, and this should be taken into consideration in sedation decisionmaking.

A Single Center Case Series of Gender-Affirming Surgeries and the Evolution of a Specialty Anesthesia Team.

Most minors and young transgender persons wishing to undergo gender-affirming surgery need to seek specialists affiliated with gender affirmation programs in adult hospitals. Research suggests gender affirmation surgery has been established as an effective and medically indicated treatment for gender dysphoria. Although most data on gender-affirming surgeries are from adult populations, there is growing literature establishing their effectiveness in adolescents and young adults. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate the perioperative outcomes for gender-diverse youth to deliver safe and affirming care. The primary objective of this retrospective case series is to examine the perioperative characteristics and outcomes of patients with gender identity disorders (International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-10-code F64) who underwent chest reconstruction (mastectomy) and genital surgery (phalloplasty, metoidioplasty, and vaginoplasty) in a pediatric academic hospital. The secondary aim is to evaluate the value of a specialized anesthesia team for improving clinical outcomes, interdisciplinary communication, and further advancing the transgender perioperative experience. We identified 204 gender affirmation surgical cases, 177 chests/top surgeries, and 27 genital/bottom surgeries. These findings indicate gender-diverse individuals who underwent life-changing surgery at our institution had a median age of 18 years old, with many patients identifying as transmen. Our data suggests that postoperative pain was significant, but adverse events were minimal. The evolution of a specialty anesthesia team and initiatives (anesthesia management guidelines, scheduling, continuity, and education) necessitate direct care coordination and multidisciplinary planning for gender affirmation surgery in transgender youth.

Standardizing Opioid Prescribing in a Pediatric Hospital: A Quality Improvement Effort.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are indicated for moderate-to-severe pain caused by trauma, ischemia, surgery, cancer and sickle cell disease, and vaso-occlusive episodes (SCD-VOC). There is only limited evidence regarding the appropriate number of doses to prescribe for specific indications. Therefore, we developed and implemented an opioid prescribing algorithm with dosing guidelines for specific procedures and conditions. We aimed to reach and sustain 90% compliance within 1 year of implementation. METHODS: We conducted this quality improvement effort at a pediatric academic quaternary care institution. In 2018, a multidisciplinary team identified the need for a standard approach to opioid prescribing. The algorithm guides prescribers to evaluate the medical history, physical examination, red flags, pain type, and to initiate opioid-sparing interventions before prescribing opioids. Opioid prescriptions written between January 2015 and September 2020 were included. Examples from 2 hospital departments will be highlighted. Control charts for compliance with guidelines and variability in the doses prescribed are presented for selected procedures and conditions. RESULTS: Over 5 years, 83 037 opioid prescriptions in 53 804 unique patients were entered electronically. The encounters with ≥1 opioid prescription decreased from 48% to 25% between 2015 and 2019. Compliance with the specific guidelines increased to ∼85% for periacetabular osteotomies and SCD-VOC and close to 100% for anterior-cruciate ligament surgery. In all 3 procedures and conditions, variability in the number of doses prescribed decreased significantly. CONCLUSION: We developed an algorithm, guidelines, and a process for improvement. The number of opioid prescriptions and variability in opioid prescribing decreased. Future evaluation of specific initiatives within departments is needed.

Assessing and conveying risks and benefits of imaging in neonates using ionizing radiation and sedation/anesthesia.

Neonates represent a unique subset of the pediatric population that requires special attention and careful thought when implementing advanced cross-sectional imaging with CT or MRI. The ionizing radiation associated with CT and the sedation/anesthesia occasionally required for MRI present risks that must be balanced against the perceived benefit of the imaging examination in the unique and particularly susceptible neonatal population. We review the perceived risks of ionizing radiation and the more concrete risks of sedation/anesthesia in term and preterm neonates in the context of an imaging paradigm. When the expected diagnostic yield from CT and MRI is similar, and sedation is required for MRI but not for CT, CT likely has the higher benefit-to-risk ratio in the neonate. However, despite the risks, the most appropriate imaging modality should always be chosen after thoughtful consideration is given to each unique patient and informed discussions including radiology, anesthesia, neonatology and the parents/caregivers are pursued.

Should I irradiate with computed tomography or sedate for magnetic resonance imaging?

In the context of pediatric cross-sectional imaging, the risk of ionizing radiation for CT and the potential adverse effects associated with sedation/anesthesia for MRI continue to provoke lively discussions in the pediatric literature and lay press. This is particularly true for issues relating to the risks of ionizing radiation for CT, which has been a topic of discussion for nearly two decades. In addition to understanding these potential risks and the importance of minimizing individual pediatric patient exposure to ionizing radiation, it is equally important for radiologists to be able to frame these risks with respect to the potential for adverse outcomes associated with the use of anesthesia for cross-sectional imaging in the pediatric population. Notably, before such risks can be estimated and compared, one should always consider the potential utility of each imaging modality for a given diagnosis. If one cross-sectional imaging modality is likely to be far superior to the other for a specific clinical question, every effort must be made to safely image the child, even if sedation/anesthesia is required.

Performing Multiple Posterior Spinal Fusions in 1 Day: A Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Morning and Afternoon Cases.

BACKGROUND: High-volume centers for idiopathic scoliosis (IS) have difficulty in scheduling posterior spinal fusions (PSFs) due to operating room availability, particularly during school vacation. A solution is for 1 surgeon to perform 2 PSF cases back-to-back. This study aims to compare morning and afternoon PSF cases performed by the same surgeon for perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of PSF cases for IS that occurred on the same day as another PSF by the same surgeon between January 2013 and December 2019 was conducted. Perioperative outcomes included surgical time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and inpatient opioid consumption normalized by the patient's weight. Postoperative outcomes included complications, revision rate, curve correction, and patient-reported outcomes using the Scoliosis Research Society-30. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients (87% female), mean age 15.6 years, were analyzed, with 48 morning cases and 47 afternoon cases. The median follow-up was 1.9 years (range: 0.3 to 6.1 y). Tests for equivalency determined equivalence in median anesthesia and mean surgical duration (P=0.05). The groups had similar initial curve correction (P=0.43) and rate of complications at 90 days postoperative (2 in each group for a total of 4 complications). No significant differences were seen between Scoliosis Research Society-30 scores at 6 months or in those who have reached 2 years postoperative. CONCLUSIONS: Little literature exists on the safety of a surgeon performing 2 PSF cases in 1 day, particularly in regard to pain outcomes, 30- and 90-day complication rates, and quality of life measures. This study indicates that few differences in safety, pain, and quality of life outcomes may appear between morning and afternoon PSF cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Trends in Pediatric MRI sedation/anesthesia at a tertiary medical center over time.

BACKGROUND: Each year, hundreds of thousands of children require sedation/anesthesia to facilitate MRI scans. Anesthetic techniques for accomplishing sedation/anesthesia vary widely between institutions and providers, with unclear implications for patient safety. AIMS: We sought to establish trends in anesthetic practice for pediatric MRI sedation/anesthesia across a 7-year period and determine rates of adverse events, considering technique used, age, and ASA physical classification status (ASA-PS). METHODS: Using established data resources, we analyzed 24 052 anesthetics performed by anesthesiologists for MRI scans between 5/1/2013 and 12/31/2019 on patients less than 18 years old, focusing on medications used, trends of use, and associated adverse events. Adverse events (hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia) were defined by deviation from age norms and accessed via the electronic anesthetic record database. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess trends over time in categorical data, and one-way ANOVA was used to analyze continuous data. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was implemented to determine the independent associations between anesthetic technique and adverse events while adjusting for age, ASA-PS, and weight. RESULTS: The most significant trends noted were a decrease in "propofol-only" anesthetic techniques and an increase in propofol and dexmedetomidine combination techniques. Mild desaturation (80-89% SpO2 ) occurred in 4.22% of cases with more significant hypoxia much rarer (0.44% of cases having desaturation <70% SpO2 ). Bradycardia occurred in 2.39% of cases and hypotension in 1.75% of cases. Major adverse events were rare. CONCLUSIONS: We provide the largest report of the nature of MRI sedation/anesthesia as practiced by anesthesiologists in a large children's hospital. We demonstrate that, even in a large system, anesthetic techniques are pliable and shift significantly over time. Our data also support a high level of safety within our system, despite a case mix likely higher in risk than those in most of the previously published studies.

Free-breathing radial stack-of-stars three-dimensional Dixon gradient echo sequence in abdominal magnetic resonance imaging in sedated pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong need for improvements in motion robust T1-weighted abdominal imaging sequences in children to enable high-quality, free-breathing imaging. OBJECTIVE: To compare imaging time and quality of a radial stack-of-stars, free-breathing T1-weighted gradient echo acquisition (volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) three-dimensional (3-D) Dixon sequence in sedated pediatric patients undergoing abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) against conventional Cartesian T1-weighed sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board with informed consent obtained from all subjects. Study subjects included 31 pediatric patients (19 male, 12 female; median age: 5 years; interquartile range: 5 years) undergoing abdominal MRI at 3 tesla with a free-breathing T1-weighted radial stack-of-stars 3-D VIBE Dixon prototype sequence, StarVIBE Dixon (radial technique), between October 2018 and June 2019 with previous abdominal MR imaging using conventional Cartesian T1-weighed imaging (traditional technique). MRI component times were recorded as well as the total number of non-contrast T1-weighted sequences. Two radiologists independently rated images for quality using a scale from 1 to 5 according to the following metrics: overall image quality, hepatic edge sharpness, hepatic vessel clarity and respiratory motion robustness. Scores were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Mean T1-weighted imaging times for all subjects were 3.63 min for radial exams and 8.01 min for traditional exams (P<0.001), and total non-contrast imaging time was 32.7 min vs. 43.9 min (P=0.002). Adjusted mean total MRI time for all subjects was 60.2 min for radial exams and 65.7 min for traditional exams (P=0.387). The mean number of non-contrast T1-weighted sequences performed in radial MRI exams was 1.0 compared to 1.9 (range: 0-6) in traditional exams (P<0.001). StarVIBE Dixon outperformed Cartesian methods in all quality metrics. The mean overall image quality (scale 1-5) was 3.95 for radial exams and 3.31 for traditional exams (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Radial stack-of-stars 3-D VIBE Dixon during free-breathing abdominal MRI in pediatric patients offers improved image quality compared to Cartesian T1-weighted imaging techniques with decreased T1-weighted and total non-contrast imaging time. This has important implications for children undergoing sedation for imaging.

A survey of the global impact of COVID-19 on the practice of pediatric anesthesia: A study from the pediatric anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative Group.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric anesthesiology has been greatly impacted by COVID-19 in the delivery of care to patients and to the individual providers. With this study, we sought to survey pediatric centers and highlight the variations in care related to perioperative medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the availability of protective equipment, the practice of pediatric anesthesia, and economic impact. AIM: The aim of the survey was to determine how COVID-19 directly impacted pediatric anesthesia practices during the study period. METHODS: A survey concerning four major domains (testing, safety, clinical management/policy, economics) was developed. It was pilot tested for clarity and content by members of the Pediatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative. The survey was administered by email to all Pediatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative members on September 1, 2020. Respondents had six weeks to complete the survey and were instructed to answer the questions based on their institution's practice during September 1 - October 13, 2020. RESULTS: Sixty-three institutions (100% response rate) participated in the COVID-19 Pediatric Anesthesia Survey. Forty-one hospitals (65%) were from the United States, and 35% included other countries. N95 masks were available to anesthesia teams at 91% of institutions (n = 57) (95% CI: 80%-96%). COVID-19 testing criteria of anesthesia staff and guidelines to return to work varied by institution. Structured simulation training aimed at improving COVID-19 safety and patient care occurred at 62% of institutions (n = 39). Pediatric anesthesiologists were economically affected by a reduction in their employer benefits and restriction of travel due to employer imposed quarantine regulations. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the testing, safety, clinical management, and economics of pediatric anesthesia practice. Further investigation into the long-term consequences for the specialty is indicated.

Food allergy history and reaction to propofol administration in a large pediatric population.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis to propofol is rare; however, providers face a clinical quandary as medication warnings still exist regarding propofol administration to egg-, soy-, and peanut-allergic patients. AIMS: The primary aim evaluated the rate of allergic reactions during propofol-containing anesthesia in patients listed allergic to egg, soy, or peanut compared with nonallergic patients who received propofol. The secondary aim evaluated the relationship between food allergy history and allergy testing data. METHODS: A retrospective chart review conducted between May 2012 and October 2018 identified pediatric patients listed allergic to egg, soy, and/or peanut, who received propofol. Allergy testing and results are presented. Evidence of allergic reaction to propofol during anesthesia was evaluated, and compared with a large nonallergic cohort who received propofol. RESULTS: Of the 232 392 anesthetics administered, 177 360 (76%) included propofol and 11308 (6%) involved a patient listed allergic to at least 1 index food. A large number of patients had no food allergy testing (n = 6153) or negative testing (n = 2198). Of the 3435 patients listed egg-allergic, 976 tested positive; 750 tested negative; and 1709 had no testing. Of the 2011 patients listed soy-allergic, 322 tested positive; 585 tested negative; and 1104 had no testing. Additionally, 5862 patients were listed peanut-allergic; 1659 tested positive; 863 tested negative and 3340 had no testing. One record of proven propofol anaphylaxis occurred; it was in a patient without a history of food allergies. There were 6 other cases of suspected allergy to propofol. One had a peanut and tree nut allergy and was lost to follow-up; one had no testing available, while 4 patients had positive propofol allergy testing and positive allergy tests to other medications. The rate of proven propofol anaphylaxis during anesthesia in the nonallergic cohort was 0.06/10 000, and the rate in egg- and soy-allergic patients was 0/5446. One patient with a listed peanut allergy had a possible reaction to propofol. CONCLUSIONS: In the listed food-allergic cohort, the majority had no allergy testing or negative testing. We found no evidence of a relationship between food allergy history and perioperative propofol reaction. We suggest multiply allergic and atopic patients may have a similar likelihood of propofol reaction as with other medications.

Risk of Hypoxemia by Induction Technique Among Infants and Neonates Undergoing Pyloromyotomy.

BACKGROUND: In patients presenting for pyloromyotomy, most practitioners prioritize rapid securement of the airway due to concern for aspiration. However, there is a lack of consensus and limited evidence on the choice between rapid sequence induction (RSI) and modified RSI (mRSI). METHODS: The medical records of all patients presenting for pyloromyotomy from May 2012 to December 2018 were reviewed. The risk of hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation [Spo2], <90%) during induction was compared between RSI and mRSI cohorts for all patients identified as well as in the neonate subgroup by univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Complications (aspiration, intensive care unit admission, bradycardia, postoperative stridor, and hypotension) and initial intubation success for both cohorts were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients were identified: 181 in the RSI and 115 in the mRSI cohorts. RSI was associated with significantly higher rates of hypoxemia than mRSI (RSI, 30% [23%-37%]; mRSI, 17% [10%-24%]; P = .016). In multivariable logistic regression analysis of all patients, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of hypoxemia for RSI versus mRSI was 2.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-5.3; P = .003) and the OR of hypoxemia for multiple versus a single intubation attempt was 11.4 (95% CI, 5.8-22.5; P < .001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis of neonatal subgroup, the OR of hypoxemia for RSI versus mRSI was 6.5 (95% CI, 2.0-22.2; P < .001) and the OR of hypoxemia for multiple intubation versus single intubation attempts was 18.1 (95% CI, 4.7-40; P < .001). There were no induction-related complications in either the RSI and mRSI cohorts, and the initial intubation success rate was identical for both cohorts (78%). CONCLUSIONS: In infants presenting for pyloromyotomy, anesthetic induction with mRSI compared with RSI was associated with significantly less hypoxemia without an observed increase in aspiration events. In addition, the need for multiple intubation attempts was a strong predictor of hypoxemia. The increased risk of hypoxemia associated with RSI and multiple intubation attempts was even more pronounced in neonatal patients.

Aerosol barriers in pediatric anesthesiology: Clinical data supports FDA caution.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID19 pandemic drove the rapid development and adoption of physical barriers intended to protect providers from aerosols generated during airway management. We report our initial experience with aerosol barrier devices in pediatric patients and raise concerns that they may increase risk to patients. METHODS: In March 2020, we developed and implemented simulation training and use of plastic aerosol barrier devices as a component of our perioperative COVID-19 workflow. As part of our quality improvement process, we obtained detailed feedback via a web-based survey after cases were performed while using these aerosol barriers. RESULTS: Between March and June 2020, 36 pediatric patients age 1mo-18years with anatomically normal airways and either PCR confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were intubated under an aerosol barrier as part of urgent or emergent anesthetic care at our institution. Experienced providers had more difficulty than expected in six (16.7%) of the cases with four cases requiring multiple attempts to secure the airway and two cases involving pronounced difficulty in a single attempt. The aerosol barrier was perceived as a contributing factor to difficulty in all cases. CONCLUSION: The use of barriers may result in unanticipated difficulties with airway management, particularly in pediatric patients, which could lead to hypoxemia or other patient harm. Our initial experience in pediatric patients is the first such report in patients and provides clinical data which corroborates the simulation data prompting the FDA to withdraw support of barriers.

Bilateral Erector Spinae Blocks Decrease Perioperative Opioid Use After Pediatric Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the feasibility and efficacy of continuous bilateral erector spinae blocks for post-sternotomy pain in pediatric cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; patients were retrospectively matched 1:2 to control patients. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare dichotomous outcomes, and generalized linear models were used for continuous measures, both accounting for clusters. SETTING: Quaternary children's hospital, university setting. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 10 children ages five-to-17 years undergoing elective cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. INTERVENTIONS: Ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae blocks at the conclusion of the cardiac surgical procedure, with postoperative infusion of ropivacaine until chest tube removal. Postoperative management otherwise followed standardized guidelines. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar in the two groups. The median time to completion of the bilateral blocks was 16.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 14.8-19.3), and no major adverse events were identified. Pain scores were low in both groups. Postoperative opioid use at 48 hours, rendered as oral morphine equivalents, was significantly reduced in the patients receiving the blocks. Cluster-adjusted squared-root-transformed means ± standard error were 0.89 ± 0.06 mg/kg for patients receiving the blocks versus 1.05 ± 0.06 mg/kg for control patients (p = 0.04; raw medians 0.81 [IQR 0.41-1.04] v 1.10 [IQR 0.78-1.35] mg/kg, respectively). There were no differences in recovery metrics, length of stay, or complications. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral erector spinae blocks were associated with a reduction in opioid use in the first 48 hours after pediatric cardiac surgery compared with a matched cohort from the enhanced recovery program. Larger studies are needed to determine whether this can result in an improvement in recovery and patient satisfaction.