Future of paediatric sedation: towards a unified goal of improving practice.

This review offers a perspective on the future of paediatric sedation. This future will require continued evaluation of adverse events, their risk factors, and predictors. As the introduction of new sedatives with paediatric applications will remain limited, the potential role of mainstay sedatives administered by new routes, for new indications, and with new delivery techniques, should be considered. The role of non-pharmacological strategies for anxiolysis, along with the application of non-mainstay physiologic monitoring, may aid in the improvement of targeted sedation delivery. Understanding the mechanism and location of action of the different sedatives will remain an important focus. Important developments in paediatric sedation will require that large scale studies with global data contribution be conducted in order to support changes in sedation practice, improve the patient experience, and make sedation safer.

The pearls of pediatric sedation: polish the old and embrace the new.

Over the past decade, as the complexity and breadth of pediatric procedures increases, the actual choices of approved sedatives have remained relatively stagnant. Since the introduction of midazolam, there has not been a sedative approved for pediatric labelling until December 2018. This December, the European approval of ADV6209 (Ozalin) for pediatric usage marked the newest addition to the pediatric sedative armamentarium in over a decade. This review is timely and significant because it will provide a balanced evaluation of the most common sedatives in use today, the most recent sedative to be approved and, most importantly, a critical look at the literature supporting the latest approaches to the most commonly performed procedures.

Association of GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms with DNA damage in coal-tar workers.

DNA damage was evaluated by alkaline comet assay in peripheral blood lymphocytes of 115 coal-tar workers occupationally exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 105 control subjects. The effect of polymorphisms of glutathione S-transferase (GST) genotypes on the DNA damage was assessed. The mean tail moment (TM) value in the coal-tar workers was significantly higher as compared to the control subjects (12.06 ± 0.55 versus 0.44 ± 0.31; P<0.05). No significant association (P>0.05) between the GSTT1 and GSTM1 genotypes and the TM values was found, however highest mean rank TM value was reported in GSTM1 null and GSTT1 null genotypes in both control and exposed subjects. Our results suggest that there is increased DNA damage in coal-tar workers due to PAHs exposure. Polymorphisms in GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes do not show significant effect (P>0.05) on DNA damage.

Adverse events and behavioral reactions related to ketamine based anesthesia for anorectal manometry in children.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients undergoing anorectal manometry require ketamine anesthesia as other anesthetic agents affect the anorectal sphincter tone. The aim of this prospective observational audit was to evaluate our practice and report the occurrence of adverse events and behavioral reactions related to the use of ketamine, propofol, and midazolam combinations. METHODS: Eighty-two consecutive pediatric patients (mean age 8.06 +/- 3.43 years) undergoing anorectal manometry were audited over a 1-year period. After a routine ketamine anesthetic some children were administered midazolam 0.1 mg.kg(-1), at the discretion of the attending anesthetist. Children requiring anal stretch following manometry studies also received propofol 3-5 mg.kg(-1). Intra- and postoperative adverse events, times to spontaneous awakening and discharge from the PACU were noted. Postoperative behavioral reactions were noted in the PACU and at follow-up interviews on the first postoperative day and after a period of 1 month. RESULTS: Following completion of the audit, all patients fell into one of the four groups depending on the anesthetic agents they received: K (ketamine only, n = 16), KM (ketamine and midazolam, n = 10), KP (ketamine and propofol, n = 27), and KPM (ketamine, propofol, and midazolam, n = 29). There was no difference in the occurrence of behavioral reactions between the four groups at the three stages of follow-up. Overall, five patients reported 'new onset' nightmares that had resolved completely at the 3-month follow-up. The time to spontaneous awakening was shorter for K group (17.8 min +/- 20.2) vs KPM group (61.7 min +/- 24.4; P < 0.001). The times to discharge in minutes was also shorter in the K group (54.5 min, IQR 30-75 vs 90 min IQR 78-120; P < 0.001). Administration of propofol appeared to have an antiemetic effect [odds ratio (OR) 0.1, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.02-0.58, P < 0.009] in the recovery unit. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings suggest that, besides significantly prolonging time to spontaneous awakening and PACU discharge, neither the use of midazolam, propofol, or combinations is beneficial in preventing the occurrence of behavioral reactions following ketamine anesthesia. Behavioral reactions were common but did not appear to be long-term. Drug combinations with ketamine may have other benefits such as antiemesis.