The safety of propofol sedation for elective nonintubated esophagogastroduodenoscopy in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of deep sedation provided by pediatric intensivists for elective nonintubated esophagogastroduodenoscopy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The sedation program at the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital. PATIENTS: A 4-year retrospective analysis was done on all outpatient elective pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures performed in an intensivist run sedation program. Safety was examined by reviewing the occurrence of minor and major adverse effects during esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation. Interventions were studied and reported. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 12,447 sedations were performed by the pediatric sedation program for various procedures. Two thousand one hundred forty-seven patients received 2,325 sedations (18.6%) for esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed for various indications. During the same time period, 53 (one for every 40 esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedations) were screened, found unsuitable for nonintubated sedation, and referred for general anesthesia. There were 2,254 sedations with propofol, 65 methohexital, five ketamine, and one fentanyl/midazolam sedation. Propofol sedation proved safe with a 2.1% prevalence of minor adverse events and no major events. Methohexital, on the other hand, had higher rate (p < 0.001) of minor events and one patient developed an anaphylactic reaction to its use. Regression analysis showed that other sedative agents were 8.6 times more likely to be associated with complications than propofol (odds ratio, 8.6; 95% CI, 4.1-18.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that deep sedation for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopies can be provided safely in the appropriately screened patient by nonanesthesiologist physicians in a sedation program. These data suggest that propofol is a safe and effective agent for esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation.

Randomized controlled trial for intermittent versus continuous propofol sedation for pediatric brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging studies.

OBJECTIVES: Intermittent bolus propofol is an effective agent for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging sedation but requires constant vigilance and dose titration. Magnetic resonance imaging-compatible infusion pumps may make it possible to continuously infuse propofol, achieving a steady level of sedation at a lower total dose. This study investigates total propofol dose, recovery time, and magnetic resonance image quality in children receiving intermittent vs. continuously infused propofol sedation in children undergoing brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging studies. DESIGN: An open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled study. A single-blinded radiologist rated the quality of magnetic resonance images. SETTING: Children's hospital pediatric radiology sedation center. PATIENTS: One hundred seventy children age 1 month to 18 yrs undergoing deep sedation for brain, spine, or both brain and spine magnetic resonance imaging. INTERVENTIONS: After informed consent, patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 (intermittent) received a propofol bolus of 2-4 mg/kg, followed by repeat boluses of 0.5-2 mg/kg/dose as needed. Group C (continuous) received a bolus of propofol 2-4 mg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of 100 µg/kg/min with 1-mg/kg/dose boluses with drip titration to effect. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient demographics, sedation risk assessment, propofol dose, sedation recovery times, incidence of complications, and quality of the magnetic resonance imaging studies were measured. A total of 170 children were enrolled in the study, with 75 in group C and 95 in group I. Both groups were similar with regard to age, weight, gender, and magnetic resonance imaging study type. Group C required a lesser dose of propofol (132 ± 54 µg/kg/min) compared to (162 ± 74 µg/kg/min) in that required in group I (p = .018). There were no differences between the two groups with regard to quality of the imaging study, recovery time, or incidence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to intermittent bolus dosing, continuous propofol infusion provides lesser dose exposure without impacting recovery time or quality of the magnetic resonance imaging study.