A Comparative Analysis of Prehospital Emergency Treatments: Midazolam Intramuscularly, Diazepam Enema, and Chloral Hydrate Enema for Pediatric Convulsions.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of prehospital emergency treatments using midazolam (MDL) intramuscularly, diazepam (DZP) enema, and chloral hydrate (CH) enema in managing pediatric convulsions. Methods: A comparative observational study was conducted, and a total of 140 children with acute convulsions treated with prehospital anti-convulsions at Qinhuangdao First Hospital's emergency department between June 2015 and May 2019 were included in this study. The children were categorized based on the prehospital anti-convulsion measures received: group M (n = 48) received MDL intramuscularly, group D (n = 46) received DZP enema, and group C (n = 46) received CH enema. The emergency effects of the three treatment groups were compared. Results: 1. Group M showed significantly shorter treatment preparation time and total rescue time compared to groups C and D (both P < .05); no significant difference was observed between groups C and D (both P > .05), including convulsion control time in the effective cases (45 in group M, 42 in group C, and 43 in group D) (all P > .05 Group M had effective rates of 93.75%, while group C and group D had rates of 91.3% and 93.48%, respectively (all P > .05); Group M had more controlled cases at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min, and 10 min than group C and group D (all P > .05). Group M had significantly fewer relapses, cases requiring intravenous maintenance treatment, and faster convulsion control after intravenous maintenance compared to groups C and D (P < .05), with no significant differences between groups C and D in time to recovery of consciousness and length of hospitalization (P > .05). 4. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), respiratory (R) frequency, and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) showed no significant differences before and 10 minutes after medication in all three groups (P > .05); SBP and DBP levels fluctuated within the normal range, while HR decreased, R frequency decreased, and SpO2 increased significantly 10 minutes after medication compared to before treatment (P < .05). 5. No significant adverse effects were observed in the three patient groups. Conclusions: MDL intramuscular injection, DZP enema, and CH enema were effective prehospital treatments for pediatric acute convulsions. MDL intramuscular injection demonstrated advantages such as fast onset, reliable efficacy, ease of use, and high safety, making it more suitable for the prehospital treatment of pediatric convulsions.

Uso de hidrato de cloral a dosis única de 70mg/kg como hipnótico en resonancia magnética nuclear. Estudio prospectivo de 3.132 casos / Use of a single dose of 70mg/kg chloral hydrate as a hypnotic in nuclear magnetic resonance. A prospective study of 3, 132 cases

Objetivo: Valorar los tiempos medios de hipnosis, la estabilidad hemodinámica y la incidencia de complicaciones del uso de hidrato de cloral por vía oral en niños programados para exploraciones de resonancia magnética nuclear (RMN), a dosis de 70mg/kg. Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo desde enero de 2000 a enero de 2020, en el que se realizaron 3.132 RMN a pacientes con edades comprendidas entre un día y 5 años, en régimen de anestesia ambulatoria. Se dividió a la población a estudio en 4 subgrupos: A) entre uno y 30 días; B) entre un mes y un año; C) entre uno y 3 años, y D) entre 3 y 5 años. Se registraron el sexo, la edad, el tipo de exploración, así como los tiempos medios de exploración y despertar, la frecuencia cardiaca previa a la RMN y al finalizar, la SatO2 y la incidencia de complicaciones del tipo de: depresión respiratoria (SatO2 inferior al 90%), agitación durante la RMN o al despertar (llanto intenso de más de 2min de duración), sedación prolongada valorada mediante el test de Steward y la aparición de náuseas y/o vómitos durante la RMN, al despertar o en su domicilio. Resultados: No se registraron alteraciones hemodinámicas reseñables. La incidencia de desaturaciones fue de un 0,41%. El despertar durante la prueba fue de un 0,16%, la sedación prolongada de un 1,08% y el despertar agitado apareció en un 1,46% de los casos. Las náuseas y vómitos al terminar la prueba tuvieron una incidencia de un 0,73%. Todos ellos con una p<0,05%. Conclusiones: El hidrato de cloral sigue siendo un fármaco que puede ser referente a dosis de 70mg/kg en sedaciones no superiores a una hora, en procedimientos no invasivos en niños y que asocia una estabilidad hemodinámica adecuada sin prácticamente efectos secundarios.(AU)

Objective: To assess the mean time to hypnosis, hemodynamic stability, and incidence of complications associated with the administration of 70mg/kg oral chloral hydrate in children scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Material and methods: Prospective study conducted from January 2000 to January 2020 in which 3,132 patients aged between one day and 5 years underwent MRI under anaesthesia in an outpatient setting. The study population was divided into 4 subgroups: A) aged between one and 30 days; B) aged between one month and one year; C) aged between one and 3 years, and D) aged between 3 and 5 years. Study variables were: sex, age, type of examination, mean imaging time, mean time to awakening, heart rate before and after MRI, SatO2, and incidence of complications such as respiratory depression (SatO2 below 90%), agitation during the MRI or on awakening (intense crying lasting more than 2min), prolonged sedation measured on the Steward scale, and nausea and/or vomiting during the MRI, on awakening, or at home. Results: No notable hemodynamic alterations were observed. The incidence of desaturation was 0.41%, awakening during the test was 0.16%, prolonged sedation was 1.08%, and agitated awakening was 1.46%. Nausea and vomiting at the end of the test had an incidence of 0.73%. The P value in all cases was<.05%. Conclusions: Chloral hydrate at a dose of 70mg/kg continues to be suitable in sedation lasting no more than one hour for non-invasive procedures in children, and is associated with adequate haemodynamic stability with practically no side effects.(AU)

Melatonin for non-operating room sedation in paediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The literature on melatonin as a sedative agent in children is limited. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of studies assessing the efficacy and safety of melatonin for non-operating room sedation in children. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health were searched until 9 April 2020 for studies using melatonin and reporting one of the prespecified outcomes of this review. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility, risk of bias and extracted the data. Studies with a similar study design, comparator and procedure were pooled using the fixed-effect model. RESULTS: 25 studies (clinical trials=3, observational studies=9, descriptive studies=13) were included. Melatonin was used for electroencephalogram (EEG) (n=12), brainstem evoked response audiometry (n=8) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n=5). No significant differences were noted on meta-analysis of EEG studies comparing melatonin with sleep deprivation (SD) (relative risk (RR) 1.06 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.12)), melatonin with chloral hydrate (RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.05)) and melatonin alone with melatonin and SD combined (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.10)) for successful procedure completion. However, significantly higher sedation failure was noted in melatonin alone compared with melatonin and SD combined (RR 1.55 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.33)) for EEG. Additionally, meta-analysis showed lower sleep latency for melatonin compared with SD (mean difference -10.21 (95% CI -11.53 to -8.89) for EEG. No major adverse events were reported with melatonin. CONCLUSION: Although several studies were identified, and no serious safety concerns were noted, the evidence was not of high quality to establish melatonin's efficacy for non-operating room sedation in children.

Sleep deprivation did not enhance the success rate of chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In Asian countries, oral chloral hydrate is the most commonly used sedative for non-invasive procedures. Theoretically, mild sleep deprivation could be considered as one of assisted techniques. However, there is no consensus on sleep deprivation facilitating the sedation during non-painful procedures in children. The aim of our study is to analyze the clinical data of children undergoing non-invasive procedural sedation retrospectively and to evaluate the association between mild sleep deprivation and sedative effects in non-invasive procedures. MEASUREMENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedures between December 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 were included in this study. The propensity score analysis with 1: 1 ratio was used to match the baseline variables between patients with sleep deprivation and non-sleep deprivation. The primary outcome was the failure rate of sedation with the initial dose. The secondary outcomes included the failure rate of sedation after supplementation of chloral hydrate, the incidence of major and minor adverse events, initial and supplemental dose of chloral hydrate, and the length of sedation time. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 7789 patients undergoing chloral hydrate sedation, 6352 were treated with sleep deprivation and 1437 with non-sleep deprivation. After propensity score matching, 1437 pairs were produced. The failure rate of sedation with initial chlorate hydrate was not significantly different in two groups (8.6% [123/1437] vs. 10.6% [152/1437], p = 0.08), nor were the failure rates with supplemental chlorate hydrate (0.8% [12/1437] vs. 0.9% [13/1437], p = 1) and the length of sedation time (58 [45, 75] vs. 58 [45, 75] min; p = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The current results do not support sleep deprivation have a beneficial effect in reducing the pediatric chloral hydrate sedation failure rate. The routine use of sleep deprivation for pediatric sedation is unnecessary.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with chloral hydrate as sedatives for pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine (Dex) and chloral hydrate (CH) are the most frequently used sedative agents in pediatric patients. We aimed to systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of Dex and CH for sedation in pediatric patients. METHODS: Seven electronic databases and 3 clinical trial registry platforms were searched for articles published prior to October 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of Dex versus CH for sedation in children were examined by 2 reviewers. The extracted information included the success rate of sedation, sedation latency, sedation duration, sedation recovery time, and adverse events. Moreover, the extracted data included 5 subgroups: the effects of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 µg/kg doses of Dex were compared with the effect of CH on the success rate of sedation. We also formed separate subgroups for different types of adverse events (incidence of vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, etc). The outcomes were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software and are expressed as relative risks (RR) or the mean difference (MD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I-squared (I) statistics. RESULTS: A total of 15 RCTs involving 2128 children with Dex versus CH for sedation were included in the meta-analysis. The dose range of Dex ranged from 1 to 3 µg/kg. Compared with CH, the Dex group had a significantly higher success rate of sedation (RR = 1.14, 95% CI [1.05, 1.25], I = 79%, P = .003). Additionally, subgroup analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the success rate of sedation between the CH group and the 1, 1.5, 2.5, and 3 µg/kg Dex groups; only the 2 µg/kg Dex group had a significantly higher success rate than the CH group (RR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.03, 1.29], I = 80%, P = .02). There was no significant difference in the number of subjects who required 2 doses or the duration of sedation between the CH and Dex groups. Furthermore, compared with the Dex group, the CH group had a significantly longer sedation latency (MD = -3.54, 95% CI [-5.94, -1.15], I = 95%, P = .004), sedation recovery time (MD = -30.08, 95% CI [-46.77, -13.39], I = 99%, P = .0004), and total time from sedative administration to discharge (MD = -12.73, 95% CI [-15.48, -9.97], I = 0%, P < .05), as well as a higher number of adverse events in total (RR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.11, 0.61], I = 89%, P = .002). Moreover, the subgroup analysis of adverse events revealed that CH was associated with higher risks of vomiting (RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.03, 0.17], I = 0%, P < .0001), crying or resisting (RR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07, 0.71], I = 60%, P = .01), and cough (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.05, 0.44], I = 0%, P = .0006); there was no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, supplemental oxygen, or respiratory events between CH and Dex. However, Dex was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 4.08, 95% CI [1.63, 10.21], I = 0%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Dex is an appropriate effective alternative to CH for sedation in pediatrics. However, considering the possibility of bradycardia, Dex should be used with caution.

Comparative safety profile of chloral hydrate versus other sedatives for procedural sedation in hospitalized infants.

BACKGROUND: Given the limited available evidence on chloral hydrate safety in neonatal populations and the discrepancy in chloral hydrate acceptance between the US and other countries, we sought to clarify the safety profile of chloral hydrate compared to other sedatives in hospitalized infants. METHODS: We included all infants <120 days of life who underwent a minor procedure and were administered chloral hydrate, clonidine, clonazepam, dexmedetomidine, diazepam, ketamine, lorazepam, midazolam, propofol, or pentobarbital on the day of the procedure. We characterized the distribution of infant characteristics and evaluated the relationship between drug administration and any adverse event. We performed propensity score matching, regression adjustment (RA), and inverse probability weighting (IPW) to ensure comparison of similar infants and to account for confounding by indication and residual bias. Results were assessed for robustness to analytical technique by reanalyzing the main outcomes with multivariate logistic regression, a doubly robust IPW with RA model, and a doubly robust augmented IPW model with bias-correction. RESULTS: Of 650 infants, 497 (76%) received chloral hydrate, 79 (12%) received midazolam, 54 (8%) received lorazepam, and 15 (2%) received pentobarbital. Adverse events occurred in 41 (6%) infants. Using propensity score matching, chloral hydrate was associated with a decreased risk of an adverse event compared to other sedatives, risk difference (95% confidence interval) of -12.79 (-18.61, -6.98), p <  0.001. All other statistical methods resulted in similar findings. CONCLUSION: Administration of chloral hydrate to hospitalized infants undergoing minor procedures is associated with a lower risk for adverse events compared to other sedatives.

Efficacy of chloral hydrate oral solution for sedation in pediatrics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chloral hydrate (CH), as a sedation agent, is widely used in children for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. However, it has not come into the market and is currently only used as hospital preparation in China. This review aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of CH in children of all age groups for sedation before medical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was September 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of CH for sedation in children were included by two reviewers. The extracted information included success rate of sedation, sedation latency and sedation duration. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. The outcomes were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software and expressed as relative risks (RR) or Mean Difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I-squared (I2) statistics. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs involving 3564 children of CH for sedation were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to placebo group, CH group had a significant increase in success rate of sedation when used for painless and painful procedure (RR=4.15, 95% CI [1.21, 14.24], P=0.02; RR=1.28, 95% CI [1.17, 1.40], P<0.01), which included 22 and 455 children for this analysis, respectively. Compared to midazolam group, CH group had a significant increase in success rate of sedation (RR=1.63, 95% CI [1.48, 1.79], I2=0%, P<0.00001), sedation latency (MD=13.29, 95% CI [11.42, 15.16], I2=0%, P<0.00001) and sedation duration (MD=17.52, 95% CI [10.3, 24.71], I2=0%, P<0.05), which included 1052, 710 and 727 children for this analysis, respectively. Compared to diazepam, there was no significant difference in success rate of sedation (RR=0.93, 95% CI [0.80, 1.08], I2=52%, P=0.32), which included 230 children for this analysis. Compared to dexmedetomidine, there was no significant difference in the success rate of sedation (RR=0.92, 95% CI [0.80, 1.06], I2=48%, P=0.27) and sedation latency (RR=-1.09, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.26], I2=26%, P=0.11), which included 512 and 371 children for this analysis, respectively. Compared to barbiturates, there was no significant difference in the success rate of sedation (RR=1.03, 95% CI [0.94, 1.13], I2=50%, P=0.58) and sedation duration (MD=-0.72, 95% CI [-1.78, 0.34], I2=38%, P=0.18), which included 749 and 210 children for this analysis, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From the extrapolation of the existing literature, CH oral solution is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in pediatrics.

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.

GNAO1: un nuevo gen a considerar en la distonía temprana de la infancia / GNAO1: a new gene to consider on early-onset childhood dystonia

No disponible

Differential modulation of the auditory steady state response and inhibitory gating by chloral hydrate anesthesia.

Auditory steady state response (ASSR) and inhibitory gating (IG) are electrophysiological examinations commonly used to evaluate the sensory and cognitive functions of the brain. In some clinic examinations and animal experiments, general anesthesia is necessary to conduct electrophysiological recordings. However, the effects of anesthesia on ASSR and IG remain unclear. For this reason, we recorded local field potentials though electrodes implanted in different brain areas of rats: the auditory cortex (AC), hippocampus (HC), amygdala (AMY), and prefrontal cortex (PFC), and compared the characteristics of ASSR and IG under anesthetized and conscious conditions. We found that ASSR signals were the strongest in the AC, and decreased sequentially in the HP, AMY, and PFC. Chloral hydrate anesthesia significantly reduced the power and phase-locking of ASSR in the AC, HP, and AMY. In contrast, the extent of IG in the AC was weakest and it increased sequentially in the HP, AMY, and PFC. Anesthesia had less effect on the extent of IG. Our results suggest that ASSR and IG may originate from different neural circuits and that IG is more resistant to general anesthesia and therefore better suited to examining the functioning of non-auditory brain regions.

Chloral hydrate enteral infusion for sedation in ventilated children: the CHOSEN pilot study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to test a novel method of delivery of chloral hydrate (CH) sedation in ventilated critically ill young children. METHODS: Children < 12 years old, within 72 hours of admission, who were ventilated, receiving enteral tube-feeds, with intermittent CH ordered were enrolled after signed consent. Patients received a CH loading-dose of 10 mg/kg enterally, then a syringe-pump enteral infusion at 5 mg/kg/hour, increasing to a maximum of 9 mg/kg/hour. Cases were compared to historical controls matched for age group and Pediatric Risk of Mortality score (PRISM) category, using Fisher's exact test and the t test. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as the use of an enteral CH continuous infusion without discontinuation attributable to a pre-specified potential harm. RESULTS: There were 21 patients enrolled, at age 11.4 (12.1) months, with bronchiolitis in 10 (48%), a mean Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD) score of 6.2 (5.2), and having received enteral CH continuous infusion for 4.5 (2.2) days. Infusion of CH was feasible in 20/21 (95%; 95% CI 76-99%) patients, with one (5%) adverse event of duodenal ulcer perforation on day 3 in a patient with croup receiving regular ibuprofen and dexamethasone. The CH infusion dose (mg/kg/h) on day 2 (n = 20) was 8.9 (IQR 5.9, 9), and on day 4 (n = 11) was 8.8 (IQR 7, 9). Days to titration of adequate sedation (defined as ≤ 3 PRN doses/shift) was 1 (IQR 0.5, 2.5), and hours to awakening for extubation was 5 (IQR 2, 9). Cases (versus controls) had less positive fluid balance at 48 h (-2 (45) vs. 26 (46) ml/kg, p = 0.051), and a decrease in number of PRN sedation doses from 12 h pre to 12 hours post starting CH (4.7 (3.3) to 2.6 (2.8), p = 0.009 versus 2.9 (3.9) to 3.4 (5), p = 0.74). There were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls in inotrope scores, signs or treatment of withdrawal, or PICU days. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering CH by continuous enteral infusion is feasible, effective, and may be associated with less positive fluid balance. Whether there is a risk of duodenal perforation requires further study.

Effect of Anesthetics on Efficiency of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning.

Remote ischemic preconditioning of hind limbs (RIPC) is an effective method for preventing brain injury resulting from ischemia. However, in numerous studies RIPC has been used on the background of administered anesthetics, which also could exhibit neuroprotective properties. Therefore, investigation of the signaling pathways triggered by RIPC and the effect of anesthetics is important. In this study, we explored the effect of anesthetics (chloral hydrate and Zoletil) on the ability of RIPC to protect the brain from injury caused by ischemia and reperfusion. We found that RIPC without anesthesia resulted in statistically significant decrease in neurological deficit 24 h after ischemia, but did not affect the volume of brain injury. Administration of chloral hydrate or Zoletil one day prior to brain ischemia produced a preconditioning effect by their own, decreasing the degree of neurological deficit and lowering the volume of infarct with the use of Zoletil. The protective effects observed after RIPC with chloral hydrate or Zoletil were similar to those observed when only the respective anesthetic was used. RIPC was accompanied by significant increase in the level of brain proteins associated with the induction of ischemic tolerance such as pGSK-3ß, BDNF, and HSP70. However, Zoletil did not affect the level of these proteins 24 h after injection, and chloral hydrate caused increase of only pGSK-3ß. We conclude that RIPC, chloral hydrate, and Zoletil produce a significant neuroprotective effect, but the simultaneous use of anesthetics with RIPC does not enhance the degree of neuroprotection.

Safety and Efficacy of Chloral Hydrate Sedation in Paediatric Sedation for Ophthalmic Procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Chloral hydrate (CH) sedation is routinely used in paediatric ophthalmic examination in Singapore as an alternative to examination under general anaesthesia. Despite CH's traditionally high success rates and relatively low rate of adverse events, there is little data on its safety and efficacy as a sedative for ophthalmic procedures in an Asian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed, including children who underwent CH sedation at the Singapore National Eye Centre from January 2012 to January 2015. Participants were given an initial dose of CH and a top-up dose if required. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on data collected. RESULTS: CH sedation was successful in 144 of 153 children (94.1%). Of the 20 (13.0%) who required a top-up dose, 4 failed to sedate. The mean sedation onset was 29.4 minutes (SD: 24.3) and mean sedation duration was 56.5 minutes (SD: 24.0), with more than a third lasting more than 1 hour. The age of children, rather than initial dose of CH, was more relevant in determining success of sedation. Children who were >6 years old were 20.3 times more likely to fail sedation than those aged <2 years. During sedation, depression in the heart rate and a transient reduction of oxygen saturation was documented. All children recovered well post-sedation. CONCLUSION: CH is a very useful sedative for paediatric ophthalmic procedures, especially in younger children. Children over 4 years old were more likely to fail sedation and require top-up doses. Alternative means of sedation may need to be considered in these cases.

Safety and efficacy of chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in paediatric ophthalmology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Although chloral hydrate (CH) has been used as a sedative for decades, it is not widely accepted as a valid choice for ophthalmic examinations in uncooperative children. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the drug's safety and efficacy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, Google Scholar and Trip database to 1 October 2015, using the keywords 'chloral hydrate', 'paediatric' and 'procedural sedation OR diagnostic sedation'. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 6961 articles were screened and 104 were included in the review. Thirteen of these concerned paediatric ophthalmic examination, while 13 others were RCTs and were meta-analysed. CH was reported to have been administered in a total of 24 265 sedation episodes in children aged from <1 month to 18 years. The meta-analysis showed CH had a higher OR (2.95, 95% CI 1.09 to 7.99) for successful sedation compared to other sedatives, but significant limitations apply. The commonest reported adverse events (AE) were not serious (eg, paradoxical reaction or transient vomiting) and required no intervention. Severe AE, including two deaths, were related to comorbidity, overdose or aspiration. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the paucity of high quality evidence, the existing literature suggests that the use of CH for procedural sedation in children appears to be an effective alternative to general anaesthesia, and it can be safe when administered in the hospital setting with appropriate monitoring and vigilance for intervention.

Efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate sedation in infants for pulmonary function tests / Eficácia e segurança do hidrato de cloral na sedação de lactentes para testes de função pulmonar

Abstract Objective: To describe the efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate sedation in infants for pulmonary function tests. Methods: All sedation attempts for pulmonary function tests in infants carried out between June 2007 and August 2014 were evaluated. Obstructive sleep apnea and heart disease were contraindications to the exams. Anthropometric data, exam indication, used dose, outcomes of sedation and clinical events were recorded and described. Results: The sedation attempts in 277 infants (165 boys) with a median age of 51.5 weeks of life (14-182 weeks) were evaluated. The main indication for the tests was recurrent wheezing (56%) and the chloral hydrate dose ranged from 50 to 80mg/kg (orally). Eighteen (6.5%) infants had some type of clinical complication, with the most frequent being cough and/or airway secretion (1.8%); respiratory distress (1.4%) and vomiting (1.1%). A preterm infant had bradycardia for approximately 15 minutes, which was responsive to tactile stimulation. All observed adverse effects were transient and there was no need for resuscitation or use of injectable medications. Conclusions: The data demonstrated that chloral hydrate at the employed doses is a safe and effective medicament for sedation during short procedures in infants, such as pulmonary function tests. Because of the possibility of severe adverse events, recommendations on doses and contraindications should be strictly followed and infants should be monitored by trained staff.

Resumo Objetivo: Descrever a eficácia e a segurança do hidrato de cloral na sedação de lactentes para testes de função pulmonar. Métodos: Foram avaliadas retrospectivamente todas as tentativas de sedação para exames de função pulmonar em lactentes feitas entre junho 2007 e agosto 2014. Apneia obstrutiva do sono e cardiopatia foram contraindicações para os exames. Dados antropométricos, indicação do exame, dose empregada, desfechos da sedação e intercorrências clínicas foram registrados e descritos. Resultados: Avaliaram-se as tentativas de sedação de 277 lactentes (165 meninos) com mediana de 51,5 semanas de vida (14-182). A principal indicação para os testes foi sibilância recorrente (56%) e a dose de hidrato de cloral usada variou entre 50-80mg/kg (via oral). Dezoito (6,5%) lactentes apresentaram algum tipo de intercorrência clínica e foram as mais frequentes: tosse e/ou secreção na via aérea (1,8%); desconforto respiratório alto (1,4%) e vômitos (1,1%). Um lactente prematuro apresentou bradicardia por cerca de 15 minutos, responsiva a estimulação tátil. Todos os efeitos adversos observados foram transitórios e não houve necessidade de manobras de reanimação e uso de medicações injetáveis. Conclusões: Os dados demonstraram que o hidrato de cloral, nas doses empregadas, é um medicamento seguro e eficaz para a sedação de lactentes em procedimentos de curta duração, como os testes de função pulmonar. Devido à possibilidade de eventos adversos graves, as recomendações referentes à dosagem e contraindicações devem ser seguidas de forma rígida e os lactentes devem ser monitorados por equipe treinada.

Efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate sedation in infants for pulmonary function tests. / Eficácia e segurança do hidrato de cloral na sedação de lactentes para testes de função pulmonar.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate sedation in infants for pulmonary function tests. METHODS: All sedation attempts for pulmonary function tests in infants carried out between June 2007 and August 2014 were evaluated. Obstructive sleep apnea and heart disease were contraindications to the exams. Anthropometric data, exam indication, used dose, outcomes of sedation and clinical events were recorded and described. RESULTS: The sedation attempts in 277 infants (165 boys) with a median age of 51.5 weeks of life (14 to 182 weeks) were evaluated. The main indication for the tests was recurrent wheezing (56%) and the chloral hydrate dose ranged from 50 to 80mg/kg (orally). Eighteen (6.5%) infants had some type of clinical complication, with the most frequent being cough and/or airway secretion (1.8%); respiratory distress (1.4%) and vomiting (1.1%). A preterm infant had bradycardia for approximately 15 minutes, which was responsive to tactile stimulation. All observed adverse effects were transient and there was no need for resuscitation or use of injectable medications. CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrated that chloral hydrate at the employed doses is a safe and effective medicament for sedation during short procedures in infants, such as pulmonary function tests. Because of the possibility of severe adverse events, recommendations on doses and contraindications should be strictly followed and infants should be monitored by trained staff.

Medication use in childhood dystonia.

BACKGROUND: Data around current prescription practices in childhood dystonia is limited. Medication use may be limited by side effects, the incidence of which is uncertain. For a large cohort assessed by our supra-regional service we aimed to: i) Review medications used at the point of referral. ii) Determine the prevalence of adverse drug responses (ADR) resulting in discontinuation of drug use. iii) Identify clinical risk factors for ADR. METHODS: Case note review of 278 children with dystonia referred to our service. Data collected on medications, ADR, dystonia aetiology, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level and motor phenotype (pure dystonia/mixed dystonia-spasticity). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for ADR. RESULTS: At referral 82/278 (29.4%) children were taking no anti-dystonic medication. In the remainder the median number of anti-dystonic medications was 2 (range 1-5). Medications use increased with worsening GMFCS level. The commonest drugs used were baclofen (118/278: 42.4%), trihexyphenidyl (98/278: 35.2%), l-Dopa (57/278: 20.5%) and diazepam (53/278: 19%). Choice of medication appeared to be influenced by dystonia aetiology. ADR had been experienced by 171/278 (61.5%) of children. The commonest drugs responsible for ADR were trihexyphenidyl (90/171: 52.3%), baclofen (43/171: 25.1%) and l-Dopa (26/171: 15.2%). Binary logistic regression demonstrated no clinical risk factors for ADR. CONCLUSIONS: ADR is commonly experienced by children with dystonia, regardless of dystonia severity or aetiology. A wide variation in drug management of dystonia was identified. Collectively these findings highlight the need for a rational approach to the pharmacological management of dystonia in childhood.

Comparison of Effects of Different Dexmedetomidine and Chloral Hydrate Doses Used in Sedation on Electroencephalography in Pediatric Patients.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different oral chloral hydrate and dexmedetomidine doses used for sedation during electroencephalography (EEG) in children. One hundred sixty children aged 1 to 9 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II who were uncooperative during EEG recording or who were referred to our electrodiagnostic unit for sleep EEG were included to the study. The patients were randomly assigned into 4 groups. In groups D1 and D2, patients received oral dexmedetomidine doses of 2 and 3 µg/kg, respectively. In group C1 and C2, patients received oral chloral hydrate doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg, respectively. The induction time was significantly shorter in group C2 compared with other groups (P = .000). The rate of adverse effects was significantly higher in group C2 compared with the dexmedetomidine groups (D1 and D2; P = .004). In conclusion, dexmedetomidine can be used safely for sedation during EEG in children.

Sedation alternatives.

"The need for sedation can be decreased greatly by adequate preparation and by creating a less threatening, child friendly environment in which to perform the study" (Olson et al. 2001). In 2006, Bild encouraged the avoidance of sedation during EEG and provided several helpful ideas in his ASET News article "Alternatives to Sedation in the EEG Lab" (Bild 2006). In this article Bild states, "We recently discontinued the use of sedation in our lab and we were probably one of the last holdouts using chloral hydrate" (Bild 2006). Several years later chloral hydrate is still a common method of sedating children for EEG studies. This article will encourage exploration and utilization of sedation alternatives, and discourage the use of sedatives for neurophysiological testing. This article is based on a review of EEG lab websites, a literature review, and over a decade of experience as a neurophysiology technologist at multiple institutions.

Chloral hydrate versus midazolam as sedative agents for diagnostic procedures in children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare sedation outcomes for chloral hydrate (CH) and midazolam (MD) as sedative agents for diagnostic procedures in children. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study conducted between July 2005 and October 2006, at the Pediatric Day Care Unit (DCU), King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. After meeting the inclusion criteria and getting informed consent, patients were randomized, given the study drug, and monitored for sedation outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-five patients who had 292 sedation sessions for diagnostic procedures were included in the study. Due to missing data, 286 sedations were included in the final analysis; 144 in the CH and 142 in the MD group. Both groups were comparable with respect to demographic and baseline characteristics. The CH compared to MD group, had a higher sedation success rate, shorter time to achieve sedation, shorter length of stay in DCU, and longer sedation duration. In both study groups, patients who required a second dose tended to be older and heavier. No major side effects were encountered. The CH group had a significantly higher mean sedation scores at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: Chloral hydrate compared to MD, had a shorter time to achieve sedation, a higher success rate, less need for a second dose, and decreased the time spent in the DCU. Older and heavier patients are more likely to require a second dose of the study drug to be sedated.