Creation of a Pediatric Sedation Risk Assessment Scoring System: A Novel Method to Stratify Risk.

This study aimed to create a pediatric sedation scoring system independent of the American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification that is predictive of adverse events, facilitates objective stratification, and resource allocation. Multivariable regression and machine learning algorithm analysis of 134,973 sedation encounters logged in to the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC) database between July 2007 and June 2011. Patient and procedure variables were correlated with adverse events with resultant ß -regression coefficients used to assign point values to each variable. Point values were then summed to create a risk assessment score. Validation of the model was performed with the 2011 to 2013 PSRC database followed by calculation of ROC curves and positive predictive values. Factors identified and resultant point values are as follows: 1 point: age ≤ 6 months, cardiac diagnosis, asthma, weight less than 5th percentile or greater than 95 th , and computed tomography (CT) scan; 2 points: magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and weight greater than 99th percentile; 4 points: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); 5 points: trisomy 21 and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD); 7 points: cough at the time of examination; and 18 points: bronchoscopy. Sum of patient and procedural values produced total risk assessment scores. Total risk assessment score of 5 had a sensitivity of 82.69% and a specificity of 26.22%, while risk assessment score of 11 had a sensitivity of 12.70% but a specificity of 95.29%. Inclusion of ASA-PS value did not improve model sensitivity or specificity and was thus excluded. Higher risk assessment scores predicted increased likelihood of adverse events during sedation. The score can be used to triage patients independent of ASA-PS with site-specific cut-off values used to determine appropriate sedation resource allocation.

Parental Educational Intervention to Facilitate Informed Consent for Pediatric Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Trial.

Obtaining valid parental informed consent for pediatric procedures in the emergency department (ED) is challenging. We compared a video-assisted informed consent intervention with conventional discussion to inform parents about pediatric procedural sedation in the ED. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial using a convenience sample including the parents of children in the ED in whom procedural sedation for facial laceration was recommended. The video group watched an informational video. Conventional group participants received information from physicians during conventional discussion. The primary outcome was knowledge improvement of the video intervention compared with conventional discussion. The secondary outcome was parental satisfaction. Video and conventional groups comprised 32 and 30 participants, respectively. Mean knowledge scores of parents after intervention [±standard deviation] were higher in the video group (91.67 ± 12.70) than in the conventional group (73.33 ± 19.86). Knowledge score differences were significantly bigger in the video group (coefficient: 18.931, 95% confidence interval: 11.146-26.716). Video group participants reported greater satisfaction than conventional group participants. Parents' comprehension of and satisfaction with the informed consent process for pediatric procedural sedation may be improved with the use of an educational video. Standardized approaches should be developed by healthcare institutions to better educate parents, facilitate treatment decisions, and boost satisfaction in the ED.

Nurses' Perceptions of the Quality of Procedural Sedation in Children Comparing Different Pharmacological Regimens.

Nurses play a pivotal role during pediatric procedural sedation and their perspective is an important indicator for the quality of care. The aim of this study is to examine nurses' satisfaction comparing four different pharmacological regimens used for pediatric sedation outside of the operating room. A prospective observational study was conducted in a third-level pediatric teaching hospital, involving all the nurses with experience in the field of pediatric procedural sedation. A 13-item survey was used to assess the level of nurses' satisfaction for the quality of sedation with four different analgesic-sedative drugs. Fifty-one questionnaires were completed by pediatric nurses, with a median length of experience of 10 years. Regarding the overall quality of the sedation, the highest median satisfaction scores were observed for propofol (8, IQR 7-9), dexmedetomidine (8, IQR 6-8) and midazolam (8, IQR 7-9). Ketamine (5, IQR 3-7) displayed the lowest score. When asked to rate their level of perceived safety, nurses gave high scores to all the four drugs studied, with no statistically significant difference between them. Non-pharmacological techniques during procedural sedation were judged as important by 38 (74.5%) nurses. According to this sample of pediatric nurses, the best quality of procedural sedation in children outside of the operating room is obtained with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam. During procedural sedation, nurses feel safe overall, regardless of the pharmacological regimen used. Moreover, they highlighted the relevance on non-pharmacological approaches in the preparation of the child for the procedure.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine association allows shorter induction time for pediatric sedation compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam.

BACKGROUND: Non-painful diagnostic procedures require an inactive state for a prolonged time, so that sedation is often needed in younger children to perform the procedures. Our standard of care in this setting consists of the association between oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 mcg/kg). One of the limits of this approach is that the onset of action is quite delayed (up to 55 min) and poorly predictable. We chose to compare this association with intranasal-ketamine and intranasal-dexmedetomidine. METHODS: This is a "pre-post" study. The study population included the first forty children receiving sedation with the "new" combination intranasal ketamine (3 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 mcg/kg) compared to a historical cohort including the last forty children receiving sedation with our standard of care combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine (4mcg/kg) and oral midazolam (0,5 mg/kg). RESULTS: The association intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine allowed for a significantly shorter sedation induction time than the combination intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam (13,5 min versus 35 min). Both group's cumulative data showed a correlation between age and sedation effectiveness, with younger children presenting a higher success rate and shorter induction time (p 0,001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the ketamine and dexmedetomidine intranasal association may have a shorter onset of action when compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam.

Pediatric procedural sedation in Japan: A single-facility study of 1,436 cases.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) has been established worldwide as standard practice for several decades. However, there are no comprehensive guidelines or multi-facility databases of PPS in Japan, and the current status of PPS and PPS-related adverse events is unclear. The objectives of this study were to investigate the status of PPS in Japan and clarify the adverse events and risk factors. METHODS: This study was a single-facility, database survey performed at Oita University Hospital from September 2016 to March 2019. Children under 18 years of age who had been kept sedated for medical procedures with intravenous sedatives were enrolled in this study. Adverse events were recorded and defined according to the Quebec Guideline. RESULTS: During the study period, PPS was performed for 1,436 consecutive cases. The majority (94%) of the sedatives used were thiamylal alone or thiamylal combined with ketamine. There were a total of 253 adverse events in 233 cases (16.2%), including oxygen desaturation, airway hypersensitivity, and vomiting. Patients recovered from respiratory-related adverse events immediately with simple intervention. No patient required endotracheal intubation and no severe adverse event occurred. Four risk factors (a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, longer procedure time, non-compliance of nil per os status, and no Pediatric Advanced Life Support certification for sedation personnel) were associated with the occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events occurred in 16.2% of all PPS cases. Further studies are needed to analyze the serious adverse events and risk factors for PPS in Japan.

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.

Virtual Reality for Pediatric Sedation: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Simulation.

INTRODUCTION: Team training for procedural sedation for pediatric residents has traditionally consisted of didactic presentations and simulated scenarios using high-fidelity mannequins. We assessed the effectiveness of a virtual reality module in teaching preparation for and management of sedation for procedures. METHODS: After developing a virtual reality environment in Second Life® (Linden Lab, San Francisco, CA) where providers perform and recover patients from procedural sedation, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of the virtual reality module versus a traditional web-based educational module. A 20 question pre- and post-test was administered to assess knowledge change. All subjects participated in a simulated pediatric procedural sedation scenario that was video recorded for review and assessed using a 32-point checklist. A brief survey elicited feedback on the virtual reality module and the simulation scenario. RESULTS: The median score on the assessment checklist was 75% for the intervention group and 70% for the control group (P = 0.32). For the knowledge tests, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.14). Users had excellent reviews of the virtual reality module and reported that the module added to their education. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric residents performed similarly in simulation and on a knowledge test after a virtual reality module compared with a traditional web-based module on procedural sedation. Although users enjoyed the virtual reality experience, these results question the value virtual reality adds in improving the performance of trainees. Further inquiry is needed into how virtual reality provides true value in simulation-based education.

Soft tissue trauma and scar revision.

Numerous techniques and treatments have been described for scar revision, with most studies focusing on the adult population. A comprehensive review of the literature reveals a paucity of references related specifically to scar revision in children. This review describes the available modalities in pediatric facial scar revision. The authors have integrated current practices in soft tissue trauma and scar revision, including closure techniques and materials, topical therapy, steroid injection, cutaneous laser therapy, and tissue expanders.