Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Use in Pediatric Patients for Anxiolysis in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: In recent years, dexmedetomidine has gained traction as a treatment for anxiolysis in the emergency department (ED). When used with an atomizer, it may also be given intranasally for anxiolysis. The primary objective was to determine the level of ED provider satisfaction and comfort with intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine for anxiolysis in pediatric patients with behavioral agitation and/or acute psychosis. The secondary objectives included determining safety, rates of therapy failure, and ED length of stay compared with oral midazolam. The efficacy of IN dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam in patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was also evaluated. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective study in a pediatric ED from March 1 to December 31, 2021. Patients were included in the study if the ED provider requested IN dexmedetomidine anxiolysis and completed a postadministration survey. Safety and efficacy outcomes were assessed by chart review and compared with patients who received oral midazolam during the same study period. Efficacy was defined as the rate of treatment failure, as the need for procedural termination, progression to procedural sedation, or the requirement of additional medications for anxiolysis. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients received IN dexmedetomidine {median dose [interquartile range (IQR)] of 3.05 [2.04-4.00] µg/kg/dose} compared with 58 who received oral midazolam [median (IQR) dose of 0.29 (0.25-0.48) mg/kg/dose). Providers reported high comfort and satisfaction scores, with median (IQR) scores of 90 (75-100) and 88 (60-100) of 100. Twenty-nine percent of patients experienced treatment failure, most commonly because of the need for additional medications. Those who received IN dexmedetomidine had a longer ED length of stay (6.0 vs 4.4 hours, P = 0.010). Among the patients with ASD, those who received IN dexmedetomidine had a lower rate of treatment failure compared with oral midazolam (21.2% vs 66.7%, P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that IN dexmedetomidine has high levels of provider comfort and satisfaction, moderately high success rate, and a promising safety profile. In addition, IN dexmedetomidine may be superior to oral midazolam in patients with ASD for anxiolysis, but additional studies are needed.

Off-label Medication Prescribing Patterns in Pediatrics: An Update.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the frequency of off-label drug use in 2014 as defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved age ranges in patients ≤18 years of age, to determine the rate of off-label drug use in 2014 by drug classification, and to compare current off-label medication usage rates with historical rates. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of an administrative database containing inpatient resource use data from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014. Patients ≤18 years of age receiving 1 of 76 selected commonly prescribed medications are included. Off-label drug use is defined as use in a patient younger than the lower limit of the FDA-approved age range for any indication or dosage form of that drug. RESULTS: At least 1 drug was prescribed off label in 779 270 of 2 773 770 (28.1%) patient visits during the study period. Younger age, longer hospital stays, and mortality were associated with higher rates of off-label medication prescription. Off-label usage of certain medications differed between care settings. Rates of off-label medication use were higher in observational (45.5%), inpatient (53.9%), and ambulatory (54.2%) settings. CONCLUSIONS: Although off-label drug use at major US pediatric hospitals is declining, 1 out of every 4 medications is not in accordance with FDA label indications for patient age. There exists substantial variation in off-label drug use among drug categories and encounter types. Although many commonly prescribed medications are FDA-approved for use in subpopulations of pediatric patients, studies of their safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and optimal dosing are ongoing.

Are We Adequately Treating Pain in Children Who Present to US Emergency Departments?: Factors That Contribute to Pain Treatment in Pediatric Patients.

OBJECTIVES: There are no recent national data on analgesic use for pain treatment in children. Our objective was to determine if there is adequate pain treatment for children in US emergency departments (EDs) and determine predictors of nonopioid and opioid analgesic administration. METHODS: Children younger than 18 years with the diagnosis of extremity fracture, appendicitis, or urinary tract stones were obtained from the National Health Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) (2006-2010) and analyzed using logistic regression for complex samples. There were 2 analyses: (1) those who received analgesics versus those who did not; and (2) of those who received analgesics, opioid versus nonopioid analgesic use. RESULTS: There were 1341 records analyzed representing 4.5 million ED visits. Those who received analgesics were more likely to be older than age of 3 years (P = 0.05), be discharged from the hospital (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.94), arrive between noon and midnight (OR, 0.1.85; CI, 1.12-3.03), and have a higher pain rating (P < 0.01). Children who received opioid analgesics were more likely to live outside the Northeast (P = 0.04), require admission (OR, 2.95; CI, 1.09-7.98), have a higher acuity triage level (OR, 1.79; CI, 1.04-3.06), have higher pain scores (P < 0.01), and have private insurance (OR, 1.75; CI, 1.06-2.94). CONCLUSIONS: There is still a lot of room for improvement of pediatric pain control in US EDs. We aim to apply this information toward direct physician and nursing education interventions, including the recognition of age appropriate pain cues, and parental information and guidance to improve pediatric pain treatment in US EDs.

Indicators and outcomes of transfer to tertiary pediatric hospitals for patients with testicular torsion.

INTRODUCTION: Testicular torsion threatens testicular viability with increased risk of loss with delayed management. Still, healthy adolescents continue to be transferred from community hospitals to tertiary hospitals for surgical management for torsion even though adult urologists may be available. We sought to determine reasons behind patient transfer and to evaluate whether transfer to tertiary centers for testicular torsion leads to increased rates of testicular loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for patients presenting to our free-standing pediatric tertiary care facility with surgically confirmed testicular torsion during the 5-year period between January 2011 and January 2016. Data was collected regarding transfer status, patient demographics, time of presentation to our facility, duration of symptoms, patient workup, and surgical outcomes. Patients with perinatal or intermittent torsion were excluded. RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-six of those were transferred from outside facilities while 89 presented directly to our hospital. A greater proportion of the transferred patients presented during nights or weekends than those presenting directly to our facility (77.8% versus 51.7%, p = 0.009). Eighty-nine patients presented with symptom duration of less than 24 h and had potentially viable testicles. Of those, 23 were transferred and 66 presented directly to our hospital. Differences are shown in the Table. Transferred patients had twice the rate of testicular loss as those not transferred, although the results were not significant (30.4% versus 15.2%, p = 0.129). Patients undergoing ultrasound prior to transfer had prolonged symptom duration and faced higher rates of testicular loss when compared with patients not transferred, although the latter was not significant (mean duration 8.0 versus 4.9 h, p = 0.025, and testicular loss 40.0% versus 15.2%, p = 0.065, respectively). Patients transferred over 30 miles had over 2.5 times the rate of testicular loss than those not transferred (42.8% versus 15.2%, p = 0.029). DISCUSSION: This study is unique in its examination of motivations for transfer of patients presenting with testicular torsion and in its evaluation of the impact of transfer on testicular salvage rates for potentially viable testicles (those with less than 24 h since symptom onset). CONCLUSION: Patients are more likely to be transferred to our tertiary pediatric facility for management of testicular torsion during the night or weekend. Transferring patients for management of testicular torsion delays definitive management and threatens testicular viability, especially in those transferred greater distances. Urologists at the facility of initial patient presentation should correct testicular torsion when able.