Biber JL, Allareddy V, Allareddy V, et al. Prevalence and predictors of adverse events during procedural sedation anesthesia-outside the operating room for esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy in children: Age is an independent predictor of outcomes. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Jul 24. [Epub ahead of print]

OBJECTIVES: Procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room for a variety of procedures is well described with an overall low adverse event rate in certain settings. Adverse event associated with procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room for gastrointestinal procedures have been described, albeit in small, single-center studies with wide variance in outcomes. Predictors of such outcomes are unclear. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of adverse event in children undergoing procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, or both to identify predictors of adverse event.

DESIGN/SETTING/PATIENTS: Retrospective analysis of Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database, a large data repository of pediatric patients aged 21 years old or younger undergoing procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room during September 2007 to November 2011. Twenty-two of the 40 centers provided data pertaining to the procedure of interest.

INTERVENTIONS: None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome variable is any adverse event. Independent variables include: age (five groups), sex, American Societyof Anaesthesiologists status, procedure (esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, or both), provider responsible, medication used, location, and presence of coexisting medical conditions. Descriptive statistics used to summarize the data. Using multivariablelogistic regression model, odds ratio, 95% CI) were computed. A total of 12,030 procedures were performed (esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 7,970; colonoscopy, 1,378; and both, 2,682). A total of 96.9% of patients received propofol. Eighty-three percent were performed in a sedation unit. Prevalence of adverse event was 4.8%. The most common adverse event were persistent desaturations (1.5%), airway obstruction (1%), cough (0.9%), and laryngospasm (0.6%). No deaths or CPR occurred. Infants and children aged 5 years old or younger had a higher adverse event rate than older children (15.8%, 7.8% vs 4%). Regression analysis revealed age 5 years old or younger, American Society of Anaesthesiologists greater than or equal to 2, esophagogastroduodenoscopy ± colonoscopy, and coexisting medical conditions of obesity and lower airway disease were independent predictors of higher adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS: Overall prevalence of any adverse event was 4.8%. Independent predictors of adverse events in procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room in pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy onoscopy were identified. Recognition of such risk factors may enable optimization of procedural sedation.

---

Scherrer PD, et al. The impact of obesity on pediatric procedural sedation-related outcomes: results from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Jul; 25(7):689-97.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of obesity on adverse events and required interventions during pediatric procedural sedation.

METHODS: The Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database of prospectively collected procedural sedation encounters was queried to identify patients for whom body mass index (BMI) could be calculated. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥95th percentile for age and gender. Sedation-related outcomes, adverse events, and therapeutic interventions were compared between obese and nonobese patients.

RESULTS: For analysis, 28,792 records were eligible. A total of 5,153 patients (17.9%) were obese; they were predominantly male and older and had a higher median American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification (P < 0.001). Total adverse events were more common in obese patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [1.31, 1.70]). Respiratory events (airway obstruction OR 1.94 [1.54, 2.44], oxygen desaturation OR 1.99 [1.50, 2.63], secretions OR 1.48 [1.01, 2.15], laryngospasm OR 2.30 [1.30, 4.05]), inability to complete the associated procedure (OR 1.96 [1.16, 3.30]), and prolonged recovery (OR 2.66 [1.26, 5.59]) were increased in obese patients. Obese patients more frequently required airway intervention including repositioning, suctioning, jaw thrust, airway adjuncts, and bag-valve-mask ventilation. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated obesity to be independently associated with minor and moderate but not major adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is an independent risk factor for adverse respiratory events during procedural sedation and is associated with an increased frequency of airway interventions, suggesting that additional vigilance and expertise are required when sedating these patients.

---

Connors JM, Cravero JP, Kost S, et al. Great expectations-defining quality in pediatric sedation: outcomes of a multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Healthc Qual. 2015 Mar-Apr;37(2):139-54.

PURPOSE: Recognizing the inconsistencies in sedation practices, the Society for Pediatric Sedation convened this meeting to begin the process of defining quality as it relates to the field of pediatric sedation.

SCOPE: Millions of procedures are performed each year on children. Caring for children, even for routine procedures, can be challenging. Children may not have the ability to follow commands, tolerate painful stimuli, or even lie still for a diagnostic study. Therefore, pharmacologic sedation with medications designed to blunt the awareness of the patient and provide relief of pain and anxiety is necessary.

METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of sedation providers and quality methodology experts met in November 2011. Through 2 days of didactics, small workgroups, and consensus discussions, the attendees met the objectives of exploring quality in pediatric sedation around the Institute of Medicine’s () six aims of quality: Safe, Effective, Patient Centered, Timely, Efficient, and Equitable.

RESULTS: The conference findings outlined in this document address the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) mission of improving quality healthcare for all Americans, especially for underrepresented groups such as children. The conference outlines a key next step in defining and achieving quality in pediatric procedural sedation.

---

Kitt E, Friderici J, Kleppel R, Canarie M. Procedural sedation for MRI in children with ADHD. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Jul 22. [Epub ahead of print]

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood, affecting 5-8% of children. It has been observed that these children have poor sedation experiences; however, to date there is minimal research on procedural sedation in this population.

AIM: To examine whether children with ADHD required larger doses of propofol for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation.

METHODS: The hospital’s administrative billing database was used to identify all billing codes for MRI brain scans (with and without contrast) in children aged between 5 and 12 years over the preceding 5.5 years. The hospital’s electronic medical record database provided baseline demographics. The sedation record was reviewed for propofol dose, psychostimulant use, and prescribed dose. All children received a standard weight-based dose of midazolam prior to receiving the necessary amount of propofol. Primary outcome was the dose of propofol administered (mg·kg-1 ) to achieve adequate sedation.

RESULTS: A total of 258 procedures met the inclusion criteria. The sample was 52% male, 74% White, 7.8% Black, 7.8% Hispanic, 4.3% Asian, and 6.2% other. ADHD was documented for 49 procedures with a prevalence of 18.5%. Patients with ADHD were older, more likely to be male, Hispanic, or to report race as ‘Refused/Unknown’. Indications for MRI for patients with ADHD varied significantly, with ‘Behavioral’ and ‘Neurocutaneous’ being significantly overrepresented in the ADHD group. The average sedative dose for all patients was 2.8 mg·kg-1 (95% CI 2.62-2.94). Sedative dose was similar among children with and without ADHD diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates that children with ADHD do not have higher sedative requirements to achieve a successful brain MRI.

---

Tobias JD. Sedation of infants and children outside of the operating room. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015 Aug;28(4):478-85.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although adults may be able to tolerate procedures without sedation, developmental and cognitive issues often mandate the use of sedation in infants and children.

RECENT FINDINGS: There has been a shift in the philosophy regarding sedation with an increasing recognition of the negative psychological and physiological aspects of inadequate sedation. The expansion of our technology continues to result in an increasing number of techniques, which require sedation outside of the operating room environment. These factors have contributed to an ever growing number of pediatric patients presenting themselves for procedural sedation.

SUMMARY: This chapter will discuss issues regarding the provision of anesthesia outside of the operating room for pediatric patients including current guidelines for patient assessment prior to procedural, monitoring during sedation, and a discussion of some of the more commonly utilized sedative and analgesic agents within the pediatric population.

---

Bosemani T, et al. Assessment of upper airway patency in spontaneously breathing non-intubated neonates and infants undergoing conventional MRI of head  and neck. Childs Nerv Syst. 2015 Jun 16. [Epub ahead of print]

PURPOSE: Neonates and infants frequently undergo MRI examinations of the brain or head and neck in spontaneous respiration. This study aims to evaluate the patency of the upper airway and associated risk factors in spontaneously breathing neonates and infants undergoing MRI of head and neck.

METHODS: Airway patency was assessed on sagittal and axial MRI images of the head and neck region for neonates and infants retrospectively. Anteroposterior diameters were measured at the soft palate and tongue levels as well as a lateral diameter at the tongue level for the patent airway. Chart review for risk factors was carried out.

RESULTS: A total of 831 children between 0 and 12 months of age had an MRI. Eighty-two children with spontaneous ventilation were included. The airway was occluded in 29/82 (35 %) of children. Twenty-four out of 29 (83 %) childrenwith airway occlusion had a depressed level of consciousness, 7/24 (29 %) of whom were sedated with a single dose of benzodiazepine and 17/24 (71 %) were on anti-epileptic therapy for an underlying seizure disorder and/or hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. Forty-three out of 82 (65 %) of children had an open airway. The airway diameters (mean ± SD) were 5.9 ± 2 mm (anteroposterior (AP) at soft palate), 7.4 ± 2.9 mm (lateral at soft palate), and 6.3 mm ± 1.6 (AP at dorsum of tongue).

CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of spontaneously breathing neonates and infants with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy or sedation show evidence of airway obstruction during MRI. Careful pre-MRI screening for decision of spontaneous breathing versus artificial airway support during MRI and robust airway monitoring during MRI are required for these vulnerable children.

---

Chandar R, Jagadisan B, Vasudevan A. Propofol-ketamine and propofol-fentanyl combinations for nonanesthetist-administered sedation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2015 Jun;60(6):762-8.

OBJECTIVES: There is a need to compare propofol requirement between propofol-ketamine (PK) and propofol-fentanyl (PF) given as nonanesthetist-administered propofol sedation during pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS: The study was a parallel-group, randomized, double-blind comparison of the need for additional doses of propofol in the first minute after sedation induction between PK and PF, administered by rotating trainees in pediatrics for sedation during pediatric EGD. A total of 95 children with American Society of Anesthesiologists class I to III between 3 and 12 years undergoing EGD were included and randomized to either of the groups. After midazolam premedication, children received either 0.5 mg/kg ketamine (PK) or 1 μg/kg of fentanyl (PF) followed by a mandatory 1 mg/kg of propofol. Additional doses of propofol of 0.5 mg/kg each were given to achieve sedation induction (modified Ramsay scale level 6), and further doses were administered during the procedure as required. A total of 92 children(PK, n = 47; PF, n = 45) were analyzed. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS: There was no difference in the propofol dose required for successful scope introduction and also in the need for additional propofol doses and the total additional propofol doses required in the first minute after sedationinduction. Propofol injection pain was higher in the PF group (odds ratio 1.78). The adverse events and recovery time were similar. There was no escalation of care, airway intubations, death, or disability.

CONCLUSIONS: Nonanesthetist-administered propofol sedation is feasible in teaching hospitals. Propofol requirement is similar in both PK and PF combination regimens, but the lower frequency of propofol injection pain may favor the use of PK.

---

Viggiano MP, et al. Impact of psychological interventions on reducing anxiety, fear and the need for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Rep. 2015 Mar 27;7(1):5682.

Children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging examination frequently experience anxiety and fear before and during the scanning. The aim of the present study was to assess: i) whether and to what extent psychological interventions might reduce anxiety and fear levels; ii) whether the intervention is related to a decrease in the need for sedation. The interventions consisted of three activities: a clown show, dog interaction and live music. The emotional status (anxiety and fear) of the children was evaluated before and after the activities through a rating scale questionnaire. The results showed that the activities had high effectiveness in reducing the level of anxiety and fear and decreased the need for sedation in the experimental group compared to the control group. This approach proved to be a positive patient experience, helping to alleviate children’s anxiety and fear, decreasing the need for sedation, and was cost-effective.

---

Durand DJ, Young M, Nagy P, Tekes A, Huisman TA. Mandatory child life
consultation and its impact on pediatric MRI workflow in an academic medical
center. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Jun;12(6):594-8.

ABSTRACT: Pediatric patients undergoing MRI often require general anesthesia, which may improve image quality but is associated with significant medical risk and economic cost. It has previously been shown that certified child life specialists using high-tech interventions (eg, MRI-compatible video goggles) significantly reduce the number of pediatric MRI patients who require sedation. Most imaging centers lack such technology, however, and it remains unclear whether simpler and less costly child life interventions may be equally effective in avoiding general anesthesia. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of requiring mandatory child life evaluation for all patients aged 5 to 18 years undergoing MRI before referral for general anesthesia. Inserting this simple step into the scheduling workflow significantly reduced the use of general anesthesia in this population: general anesthesia was required in 564 of 2,433 MRI cases during the 1-year baseline period compared with 484 of 2,526 cases during the 1-year intervention period (P < .01 by z test for proportions; absolute reduction, 4.0%; relative reduction, 14.8%). The authors estimate that instituting mandatory child life evaluation avoided the use of general anesthesia in approximately 102 patients during the intervention period. Further subgroup analysis revealed that avoidance of general anesthesia was highly significant in the 5- to 10-year-old age group, whereas those aged 11 to 18 years experienced only a trend toward modestly decreased use of general anesthesia. These results suggest that mandatory evaluation for standard child life interventions is a worthwhile step that can save many children from unnecessary exposure to the risks, cost, and inconvenience of general anesthesia.

---

Dişel NR, et al. Etomidate versus ketamine: Effective use in emergency procedural sedation for pediatric orthopedic injuries. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2015 Apr 1. [Epub ahead of print]

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the induction and recovery times, postsedation observation durations, and adverse effects of etomidate and ketamine in pediatric patients with fractures and/or dislocations requiring closed reduction in the emergency department.

METHODS: Forty-four healthy children aged 7 to 18 years were included. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group 1 (24 patients) received etomidate and fentanyl, and group 2 (20 patients) received ketamine intravenously. The Ramsay Sedation Scale and American Pediatric Association discharge criteria were used to evaluate the patients.

RESULTS: There were 70 fractured bones and 3 joint dislocations. Except in 1 case (2.3%), all of the injuries were reducted successfully. The mean amount of drugs used to provide adequate sedation and analgesia were 0.25 mg/kg of etomidate and 1.30 μg/kg of fentanyl in group 1 and 1.25 mg/kg of ketamine in group 2. Fourteen patients (31.8%) reported adverse effects, and none required hospitalization. There was no difference between the groups in the recovery times, occurrence of adverse effects, and postsedation observation durations (P > 0.05). The mean (SD) induction time for the patients in group 1 was 4.3 (1.0) minutes, whereas it was 2.2 (1.6) minutes in group 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Etomidate induces effective and adequate sedation in the pediatric emergency department for painful orthopedic procedures. Ketamine, which has longer action times, might be preferred for reductions because orthopedic procedures could be lengthy.

---

Scheier E, Gadot C, Leiba R, Shavit I. Sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol in a pediatric ED: A retrospective case series analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;33(6):815-7.

BACKGROUND: Literature to date has suggested advantages of sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol over ketamine alone or propofol alone. However, there is a paucity of data regarding sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol in pediatric emergency medicine.

METHODS: A retrospective case series analysis of children who underwent sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol in a pediatric emergency department was conducted. Study covariates were extracted from the emergency department medical records.

RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-nine patients, 297 males and 132 females, with a median age of 6.8 years (interquartile range, 3.9-10.9 years), underwent sedation by pediatric emergency physicians. Serious adverse events during sedation (SAEDS) were recorded in 52 procedures (12.1%), which included 39 hypoxic events (9.1%), 12 apneic events (2.8%), and 1 laryngospasm (0.2%). All SAEDS were managed successfully, and no child underwent intubation because of an adverse reaction or required hospitalization. Multivariate logistic regression analysis did not reveal any association between age, weight, fasting time, analgesic medication provided before sedation, length of procedure, capnography use, dosages of medications, and the presence of SAEDS.

CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported series of sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol in pediatric emergency medicine. Findings suggest that sedation with the combination of ketamine and propofol can be safely performed by a skilled emergency physician.

---

Berkenbosch JW. Options and considerations for procedural sedation in pediatric imaging. Paediatr Drugs. 2015 Jul 9. [Epub ahead of print]

ABSTRACT: As pediatric imaging capabilities have increased in scope, so have the complexities of providing procedural sedation in this environment. While efforts by many organizations have dramatically increased the safety of pediatric procedural sedation in general, radiology sedation creates several special challenges for the sedation provider. These challenges require implementation of additional safeguards to promote safety during sedation while maintaining effective and efficient care. Multiple agent options are available, and decisions regarding which agent(s) to use should be determined by both patient needs (i.e., developmental capacities, underlying health status, and previous experiences) and procedural needs (i.e., duration, need for immobility, and invasiveness). Increasingly, combinations of agents to either achieve the conditions required or mitigate/counterbalance adverse effects of single agents are being utilized with success. To continue to provide effective imaging sedation, it is incumbent on sedation providers to maintain familiarity with continuing evolutions within radiology environments, as well as comfort and competence with multiple sedation agents/regimens. This review discusses the challenges associated with radiology sedation and outlines various available agent options and combinations, with the intent of facilitating appropriate matching of agent(s) with patient and procedural needs.

---

Hansen TG. Sedative medications outside the operating room and the pharmacology of sedatives. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015 Aug;28(4):446-52.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is a growing medical demand for suitable sedatives and analgesics to support the ongoing progress in diagnostic procedures and imaging techniques. This review provides an update of the pharmacology of the most commonly used drugs used for these procedures and shortly mention new drugs on the horizon.

RECENT FINDINGS: There are many drugs available for procedural sedation; however, they all have drawbacks and shortcomings. Multiple adverse effects are associated with the use of these agents, hence monitoring is essential, and emergency equipment should be readily available.Newer drugs are on the horizon (e.g., remimazolam, fospropofol, and etomidate analogues) with a theoretical more predictable onset and offset; whether these will revolutionize the sedational practice sedation remains unknown.

SUMMARY: Clinicians should be aware of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic differences of all agents in order to select appropriate medications for specific procedures and patients.