Procedural Sedation in Pediatrics by wpr1947

VIEWS: 167 PAGES: 86

Stacey Chamberlain, MD, MPH
October 28, 2010
   If you were to give this
    boy (on the right)
    midazolam, what is his
    chance of having a
    paradoxical reaction:
    a. 1-15%
    b. 16-30%
    c. 31-45%
    d. >45%

   Which agent would be
    best to use with propofol
    for a painful procedure
    for this child?:
    a. fentanyl
    b. ketamine
    c. midazolam
    d. etomidate
 Which would likely
 cause this child
 greater respiratory
 depression in standard
 a. methohexital
 b. etomidate
 c. propofol
 d. ketamine
 Which agent would
 be preferred for
 sedation for CT for
 this child?
 a. ketamine
 b. midazolam
 c. pentobarbital
 d. fentanyl
   Which of the following
    agents (given alone)
    would you consider for a
    fracture reduction in this
    a. chloral hydrate
    b. methohexital
    c. ketamine
    d. etomidate
   What might be the best
    agent to reduce vomiting
    when given with
    ketamine in this child?
    a. propofol
    b. midazolam
    c. ondansetron
    d. metoclopramide
   If this child just ate 3
    hours ago, how long
    should you wait before
    his procedural sedation?
    a. 1 hour
    b. 2 hours
    c. 3 hours
    d. Probably doesn’t
   Which agent would likely
    enable you to more
    quickly discharge this
    patient from your ED
    after procedural
    a. pentobarbital
    b. midazolam
    c. ketamine
    d. propofol
   Which method of
    administration would
    provide better sedation
    for a laceration repair in
    this patient?
    a. IM
    b. PO
    c. PR
    d. IN
 Which agent would
 be least likely to
 induce vomiting in
 this child?
 a. ketamine
 b. propofol
 c. etomidate
 d. morphine

   Indications
   Sedation  goals
   Preparation
   Monitoring
   Methods of drug
   Specific agents
   Even neonates demonstrate behavioral and hormonal
    changes in response to painful procedures
   Preemptive analgesia/anesthesia may decrease postinjury
    opioid requirements
   Sedation may be needed to control behavior; therefore,
    increased sedation for children < 6 yo and developmentally
   Individualized dosing and titratable agents are often
    necessary due to internal and external factors
       Internal factors: age, developmental level, previous experience
       External factors: parental interactions with the child,
        preparation, physician skill, physical setting

  Pain in children historically has
   been underreported,
   undertreated, and
  Reasons for inadequate
      Failure to recognize pain
      Ignorance about drugs and dosages
      Fear of adverse cardiovascular effects
      Fear of delay in treatment and
   At increased risk of complications –
    may be due to increased sensitivity
    to sedatives, medication
    interactions, higher peak serum
    levels of drugs
   Consider lower starting dose
    (reduce 20%) and less frequent
   Consider ultra-short acting
   In patients with cardiac morbidity
    or taking cardiodepressant
    medications (e.g. beta-blockers),
    consider hemodynamically neutral
    sedatives (e.g. etomidate)
 Preprocedural meds to improve
  GE sphincter tone, reduce gastric
  volume, and decrease stomach
  acidity (e.g. metoclopramide, H2
 Preprocedural hydration and left
  lateral displacement of uterus (to
  reduce risk of hypotension and
  uteroplacental insufficiency)
 Oxygen by face-mask due to
  increased risk of desat (due to
  decreased FRC)
 Consider fetal monitoring in 3rd
 Anxiolysis    (relief of agitation)
 Amnesia

 Analgesia    (relief of pain)
     In some procedures, patients
      have little or no pain before
      and after (e.g. LP,
     Some procedures themselves
      lead to reduction of pain (e.g.
      dislocation reduction)
 Muscle relaxation
 Control behavior/movement
  Management   of anxiety,
   pain, and control of
   excessive motion
  Diagnostic procedures:
      Lumbar puncture
      Arthrocentesis
      Thoracentesis
      Sexual assault examination
      Radiological evaluation (CT,

 Therapeutic procedures:
   Suturing
   Wound care
   Abscess incision and drainage
   Fracture/dislocation reduction
   Hernia reduction
   Paraphimosis reduction
   Foreign body removal
   Burn debridement
   Tube thoracostomy
   Electrical cardioversion
   Any other painful procedure
 No absolute contraindications
 Relative contraindications
     Older age
     Significant medical comorbidities
      (ASA classification III or greater)
     Signs of a difficult airway

   Important comorbidities are those
    that increase risk of
    cardiorespiratory depressant
    effects of drugs
       CHF, COPD, neuromuscular
        disease, dehydration, anemia
 Sedation is a continuum, the
  depression of a patient's awareness
  to the environment and reduction of
  his or her responsiveness to external
 Minimal sedation
       Anxiolysis
       Minimal effect on sensorium
   Moderate sedation (formerly conscious sedation)
       Depression of consciousness
       Can respond to external stimuli (verbal or tactile)
       Airway reflexes, spontaneous ventilation, and
        cardiovascular function are maintained
 Deep sedation
   Depression of consciousness
   Patient cannot be aroused
   Responds purposefully to repeated or painful stimuli
   May not be able to maintain airway reflexes or spontaneous
    ventilation, but cardiovascular function is preserved
 General anesthesia
   State of unconsciousness
   Autonomic nervous system is unable to respond to surgical or
    procedural stimuli
 Dissociation (a type of moderate sedation)
   Disconnection between the thalamoneocortical system and the
    limbic systems, preventing higher centers from receiving sensory
   Airway reflexes, spontaneous ventilation, and cardiovascular
    function are all maintained
 Using  sedative or dissociative agents with or
  without analgesics
 Allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant
  procedures while maintaining cardiorespiratory
 Depressed level of consciousness but one that
  allows the patient to maintain airway control
  independently and continuously
 Drugs, doses, and techniques used are not likely to
  produce a loss of protective airway reflexes

 Presedation assessment
 Sedation during
 Post-procedure recovery
  and discharge
 AAP  (American Association
  of Pediatrics)
 ASA (American Society of
 ACEP (American College of
  Emergency Physicians)
 Attempts to standardize
  procedure and enhance
  patient safety
 Non-binding

 Passed in 2001
 Standards for pain management, sedation, and
  anesthesia care in U.S. hospitals
 Procedural sedation should be similar throughout an
  institution (no difference between OR, ED, endoscopy,
 Practitioners must be able to manage a compromised
  airway, can rescue patients from inadvertent deep
  sedation or general anesthesia
 Must have a “time-out” prior to sedation (confirm
  patient’s name, procedure, and site of procedure)
 Distinct personnel responsible for sedation,
  monitoring, and performing the procedure
 Recognize potential drug interactions (e.g.
  with fentanyl and midazolam, a synergistic
  effect on respiratory depression occurs)
 Use of 3 or more meds significantly increases
  the risk of an adverse reaction
 Must have monitoring including pulse-ox, age-
  appropriate equipment and personnel trained
  in resuscitation
 Type 1 IgE allergic reactions to sedation and
  analgesia drugs rare
 Reactions due to histamine release (morphine,
 Nasal pruritis (fentanyl)

 Paradoxical reactions (benzos, barbs)

 Respiratory depression (benzos, barbs, opioids,
  etomidate, propofol)
 Emergence reactions (ketamine)
 Most events are preventable
 Adverse events associated with:
       Out-of-hospital-base setting
       Inadequate monitoring
       Lack of adequate presedation evaluation
       Lack of standard recovery procedures
       Medication errors
       Lack of independent observer
   Most common reasons for error:
       Operator error
       Lack of familiarity with agents being used
       Lack of rescue systems
       Delay in airway and ventilatory support
   Most common are respiratory complications
       Desats can be minimized by cautious, unhurried medication
   Pena and Krauss. Ann Emerg Med. 1999.
     Prospective case series of 1180 ED patients
     No difference between doses of meds, drug regimens, ages of
      patients, procedural indications
     2.3% with adverse events (10 pts with desat, 7 with paradoxical
      reaction, 3 with emesis); no serious complications
   Hoffman et al. Pediatrics. 2002.
     4.2% complication rate; complications reduced by performance
      of risk assessment, adherence to all guidelines, and avoiding
      deep sedation (not affected by fasting status)
     More complications with multi-drug regimens and with chloral
      hydrate; fewer complications with midazolam
 Discussion about the risks, benefits, and
 Having written consent is not absolutely
  needed (Joint Commission does not require)
 Type and route of medication determined by:
     Age of patient
     Nature of procedure
     Length of procedure
     Potential for the medication's
      side effects
 Assessing key elements of the H&P lowers the risk
  of complications
 Past medical history:
       Prior sedation/anesthesia history
       Last solid and liquid PO intake
       Recent illness
       Medication or drug use
       Allergies or adverse reaction
       Pertinent family history
       Pregnancy status
       Upper respiratory infection (URI) symptoms, history of
        reactive airway disease
   Risk of laryngospasm 5.5x higher with URI and
    3.7x higher with active asthma
   AAP and ASA recommendations (guidelines for general
    anesthesia extrapolated to emergency care):
      2 hours for clear liquids
      4 hours for breast milk
      6 hours for other non-clear liquids and solids
   No association between fasting and
    adverse effects
        Green at al. Acad Emerg Med. 2002.
            Patients who fast for 2 hours have same gastric volume and pH as those who
             fast for longer
        Agrawal et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2003.
            Prospective case series of ED patients undergoing procedural sedation
            No difference in fasting in pts who had vomiting
        Roback et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2004.
            Prospective analysis of ED patients comparing adverse events to fasting
            No association between adverse events and fasting time
 ACEP: “Recent food intake is not a
  contraindication for administering procedural
  sedation…but should be considered in choosing
  the timing and target of sedation.”
 Green et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2007.
       Consensus-based clinical practice advisory
   Consider risks and benefits:
     Conditions predisposing to reflux (e.g. hiatal hernia)
     Extremes of age (<6 months or >70 years old)
     Severe systemic disease (ASA III or greater)
     Depressed mental status

   Preprocedural antacids or motility agents have
    NOT been shown to reduce risk
  Physical   exam:
      Age
      Weight
      Vital signs
      Airway exam
      Cardiovascular exam
      Neurological/mental status
      Size and location of injury
       and neurological status
       distal to it
  Mallampati     classification
 Class I and II patients are best candidates for
  general endotracheal anesthesia
 Unknown if this classification can be accurately
  extrapolated for procedural sedations in the ED

  I. Normal healthy pt
  II. Pt with mild systemic disease
  III. Pt with severe systemic disease
  IV. Pt with severe systemic disease
  that is constant threat to life
  V. Moribund pt not expected to
  survive without operation
  E. Emergent procedure
   Suction
   Oxygen (must be available, may decrease
    incidence and severity of hypoxemia but may
    delay detection of apnea with pulse ox)
   Airway: age-appropriate nasopharyngeal and
    oropharyngeal airways, face mask, bag-valve
    mask, ETT, laryngoscope
   Pharmacy (drugs for sedation and reversal
   Monitors (continuous pulse ox, blood pressure,
   Equipment (special equipment e.g. debrillator
    in patient with cardiovascular disease)
   Continuous pulse ox and heart rate
   Record vital signs every 15 min for
    conscious sedation and every 5 min for
    deep sedation
   Record drug dose and time
   Record state of consciousness and
    response to stimulation
   Consider end-tidal CO2 monitoring
   Noxious stimuli can lighten sedation;
    withdrawal of stimuli at end of
    procedure can deepen sedation
   Highest risk for complications 5-10
    min after IV meds and in
    immediate post-procedure period
    when external stimuli
   Continue recording vital signs until the patient responds
    appropriately to voice or gentle stimulation.
   Newman et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2003.
     Prospective study of adverse effects in ED procedural sedations to
      determine optimal timing of ED discharge
     13.7% adverse effects, 92% during procedure, most 2 min after final med
     Rare serious effects > 25 min after final med dose; all (.002% overall)
      were repeat occurrences in pts with hypoxia during peak drug effect
   In general, discharge criteria should be:
     Vital signs within 15% (plus or minus) of admission
     Patient should talk and sit unassisted, according to age (walking not a
     Should be able to take and retain oral fluids
     Can discharge 30 minutes after last dose assuming no significant adverse
      events during procedure and patient did not receive reversal agent
   Some agents have specific aftercare needs (e.g. ketamine may
    cause ataxia for 12-24 hours, and children should be activity
    restricted to prevent further injury)
   1980-1990            Available agents are used (e.g. Demerol,
                         Phenergan, Thorazine, diazepam, morphine,
                         barbiturates, chloral hydrate)
   1985-1990            Non-histamine-releasing short-acting opioids
                         (e.g. fentanyl), short-acting benzodiazepines
                         (e.g. midazolam), use of reversal agents, pulse
   1990-2000            Newer agents part of routine practice,
                         rediscovery of older agents (e.g. ketamine, n
                         itrous oxide)
   2000-2005            ultra-short acting agents part of ED
                         procedural sedation (e.g. etomidate, propofol),
                         advanced technology for assessing sedation
                         depth (e.g. capnography)

(Adapted from Miner et al. “Procedural Sedation and Analgesia Research: State of the Art.” Acad
   Emerg Med. 2007.)
   First generation:
       Chloral hydrate
       Pentobarbital
       Methohexital and thiopental
       Diazepam (Valium)
       Morphine and meperidine
   Second generation:
       Midazolam (Versed)
       Fentanyl                      o Fourth generation?
                                         • Ketofol
       Ketamine                         • Fospropofol
       Nitrous oxide                    • Dexmedetomidine
   Third generation
       Propofol
       Etomidate
  Frequently  used to control pain
  Used as a single agent or as a
   combination with
   sedative/anxiolytic agents
  Evaluate endpoints by observing
      Miosis
      Decreased responsiveness to verbal
      Altered respiratory pattern
      Slightly impaired speech
      Diminished pain on questioning
   Fentanyl preferred due to faster onset, shorter
    recovery, and lack of histamine release
    (compared to morphine and meperidine)
       Peak onset IV 2-3 minutes
       Duration 20-40 minutes
   Remifentanil and Alfentanil
     Rapid onset, duration of 5 minutes
     Remifentanil studied with propofol and alone
     Alfentanil
        Increased respiratory depression when used with
        (Annals 2010 article) 39% of patients with airway

         or respiratory events leading to intervention
         (although clinically insignificant)
     Neither proven superior to fentanyl
   Used as sedative-hypnotic agents
   Anxiolytic, amnestic, and skeletal muscle relaxant
   No analgesic properties
   Options:
     Midazolam (Versed) is commonly used because of its short half-life
      and prompt onset of action
     Diazepam (Valium) may be given but has a long half-life and active
     Lorazepam (Ativan) is a poor choice because of its long duration of
   Evaluate for endpoints by observing:
     Ptosis
     Somnolence
     Slurred speech
     Gaze alteration

 Benzo of choice due to shorter duration of action and
  multiple routes of administration
 Peak onset IV is 2-3 minutes
 Duration 30-60 minutes
 Can be given IV, IM, PR, PO, IN (but PO leads to
  unreliable concentrations, IN causes mucosal
  irritation, IN/PR may not be as effective)
 Paradoxical reactions in 1-15% of children
 Accumulates in adipose tissue which may lead to
  prolonged sedation
       Use lower doses and longer intervals in elderly, obese, and
        those with renal/hepatic disease

 Efficacy from 91-100% (multiple studies)
 Multiple studies showing hypoxemia and
  subclinical respiratory depression with combo
 Recommendation:
     Give midazolam first (0.02 mg/kg, max 2mg)
     After 2 minutes, give 2nd dose if necessary
     Give fentanyl (0.5 mcg/kg)
     Repeat fentanyl q2 min prn
     Use smaller doses and longer intervals with elderly
      and those with renal/liver disease
    Produce sedation and amnesia and
     reduce anxiety
    No analgesic effects
    Reproducible dose-response effect,
     based on weight
    Neuroprotective properties by
     lowering ICP and anticonvulsant
    Disadvantages include hypotension,
     hypoventilation, and apnea

 Pentobarbital
     With IV, sedation in 3-5 min; with PO 15-20 min
     Duration of 30-40 min (however, one study showed
      sedation > 8 hours in 19%)
     One study showed high complication rate (14.7%);
      another showed high failure rate (8%) in pediatrics for
      those >12yo or >50kg
 Methohexital        (Brevital)
     With IV, sedation within one minute
     Recovery in 15 min
     Given rectally can reliably produce anxiolysis and
      sedation for CT/MRIs

   Most studies evaluate for use for painless diagnostic
    studies (CT/MRI)
   Efficacy IV (1mg/kg) of 99-100%, IM (10mg/kg) 92%, PR
    (25 mg/kg) 95%
   Incidence of hypoxia from 1-6%
   Transient hypotension in up to 17% when given IV
   Avoid in patients with seizure disorder
 Chloral hydrate
 Nitrous oxide
 Ketamine
     Sedative-hypnotic
     Also has analgesia and
      amnestic effects
 Etomidate
     Ultra-short acting
     Neuroprotective properties and minimal
      cardiovascular effects
 Propofol
     Ultra-short acting
 Sedative-hypnotic, no analgesia
 Average 30 min to peak sedation
 Recovery time 1-2 hours
 Motor imbalance and agitation can last for several
  more hours
 Most reliable in children < 3 y.o.
 Given PO or PR, no IV needed (some prefer for
  children < 18 mo for this reason)
 Can cause airway obstruction, respiratory
  depression; in France restricted due to potential
 Contraindicated in patients with hepatic, renal, or
  cardiac disease

 AAP   Committee on Drugs. Pediatrics. 1993.
   Low incidence of acute toxicity when given orally in
    recommended doses for short-term sedation
   Repetitive dosing not recommended
   Two mice studies indicate potential carcinogenicity but
    animal studies for benzos and barbs also indicate
    potential carcinogenicity as well
 Hoffman   et al. Pediatrics. 2002.
   Prospective evaluation of adherence to AAP/ASA
    guidelines and complications
   Chloral hydrate associated with more adverse events
    (odds ratio 2.13)
   Produces analgesia, sedation, amnesia, and immobilization
   Dissociative state produced not consistent with JC definitions of
    moderate or deep sedation; unique effects
   Above critical dosage threshold (1.5 mg/kg IV or 4-5 mg/kg IM)
    produces effects, not titratable
   IV effect one minute, duration 5-10 minutes (give over 60s to
    prevent respiratory depression)
   IM effect 3-5 minutes, duration 20-30 minutes
   Time to dischargeable recovery 50-110 minutes IV, 60-140
    minutes IM
   Can give anticholinergics (atropine?, glycopyrrolate) to prevent
   Emergence reaction uncommon (<1% in adults and children); no
    benefit from concurrent benzos
   Good for painful procedures, less desirable for imaging due to
    occasional random movements
   Excellent safety profile
      Preserves cardiopulmonary stability
      Preserves spontaneous respiration
   Contraindications:
      Absolute
           Children < 3 months (higher incidence of airway compromise)
           Known or suspected psychosis
       Relative
           Age < 12 months
           Procedures involving stimulation of posterior pharynx
           H/o tracheal surgery or stenosis
           Active pulmonary infection or disease (including URI)
           Head injury associated with LOC
           Altered mental status
           Hypertension
           Heart failure
           Emesis
           CNS masses, abnormalities, hydrocephalus
           Glaucoma or acute globe injury
           Porphyria
           Thyroid disorder or thyroid medication
   Pros
       Increases BP and CO
       Neuroprotective, increases cerebral blood flow
       Bronchodilation
   Cons
       Laryngospasm?
           Severe in 0.02% (other agents at 1.75%); mild in 0.29%-0.4%
       Potential increased ICP?
           Only seen in case series of patients with CSF obstruction
           One study showed decrease in ICP compared with fentanyl
       Increased IOP?
           In animal studies, but not in human studies
       Psychotic effects
           May precipitate psychosis in patients with known schizophrenia but doesn’t
            cause psychosis in otherwise healthy patients
       Thyroid disease
           HTN and SVT in 2 patients on levothyroxine
 1.5 mg/kg IV more effective than 1mg/kg (5.5%
  required additional dose vs 54%)
 IM associated with more vomiting, more
  laryngospasm, and longer recovery times than IV
 Similar hypersalivation scores with and without
 Green et al. Ann Emerg Med. 1998.
       9 year retrospective cohort in children receiving IM
       Low rate of significant adverse events; no serious
        sequelae; transient laryngospasm in only 0.4%
   Langston, et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2008.
       7.9% absolute risk reduction of post-procedural vomiting
        in children pretreated with ondansetron

   Wathen et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2000.
     Randomized controlled trial of ketamine +/- midazolam
     Adding midazolam does not decrease recovery agitation; in
      fact, recovery agitation increased with midazolam if age
      > 10yo (35.7% vs. 5.7%)
     Emesis decreased in midazolam group (9.6% vs. 19.4%)

   Sherwin et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2000.
       Randomized controlled trial of ketamine +/- midazolam
       No difference in recovery agitation; decreased emesis
        in midazolam group (2% vs. 12%)
     Addition of midazolam increased O2 desats
     Newer study shows ondansetron decreases vomiting (13%
      to 5%) – (Langston et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2008.)
 High satisfaction to patients due
  to antiemetic and euphoric properties
 Extremely rapid onset, extremely short recovery (5-
  27 minutes)
 Good efficacy and safety in adults and pediatrics
 Most serious adverse effect is respiratory depression
  (6-30%) and hypotension (by direct negative
  inotropy and arterial and venous dilatation)
 No analgesia
      If giving fentanyl with it, reduce dose (no single dose
       more than 0.5 mcg/kg)
      Can give with subdissociative dose of ketamine (0.3
   Contraindicated in patients with sensitivity to egg lecithin and soybean
   Can be painful through PIV (use larger catheter in larger vein)
 Hypoxia in 2-31% of patients, usually responding to
  supplemental oxygen or jaw thrusts
 Clinically insignificant transient decreases in blood
  pressure; no patients required intervention
 Safe and effective
 Mean recovery time 27 min
 Should have monitoring with capnography as well as
  pulse oximetry
 Sedation, anxiolysis, and amnesia
  equivalent to barbiturates but fewer
  adverse hemodynamic effects
 No analgesia
 Rapid onset and recovery
 Clinically insignificant transient adrenal suppression
 Pain with injection (1.9% when given with opioids,
  17% given alone)
 Myoclonus (7.8% - 37.9%); reduced when given with
 Can also cause respiratory depression (10%), nausea
  and vomiting
 No major adverse effects; may be used safely in
 Effective (93% procedural success) and safe (20% minor
    complication rate)
   Adverse reactions greater in older patients (>55 yo) with
    relatively higher doses of etomidate (0.23 mg/kg compared
    with 0.19 mg/kg in pts w/o resp compromise)
   Procedural success may be improved with reducing
     Pretreatment  dose (0.03-0.03 mg/kg given 50 sec before)
     Small dose of concomitant midazolam (0.015mg/kg)
     Magnesium sulfate given 90 sec before
 Comprehensive     review of literature
 Focuses    on:
     Etomidate
     Fentanyl/midazolam
     Ketamine
     Methohexital
     Pentobarbital
     Propofol
         rated on strength of evidence
 Articles
 (Classes I, II, III) and recommendations
 made (Levels A, B, C)
 Mace et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Oct.
   Etomidate effective and safe?: yes, level C
   Fentanyl/midazolam effective and safe?: yes, level B (greater
    risk of respiratory depression, so close monitoring needed)
   Ketamine effective and safe?: yes, alone or with benzo, level A
    (may require head positioning, O2, BVM support, measures to
    address laryngospasm)
   Midazolam plus ketamine reduce agitation/vomiting?: does not
    reduce agitation, level A; does reduce emesis, level B
   Methohexital effective and safe?: yes, level B (but may require
    head positioning, O2, BVM support)
   Pentobarbital effective and safe?: yes, level B (best results < 8
    yo; may require head positioning, O2, BVM support)
   Propofol effective and safe?: yes, combined with opiates, level B;
    yes, if used alone for painless procedures, level C (may require
    head positioning, O2, BVM support)

   Propofol/fentanyl vs propofol/ketamine
     Fentanyl group with 5x risk of serious adverse event
     Ketamine reduces pain and need for post-procedure
   Midazolam/fentanyl vs midazolam/ketamine
       Midazolam/ketamine more efficacious, causes less
        hypoxia (6% vs. 25%), fewer respiratory complications,
        but more vomiting in 2 weeks after procedure (4% vs.
       No significant difference in adverse events
       Midazolam/fentanyl causes more CO2 retention
       Midazolam/fentanyl has longer recovery time

   Pentobarbital vs. propofol
       Greater recovery time, longer time to discharge for
        pentobarbital but fewer adverse reactions
   Etomidate vs. propofol
       More vomiting (9.9%) and agitation (4%) compared with
        propofol (0.5% and 1.2%) but less hypoxia (2% vs 15.7%)
   Midazolam vs. propofol
       Propofol is effective, safe and has a shorter recovery time
   Roback, et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2005.
       Retrospective analysis ketamine vs ketamine/midazolam
        vs fentanyl/midazolam vs midazolam alone (median age
        6.7 yo)
       total adverse events 17%; ketamine with fewer
        respiratory adverse events but more vomiting
                   Percent   Respiratory          Vomiting (% of
                   of pts    adverse events       patients receiving
                             (% of pts            that tx)
                             receiving that tx)
Ketamine alone     59.7      6.1                  10.1
Ketamine/          12.0      10                   5.4
Midazolam/         13.4      19.3                 1.8
Midazolam alone    10.4      5.8                  0.8
   Pomeranz et al. Pediatrics. 2000.
       Evaluation of rectal methohexital for imaging
       Effective (95%), rapid onset (8 min), but relatively long duration (79 min) and
        significant transient respiratory depression (10%)
   Sedik. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001.
       Evaluation of IV methohexital for imaging
       Rapid onset (1 min), short duration (12-14 min), transient respiratory
        depression (5%)
   Moro-Sutherland et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2000.
       Compared IV midazolam to IV pentobarbital for sedation for CT
       Success rate 97% for pentobarbital (compared to 19%)
   Malviya et al. Pediatr Anesth. 2004
     Comparison of IV pentobarbital and PO chloral hydrate for children getting
     Quicker sedation onset and reduced suppl. sedation with pentobarbital but
      more paradoxical reactions, longer recovery, and increased failure rate
   Rooks et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003.
       Comparison of PO pentobarbital and PO chloral hydrate
       Similar time to sedation, time to discharge, length of sedation and adverse
   Baxter et al. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2007.
       Comparison of etomidate and pentobarbital
       Etomidate more effective, sedation shorter, and fewer adverse effects
   Dexmedetomidine
     Alpha 2 agonist (similar to clonidine) with sedative and
      analgesic effects
     Most studies to date in critically ill patients

   Fospropofol
     Prodrug to propofol
     May provide more sustained and consistent effects than
     Most studies to date are for colonoscopy, bronchoscopy,
   Ketofol
     Lower doses of each could reduce propofol-induced
      hypotension and ketamine-induced vomiting and emergence
     So far, has not been shown to be more efficacious or safer than
      either agent alone
   Naloxone (Narcan)
     Dose is 0.1 mg/kg IV, IM, SC, ET, SL q2-3min until
      response for children <5 years or <20 kg
     2 mg for children > 5 y (or >20 kg)
     Half-life 1-2 h (rebound sedation and apnea may occur)
     Can give Nalmefene (t½ 4-8 h) which lasts longer than
      fentanyl but then can’t treat post-procedure pain)
   Flumazenil
     Dose is 0.01-0.02 mg/kg IV, may repeat every min to max
      total dose of 1 mg
     Can precipitate seizures in patients with TCA overdose,
      chronic benzo use, seizure disorder, elevated ICP
   Behavioral treatments
       Desensitization
       Relaxation
       Distraction
   Cognitive treatments
       Role playing
   Allowing family members to
    remain with the child
   If you were to give this
    child midazolam, what is
    his chance of having a
    paradoxical reaction:
    a. 1-15%
    b. 16-30%
    c. 31-45%
    d. >45%

   Which agent would be
    best to use with propofol
    for a painful procedure
    for this child?:
    a. fentanyl
    b. ketamine
    c. midazolam
    d. etomidate
 Which would likely
 cause this child greater
 respiratory depression
 in standard doses (best
 a. methohexital 1-6%
 b. etomidate       Up to 10%

 c. propofol        Up to 30%

 d. ketamine        negligible
 Which agent would be
 preferred for sedation
 for CT for this child?
 a. ketamine
 b. midazolam
 c. pentobarbital
 d. fentanyl
   Which of the following
    agents (given alone)
    would you consider for a
    fracture reduction in this
    a. chloral hydrate
    b. methohexital
    c. ketamine
    d. etomidate
   What might be the best
    agent to reduce vomiting
    when given with ketamine
    in this child?
    a. propofol
    b. midazolam
    c. ondansetron
    d. metoclopramide
   If this child just ate 3 hours
    ago, how long should you
    wait before his procedural
    a. 1 hour
    b. 2 hours
    c. 3 hours
    d. Probably doesn’t matter

    (But current UIC guidelines and AAP
    recommendations suggest to wait 3
    more hours if feasible depending on
    the emergent need for the procedure)
   Which agent would likely
    enable you to more
    quickly discharge this
    patient from your ED
    after procedural
    a. pentobarbital
    b. midazolam
    c. ketamine
    d. propofol
   Which method of
    administration would
    provide better sedation
    for a laceration repair in
    this girl?
    a. IM
    b. PO
    c. PR
    d. IN
 Which agent would
 be least likely to
 induce vomiting in
 this child?
 a. ketamine
 b. propofol
 c. etomidate
 d. morphine
 NPO status probably doesn’t matter; preparation does
 IN and PR midazolam not as effective as other options
 Ketamine and etomidate can cause vomiting (propofol
  is an antiemetic)
 Midazolam/fentanyl, propofol, etomidate, chloral
  hydrate, barbiturates can all cause respiratory
  depression (ketamine and nitrous oxide generally do
 Etomidate and propofol have shorter recovery times

 PO options: choral hydrate, pentobarbital
 IM options: midazolam, methohexital, ketamine
 Treat pain: fentanyl, ketamine
 For shorter painful procedures:
     Consider propofol/fentanyl, etomidate/fentanyl, ketamine
 For   longer painful procedures:
     Consider midazolam/fentanyl, ketamine
 For   imaging only:
     Consider pentobarbital, methohexital, chloral hydrate,
      propofol, etomidate
 “Procedural Sedation in Adults.” Frank RL. Last Updated: April 5, 2010.
 “Pediatrics, Sedation” Hom J and Burg J. Last Updated: January 29, 2007.
 “Sedation” Holder A and Paladino L. Last Updated: June 4, 2006
 “Ketamine: Emergency Applications.” Li J, et al. Last updated: October 31,
   Committee on Drugs. “Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients During and
    After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures.” Pediatrics. 1992;89;1110-1115.
   Committee on Drugs. “Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients During and
    After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: Addendum.” Pediatrics. 2002;110;836-
   Cote CJ, Notterman DA, et al. “Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: a critical incident analysis of
    contributing factors.” Pediatrics. 2000 Apr;105(4 Pt 1):805-14.
   Pena BM, Krauss B. “Adverse events of procedural sedation and analgesia in a pediatric emergency
    department.” Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Oct;34(4 Pt 1):483-91.
   Hoffman GM, Nowakowski R et al. “Risk reduction in pediatric procedural sedation by application of
    an American Academy of Pediatrics/American Society of Anesthesiologists process model.”
    Pediatrics. 2002 Feb;109(2):236-43.
   Agrawal D, Manzi SF, et al. “Preprocedural fasting state and adverse events in children undergoing
    procedural sedation and analgesia in a pediatric emergency department.” Ann Emerg Med. 2003
   Roback MG, Bajaj L, et al. “Preprocedural fasting and adverse events in procedural sedation and
    analgesia in a pediatric emergency department: are they related?” Ann Emerg Med. 2004
   Keidan I, Gozal D, et al. “The effect of fasting practice on sedation with chloral hydrate.” Pediatr
    Emerg Care. 2004 Dec;20(12):805-7.
   Krauss B, Green SM. “Procedural sedation and analgesia in children.” Lancet. 2006 Mar 4;
   Cote CJ, Wilson S. “Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and
    after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update.” Pediatrics. 2006 Dec;
   Roback MG, Wathen, JE, et al. “Adverse Events Associated with Procedural Sedation and Analgesia
    in a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Comparison of Common Parenteral Drugs.” Acad Emerg
    Med. 2005 Jun; 12(6):508-13.
   Mace SE, Barata IA, et al. “Clinical policy: evidence-based approach to pharmacologic agents used
    in pediatric sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.” Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Oct;
   Committee on Drugs and Committee on Environmental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics.
    “Use of Chloral Hydrate For Sedation in Children.” Pediatrics. 1993;92;471-473.
   Green SM, Krauss B. “Clinical Practice Guideline for Emergency Department Ketamine Dissociative
    Sedation in Children.” Ann Emerg Med 2004 Nov;44(5):460-71.
   Pershad J, Godambe SA. “Propofol for procedural sedation in the pediatric emergency department.”
    J Emerg Med. 2004 Jul;27(1):11-4.
   Green SM, Krauss B. “Propofol in Emergency Medicine: Pushing the Sedation Frontier.” Ann
    Emerg Med. 2003 Dec;42(6):792-97.
   Newman DH, Azer MM, et al. “When is a patient safe for discharge after procedural sedation? The
    timing of adverse effect events in 1367 pediatric procedural sedations.” Ann Emerg Med. 2003
   Mason KP, Zurakowski D et al. “Infant sedation for MR imaging and CT: oral versus intravenous
    pentobarbital.” Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3)723-8.
   Kanegaye JT, Favela JL et al. “High-dose rectal midazolam for pediatric procedures: a randomized
    trial of sedative efficacy and agitation.” Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003 Oct;19(5):329-36.
   Shane SA, Fuchs FM, et al. “Efficacy of rectal midazolam for the sedation of preschool children
    undergoing laceration repair.” Ann Emerg Med. 1994 Dec;24(6):1065-73.
   Green SM, Roback MG, Miner JR, et al. “Fasting and emergency department procedural sedation
    and analgesia: a consensus-based clinical practice advisory.” Ann Emerg Med 2007;49: 454.
   Langston WT, Wathen JE, Roback MG, Bajaj L. “Effect of ondansetron on the incidence of vomiting
    associated with ketamine sedation in children: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.”
    Ann Emerg Med 2008;52:30
   Green SM, Krauss B. “Barriers to propofol use in emergency medicine.” Ann Emerg Med.
   Phillips WJ, Halpin J, Jones J, McKenzie K. “Remifentanil for procedural sedation in the emergency
    department.” Ann Emerg Med 2009; 53;163
   Baxter AL, Mallory MD, et al. “Etomidate versus pentobarbital for computed tomography sedations:
    report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.” Pediatr Emerg Care. 2007 Oct;23(10):690-
   Pomeranz ES, Chudnofsky CR, et al. “Rectal methohexital sedation for computed tomography
    imaging of stable pediatric emergency department patients.” Pediatrics. 2000 May;105(5):1110-4
   Sedik H. “Use of Intravenous Methohexital as a Sedative in Pediatric Emergency Departments.”
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:665-668
   Miner JR, Gray R, Delavari P, Patel S, Patel R, Plummer D. “Alfentanil for Procedural Sedation in
    the Emergency Department.” Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Oct 12. [Epub ahead of print]
   Miner, JR, Gray RO, Stephens D, Biros MH. “Randomized clinical trial of propofol with and
    without alfentanil for deep procedural sedation in the emergency department.” Acad Emerg
    Med. 2009 Sep;16(9):825-34.
   Deitch K, Miner J, Chudnofsky CR, Dominici P, Latta D. “Does end tidal CO2 monitoring during
    emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol decrease the incidence of
    hypoxic events? A randomized, controlled trial.” Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Mar;55(3):258-64. Epub
    2009 Sep 24.
   Melendez E, Bachur R. “Serious adverse events during procedural sedation with ketamine.”
    Pediatr Emerg Care 2009; 25:325.
   Green SM, Roback MG, Krauss B, et al. “Predictors of emesis and recovery agitation with
    emergency department ketamine sedation.: an individual-patient data meta-analysis of 8,282
    children.” Ann Emerg Med 2009; 54;158.

           (Gabriel at 7 weeks)

To top