Pediatric Electroconvulsive Therapy: An Anesthesiologist's Perspective.

Proper planning and communication between psychiatry and anesthesiology teams is vital to conferring the greatest therapeutic benefit to children presenting for electroconvulsive therapy while minimizing risk. Anesthesia for the child undergoing electroconvulsive therapy should ideally provide deep hypnosis, ensure muscle relaxation to reduce injury, have minimal effect on seizure dynamics, and allow for rapid recovery to baseline neurologic and cardiopulmonary status. Unique factors for pediatric electroconvulsive therapy include the potential need for preoperative anxiolytic and inhalational induction of anesthesia, which must be weighed against the detrimental effects of anesthetic agents on the evoked seizure quality required for a successful treatment.

Systematic Review: Rectal Administration of Medications for Pediatric Procedural Sedation.

BACKGROUND: Per rectum (PR) medication delivery is an alternative to traditional oral (PO), intravenous (IV), or intramuscular (IM) administration of medication for procedural sedation of pediatric emergency department patients. However, many emergency physicians are unfamiliar with its use, and there are no widely adopted guidelines or reviews dedicated to this topic. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide emergency physicians with an overview of PR procedural sedation medications in pediatric patients. METHODS: We performed a PubMed literature search of relevant keywords limited to studies of human subjects published in English between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2017. We excluded case reports, general review articles, editorial/opinion pieces, correspondence, and abstracts. Two of the authors then conducted a structured review of the selected studies. RESULTS: A total of 315 PubMed citations meeting the search criteria were found. Twenty-eight articles were included for final detailed review. Only 4 of the 28 included studies were conducted in the emergency department setting. A total of 9 different medications have been studied for PR procedural sedation. Sedation effectiveness ranged from 40% to 98%. No life-threatening complications were reported in any of the included clinical trials. Hypoxia was found to occur in up to 10% of those receiving PR sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric procedural sedation with PR medications appears to be feasible, moderately effective, and safe based on our review of the current literature. However, further studies on its applicability in the emergency department setting are needed.

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

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

Use of Methohexital and Dexmedetomidine for Maintenance of Anesthesia in a Patient With Mitochondrial Myopathy: A Case Report.

Provision of anesthesia for patients with mitochondrial disorders is associated with a unique set of challenges. These disorders are rare, which complicates efforts to develop high quality, evidence-based guidelines to inform the perioperative management of those who suffer from them. Accordingly, case reports remain an important source of information regarding their care. Here we present the case of a 27-year-old female patient with mitochondrial myopathy and a history suggestive of malignant hyperthermia susceptibility who received general anesthesia for 2 consecutive surgeries. The induction agents included fentanyl, ketamine, and methohexital. The maintenance agents were methohexital, sufentanil, and dexmedetomidine.

Hyperlipidemia sink for anesthetic agents.

We present a case that involves anesthetic resistance during anesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy. Despite adequate dosing of both intravenous and inhalation anesthetics, our patient was resistant to induction of the state of general anesthesia. Subsequently, we noticed extreme hyperlipidemia. We hypothesized that the patient's extreme hyperlipidemia served as an anesthetic "sink" and prevented the full dose of intravenous agents from quickly reaching their intended site of action.

Post-electroconvulsive therapy recovery and reorientation time with methohexital and ketamine: a randomized, longitudinal, crossover design trial.

OBJECTIVES: Methohexital, a barbiturate anesthetic commonly used for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), possesses dose-dependent anticonvulsant properties, and its use can interfere with effective seizure therapy in patients with high seizure thresholds. Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist with epileptogenic properties not broadly used for ECT inductions, is a commonly used induction agent for general anesthesia. Recent studies suggest that the use of ketamine is effective in allowing successful ECT treatment in patients with high seizure thresholds without an increase in adverse effects. In this preliminary study, we directly compared the recovery and reorientation times of subjects receiving ketamine and methohexital for ECTs. METHODS: Twenty patients were randomized in a crossover design to receive methohexital and ketamine for ECT inductions in alternating fashion in 6 trials. Primary outcome measures were recovery time (voluntary movement, respiratory effort, blood pressure, consciousness, and O2 saturation) and reorientation time. Secondary outcome measures were individual recovery variables, adverse effect occurrence, and seizure duration. RESULTS: Overall recovery time was not significantly different between the 2 treatment arms (F(1, 17) = 0.72; P = 0.41). Reorientation time was faster in the methohexital arm (F(1, 17) = 9.23; P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Ketamine inductions resulted in higher number of adverse effects, higher subject dropout rates, and a longer reorientation time with respect to methohexital inductions. No significant difference in postanesthesia recovery time was found between the ketamine and methohexital arms. Intolerability to ketamine affected a significant proportion of subjects and suggests that ketamine should remain as an alternative or adjunctive agent for patients with high seizure thresholds.

Different regimens of intravenous sedatives or hypnotics for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adult patients with depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental disorder. It affects millions of people worldwide and is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be one of the leading causes of disability. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a well-established treatment for severe depression. Intravenous anaesthetic medication is used to minimize subjective unpleasantness and adverse side effects of the induced tonic-clonic seizure. The influence of different anaesthetic medications on the successful reduction of depressive symptoms and adverse effects is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This review evaluated the effects of different regimens of intravenous sedatives and hypnotics on anti-depression efficacy, recovery and seizure duration in depressed adults undergoing ECT. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 12); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (from 1966 to 31 December 2012); and EMBASE via Ovid SP (from 1966 to 31 December 2012). We handsearched related journals and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials evaluating the effects of different intravenous sedatives and hypnotics for ECT. We excluded studies and trials using placebo or inhalational anaesthetics and studies that used no anaesthetic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. When possible, data were pooled and risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were computed using the Cochrane Review Manager statistical package (RevMan). MAIN RESULTS: We included in the review 18 RCTs (599 participants; published between 1994 and 2012). Most of the included trials were at high risk of bias.We analysed the results of studies comparing six different intravenous anaesthetics.Only a few studies comparing propofol with methohexital (four studies) and with thiopental (three studies) could be pooled.No difference was noted in the reduction of depression scores observed in participants treated with propofol compared with methohexital (low-quality evidence). These four studies were not designed to detect differences in depression scores.The duration of electroencephalograph (EEG) and of motor seizures was shorter in the propofol group compared with the methohexital group (low-quality evidence). No difference was seen in EEG seizure duration when propofol was compared with thiopental (low-quality evidence).Time to recovery (following commands) was longer among participants after anaesthesia with thiopental compared with propofol (low-quality evidence).For the remaining comparisons of anaesthetics, only single studies or insufficient data were available. Adverse events were inadequately reported in eligible trials, and none of the included trials reported anaesthesia-related mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included studies were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence was generally low. The studies were not designed to detect clinically relevant differences in depression scores. Anaesthetic agents should be chosen on the basis of adverse effect profile, emergence and how these medications affect seizure duration. If it is difficult to elicit an adequately long seizure, methohexital may be superior to propofol (low-quality evidence). If a patient is slow to recover from anaesthesia, propofol may allow a faster time to follow commands than thiopental (low-quality evidence). A factor of clinical concern that was not addressed by any study was adrenal suppression from etomidate. Optimal dosages of intravenous sedatives or hypnotics have not yet been determined.Larger well-designed randomized studies are needed to determine which intravenous anaesthetic medication leads to the greatest improvement in depression scores with minimal adverse effects.

Methohexital and succinylcholine dosing for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT): actual versus ideal.

This report compares the actual doses of methohexital and succinylcholine used for optimal anesthesia and muscle relaxation in electroconvulsive therapy with written guidelines for dosing. The initial doses of methohexital and succinylcholine in milligrams per kilogram were reviewed and compared with subsequent doses of each agent after adjustments were made for individual patient responses during treatment. The dose of methohexital required to induce general anesthesia for most patients is 1.0 mg/kg. The dose of succinylcholine required to provide adequate muscle relaxation during electroconvulsive therapy is 0.9 mg/kg, although there is considerable variability in patient response to this drug.

[Methohexital for treatment of intracranial hypertension]. / Methohexital zur Therapie des erhöhten intrakraniellen Drucks.

BACKGROUND: Barbiturate coma therapy is a useful method to control increased intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with severe brain damage if standard measures have failed to lower ICP. Pentobarbital (not available in Germany) and thiopental (in Germany only approved for induction of anesthesia) have frequently been used in patients with intracranial hypertension and the effects and side-effects are well-described. However, little is known about the effect of methohexital (the only barbiturate in Germany approved for maintaining anesthesia) in lowering increased ICP. Therefore, the effect of methohexital on ICP was studied in patients where standard measures had failed to control intracranial hypertension. METHOD: A retrospective observational study was carried out with the inclusion criteria of patient age ≥18 years and methohexital therapy for 12 h or more with ICP monitoring in place. Methohexital was administered following a standardized algorithm to patients for whom standard measures, such as deep anesthesia, normoventilation, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) >65 mmHg, osmotherapy, neurosurgical evacuation of mass lesions, had failed to lower ICP. Methohexital was used if the ICP had risen above 20-25 mmHg for more the 20-30 min and otherwise manageable causes for the ICP increase had been ruled out. Methohexital was given continuously in addition to standard analgesia and sedation in doses of 2-4-6 mg/kg body weight (BW), depending on the ICP lowering effect. The records of the patient data management system from the years 2008/2009 were used to compare the ICP and CPP before and during methohexital administration. For statistical analyses Student's t-test was applied for measured values and the χ(2)-test was applied for percentage values whereby p<0.05 was defined as being statistically significant. RESULTS: During the study period 36 patients required methohexital therapy and 30 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 26 out of 30 patients the data were complete and these 26 patients were included in the data analyses. Of the patients 6 (23%) died due to elevated intracranial hypertension and 20 patients (77%) survived. In all patients methohexital lowered the ICP from 25.2 mmHg (standard deviation, SD ±4.3 mmHg) to 19.8 mmHg (SD ±12.5 mmHg) within the first 24 h, this result closely failed to reach a level of significance. In the 20 survivors methohexital lowered the ICP from 25.88 mmHg (SD ±4.8 mmHg) to 14.25 mmHg (SD ±6.9 mmHg) within the first 24 h, which is statistically highly significant. In non-survivors the ICP had risen from 24 mmHg (SD ±2.6 mmHg) to 32 mmHg (SD ±16.3 mmHg) within the first 24 h despite all efforts. Due to the CPP driven volume and vasopressor therapy no significant changes in the CPP during methohexital administration were observed. No significant changes in brain temperature (as possible cause for the decrease of the ICP) were observed. Non-survivors received significantly more methohexital due to increased ICP and required significantly more vasopressor therapy to maintain a sufficient CPP. CONCLUSIONS: Methohexital showed a clear trend for decreasing ICP in patients with intracranial hypertension refractory to standard therapeutic measures. In survivors the effect was highly significant. Patients not responding to methohexital therapy seemed to have an unfavorable outcome.

A comparison of methohexital versus etomidate for endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Methohexital has been used for procedural sedation in the emergency department, but its use for endotracheal intubation in intensive care units has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare methohexital with etomidate with respect to their effectiveness and safety of use for endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective, observational, single-center cohort study of consecutive patients admitted between December 2006 and August 2007 to a medical intensive care unit in a tertiary-care hospital. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients who received methohexital and 23 who received etomidate for endotracheal intubation were included. The 2 groups differed in age (mean [SD], 55 [13] vs 64 [13] years, P = .03) but not in baseline demographics or illness severity scores. Mean (SD) doses given were 1 (0.2) mg/kg for methohexital and 0.2 (0.1) mg/kg for etomidate. Use of midazolam, fentanyl, and succinylcholine was similar between the groups. Rates of successful intubation after 1 attempt (78% vs 83%), time to successful intubation (mean, 5.9 vs 4 minutes), and number of intubation attempts (mean, 1.5 vs 1.2) also were similar. Change in hemodynamics (delta systolic blood pressure), vasopressor requirements, and amount of fluid resuscitation (normal saline) did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of successful intubation are similar with etomidate and methohexital. Methohexital provides adequate sedation and could be an alternative to etomidate, although both agents were often associated with development of hypotension. Prospective studies are needed to establish the safety of methohexital use in intensive care patients.

Cardiac effects of induction agents in the septic rat heart.

INTRODUCTION: The current debate about the side effects of induction agents, e.g. possible adrenal suppression through etomidate, emphasizes the relevance of choosing the correct induction agent in septic patients. However, cardiovascular depression is still the most prominent adverse effect of these agents, and might be especially hazardous in septic patients presenting with a biventricular cardiac dysfunction--or so-called septic cardiomyopathy. Therefore, we tested the dose-response direct cardiac effects of clinically available induction agents in an isolated septic rat heart model. METHODS: A polymicrobial sepsis was induced via cecal ligation and single puncture. Hearts (n = 50) were isolated and randomly assigned to five groups, each receiving etomidate, s(+)-ketamine, midazolam, propofol, or methohexitone at concentrations of 1 x 10-8 to 1 x 10-4 M. Left ventricular pressure, contractility and lusitropy, and coronary flow were measured. Cardiac work, myocardial oxygen delivery, oxygen consumption, and percentage of oxygen extraction were calculated. RESULTS: All of the induction agents tested showed a dose-dependent depression of cardiac work. Maximal cardiac work dysfunction occurred in the rank order of s(+)-ketamine (-6%)

Comparison of methohexital and pentobarbital as sedative agents for pediatric emergency department patients for computed tomography.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if there are differences in the duration of sedation between pediatric emergency department (PED) patients receiving methohexital and PED patients receiving pentobarbital for the purpose of obtaining a head computed tomographic (CT) scan. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of PED patients receiving either methohexital or pentobarbital for a sedated head CT. Data were collected on patient demographics and medical condition, indications for head CT, duration of sedation, medication dosage, and medication adverse events. Primary analyses investigated whether there were differences between the 2 groups. Secondary analysis determined whether the need for additional sedative doses contributed to observed differences between groups. RESULTS: The patients receiving methohexital completed their head CT more quickly and needed less total sedation monitoring than those receiving pentobarbital. The need for additional doses of medication does not appear to be responsible for the observed difference. Adverse medication events were minor and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Methohexital may be superior to pentobarbital for the purpose of sedating PED patients for head CT.

Evaluation of sedation failure in the outpatient oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to report on the incidence of sedation failures in our outpatient oral surgery clinic. Sedation failure is the inability to complete a procedure under intravenous sedation. There is very little in the oral surgery literature on this subject. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Proper Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the appropriate governing body for this project. The medical records of 539 intravenous sedation patients treated at the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinic at our institution were retrospectively evaluated to determine the incidence of failed sedation. Patients sedated with midazolam and fentanyl were placed in group A. There were 323 patients in group A. We placed patients sedated with midazolam, fentanyl and methohexital into group B. There were 216 patients in group B. The gender, medical history, type of procedure being performed, amount of drug given, and the patient's vital signs throughout the procedure were recorded. RESULTS: There were 9 failed sedations with a rate of 1.6% (9/539); 3 in group B (1%) and 6 in group A (2%). Five of our failures were undergoing multiple tooth extractions. Two of the failures were undergoing surgical removal of impacted third molars. Two patients underwent mandibular fracture reduction. Failure was attributed to increased agitation and combativeness, uncontrolled hypertension, tachycardia and desaturation. CONCLUSION: The mandible fracture population and multiple teeth extraction patients had higher rates of failure than other groups. This may be the result of procedure length, type of procedure, or a preoperative anxiety and attitude toward treatment expressed by the patient making sedation unpredictable. Level of training and experience of the practitioner may contribute to sedation failure. These results allow us to develop a prospective study protocol of outpatient sedation and to quantify more detailed information about preoperative anxiety, medical status, and social history than we had available during our chart review. More specific conclusions may help us determine if certain patient populations are at a higher risk for failed sedations.

Seizures during intracarotid methohexital and amobarbital testing.

BACKGROUND: Methohexital and amobarbital have been used as agents for Wada testing in the presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy. Previous experience with methohexital as an anesthetic indicates that methohexital may decrease seizure threshold and may trigger seizures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 760 intracarotid amobarbital and methohexital tests was performed to determine the frequency of seizures associated with preoperative intracarotid barbiturate testing for language and memory lateralization. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (2.1%) who had seizures were found. In 3 patients, seizures occurred prior to barbiturate injection, and in 13, following barbiturate injection. After injection of amobarbital, 4 of 538 patients (0.7%) had a seizure. Nine of 222 patients had a seizure after methohexital injection (4.1%) (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with a previous history of epilepsy may be at higher risk for seizures after methohexital injection as compared with amobarbital injection.

Bispectral index-controlled anaesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy.

BACKGROUND: The suggested induction dose of methohexital for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) varies widely influencing efficacy of ECT and safety of anaesthesia. Bispectral index (BIS), a monitor of consciousness, may be useful to assure adequate hypnosis with optimized methohexital dose. METHODS: Patients with medically resistant major depression (ICD10), scheduled for multiple ECT's, were studied. Depth of anaesthesia was BIS controlled. ECT was not performed until BIS dropped below 50. Initially anaesthesia was induced with methohexital 1.0 mg kg(-1), and stepwise reduced by 0.1 mg kg(-1) during consecutive treatments. If BIS did not drop below 50, the methohexital was supplemented by further boluses of 0.5 mg kg(-1), until the desired level of hypnosis was reached. The adequacy of the anaesthetic recommendation for methohexital (1.0-1.5 mg kg(-1)) as well as the psychiatric recommendation (0.75-1 mg kg(-1)) was investigated. RESULTS: One-hundred and nine ECT's in 14 patients were studied. The recommended anaesthetic dose (1.0-1.5 mg kg(-1)) was inadequate in 40% of the treatments, with 12% exceeding 1.5 mg kg(-1), and 28% below 1.0 mg kg(-1). Psychiatric recommendation (0.75-1.0 mg kg(-1)) was inadequate in 49%, with 39% exceeding 1.0 mg kg(-1) and 10% undershooting at 0.75 mg kg(-1). CONCLUSIONS: Methohexital for ECT showed a great variability, exceeding as well as undershooting the dosage recommendations widely. BIS monitoring may be useful to secure adequate hypnosis during muscle relaxation and treatment and may optimize ECT efficacy.

Dose-dependent influence of barbiturates but not of propofol on human leukocyte phagocytosis of viable Staphylococcus aureus.

OBJECTIVE: Deep sedation with barbiturates or propofol is a standard therapy for patients with critically elevated intracranial pressure. Such patients are prone to infectious complications, especially to pneumonias, which are most commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Although various immunomodulatory effects of barbiturates have been described in vitro, their influence on the phagocytosis of viable S. aureus has yet to be investigated. Therefore, we examined the effects of thiopentone, methohexitone, and propofol on the phagocytosis of viable S. aureus. DESIGN: Laboratory study. SETTING: University laboratory. PATIENTS: Ten healthy volunteers aged 32.5 +/- 7 yrs. INTERVENTIONS: Blood sampling. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Whole blood samples were preincubated with different concentrations of thiopentone, methohexitone, and propofol, which is an isopropylphenol derivate. After viable S. aureus was added, phagocytosis was stopped at different time points. Leukocytes were then stained with monoclonal antibodies for flow cytometric analysis of granulocyte recruitment (ratio of ingesting granulocytes) and phagocytosis activity (fluorescence intensity of ingested bacteria). Both barbiturates inhibited granulocyte recruitment and phagocytosis activity in a dose-dependent manner, whereas propofol did not affect any of the investigated variables. At concentrations higher than 7.6 x 10(-3) M (for thiopentone, p < .008) and 1.1 x 10(-3) M (for methohexitone, p < .04), granulocyte recruitment and phagocytosis activity were significantly inhibited. The calculated inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of thiopentone for granulocyte recruitment and for phagocytosis activity were 1.3 x 10(-2) M and 1.1 x 10(-2) M, respectively. The corresponding values for methohexitone were 3.6 x 10(-3) M and 1.1 x 10(-3) M. CONCLUSIONS: Our in vitro model points at substantially different effects of barbiturates and propofol on phagocytosis of S. aureus, which is one of the most important pathogens in patients who need neuroprotective therapy. The inhibitory effects of both barbiturates demonstrate a strong dose-dependency, with more pronounced effects for methohexitone. Impairment of phagocytosis activity was more pronounced than granulocyte recruitment.

Bispectral analysis during pediatric procedural sedation.

OBJECTIVE: Bispectral analysis (BIS) is a technology using EEG information from a forehead electrode to calculate an index (0-100; 0 = coma, 90-100 = awake). Our objective was to determine the degree of agreement between sedation scales and BIS values in pediatric patients undergoing sedation. METHODS: Patients ages 2 to 17 years, undergoing procedural sedation, were enrolled. Sedation was performed in the customary manner with the addition of BIS monitoring and assessment of a clinical sedation scale: the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S), every 5 minutes during the sedation procedure. Clinical scales were performed by an investigator blinded to the BIS index. The association between a clinical scale and BIS scores was analyzed using longitudinal regression analysis. RESULTS: We enrolled 47 subjects; 55% were sedated with ketamine and midazolam and the remaining 45% received methohexital, propofol or midazolam and a narcotic. The results of the regression analysis demonstrated a highly significant association between the OAA/S score and BIS value (beta = 5.0, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7, P < 0.0001). Patients were divided into 2 groups, those sedated with ketamine and those sedated with nonketamine medications. The association between OAA/S score and BIS value was not statistically significant for the ketamine population (beta = 0.809, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.7, P = 0.09), but remained significant for the nonketamine subjects (beta = 8.6, 95% CI 7.7 to 9.4, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The OAA/S sedation scale predicts the BIS value for pediatric patients undergoing procedural sedation when sedated with certain medications, excluding ketamine.