An Evidence-Based Approach To Pediatric Procedural Sedation
0
TOC Will Appear Here

An Evidence-Based Approach To Pediatric Procedural Sedation

1,463 views
Below is a free preview. Log in or subscribe for full access. Or, get a free sample article ED Assessment and Management of Pediatric Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Concussion:
Please provide a valid email address.
Table of Contents
 
Table of Contents
  1. Abstract
  2. Case Presentations
  3. Introduction
  4. Critical Appraisal Of The Literature
  5. Definitions
  6. Goals Of Sedation
  7. Emergency Department Presedation Evaluation And Preparation
    1. Preoperative Fasting
    2. Personnel
    3. Equipment
    4. Monitoring
    5. Vascular Access
    6. Discharge Criteria
  8. Analgesic Medications
    1. Topical Agents
      1. LET:
      2. EMLA:
      3. Lidocaine
    2. Systemic Agents
      1. Nonopioids
        • Acetaminophen (APAP, Paracetamol)
        • Ibuprofen
      2. Ketorolac
      3. Opioids
        • Morphine Sulfate
        • Fentanyl Citrate
    3. Sedative/Hypnotic Agents
      1. Midazolam
      2. Barbiturates
        • Methohexital
        • Thiopental
        • Pentobarbital
      3. Propofol
      4. Ketamine
      5. Inhaled Nitrous Oxide
  9. Summary
  10. Risk Management Pitfalls In Pediatric Procedural Sedation
  11. Case Conclusion
  12. Clinical Pathway For Choosing The Proper Sedation Agent
  13. Tables and Figures
    1. Table 1. American Society of Anesthesiologists Patient Classifications
    2. Table 2. Dosing, Onset, And Duration Of Procedural Sedation Medications
    3. Appendix A. Sample Procedural Sedation Preparation Checklist
  14. References

Abstract

Children present a unique challenge when it comes to procedural sedation in the emergency department. For pediatric patients, sedation may be required to facilitate cooperation during a procedure that would not typically require sedation in an adult patient. The amnestic, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties of procedural sedation agents must be weighed against their potential side-effect profiles. The ideal agent should have a favorable safety profile, be quick and easy to administer, provide adequate length and depth of sedation, and result in a relatively rapid return to baseline. An evidence-based evaluation of various agents of procedural sedation is presented in this review.

Case Presentations

A 3-year-old girl with a history of reactive airway disease is brought into the ED by her father. She has sustained a fall that resulted in a small frontal hematoma and a deep, jagged chin laceration. The father states that there was no loss of consciousness and no vomiting at the time of the event, which was 1 hour prior to her arrival to the ED. The father is concerned about her head injury and also inquires about the repair of the cut. Your examination reveals a very anxious child with a chin laceration that is fairly deep and may require extensive repair. You begin to consider sedation. You inquire about her last meal, and the father states that she had a light dinner about 4 hours prior to their arrival. He asks about the relevance of her last meal. You begin to explain that his child may need sedation and try to answer all of his questions. Which sedative will you use? What are the side effects? How long will it last? Is it absolutely necessary? Does it matter that she sustained a head trauma earlier today? Will she need an IV prior to the procedure? How long will it take for her to return to her normal self?

Introduction

Historically, pain and anxiety in the pediatric population has been undermanaged. Some of the reasons for the undertreatment of pain can be attributed to children’s inability to quantify or qualify their pain. Other factors are attributed to the unfamiliarity of medical personnel with the different available agents for pain management and fear of their adverse side effects.1-4

Nonpharmacologic interventions should always be considered when approaching a child who requires a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The developmental stage of the child should always be considered when choosing a proper pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic intervention. A child’s perception of pain is influenced by age, cognitive level, and past experiences of painful episodes. It is also very important to remember that a child’s reactions are often based on the reaction of his or her parents. Involving the parents can ease their concerns and help calm the patient.5

Critical Appraisal Of The Literature

An extensive literature search was performed in the PubMed database using multiple combinations of the search terms procedural sedation, conscious sedation, pediatric analgesia, pediatrics, emergency department, and side effects. All relevant articles were selected, reviewed, and included in the bibliography. Over 125 articles were reviewed, 68 of which are cited in this article. Emphasis was placed on reviewing the most recent reports, studies, and guidelines.

Risk Management Pitfalls In Pediatric Procedural Sedation

  1. “There is no reason to call a child life specialist. We are going to have to sedate this child.” A child life specialist can be extremely helpful in calming the child and alleviating the anxiety of the parent. Sedation may still be necessary in certain cases, but a child life specialist should always be involved to help aid in the process.
  2. “The ED is too busy to wait for the LET to work.” Waiting for the LET to take effect can diminish the need for local infiltration of lidocaine, especially for smaller lacerations, and can significantly diminish the pain and anxiety associated with laceration repair.
  3. “I have done many sedations. I can handle doing the sedation and the procedure itself.” There should be a separate, dedicated provider (medical doctor or certified registered nurse anesthetist) for the procedural sedation, along with a nurse or a respiratory therapist to properly record vitals and administer the medication.
  4. “The nurse cannot find an ETCO2, so we’ll just use the pulse oximeter.” ETCO2 has been shown to be more effective at demonstrating decrease in ventilation and should be used during sedations. The room should also be prepared with other equipment in case resuscitation or an advanced airway is necessary.
  5. “NPO status is very important and cannot be ignored, even if the procedure is emergent.” When evaluating a patient for an emergent sedation, NPO status needs to be address in the following manner: First, assess the patient’s baseline risk factors. Second, access the timing and nature of recent oral intake. Third, access the urgency of the procedure. Fourth, determine the prudent limit of targeted depth and length of procedural sedation and analgesia. When it is necessary to perform an emergent procedure, one should proceed regardless of the patient’s NPO status.
  6. “This patient previously received analgesics and makes a poor candidate for sedation.” Previously receiving analgesics is not a contraindication to procedural sedation as long as proper monitoring, equipment, and drug doses are used.
  7. “I used propofol, but I didn’t know this child had an egg allergy.” Propofol is contraindicated in any patient with known or suspected allergy to propofol, eggs, or soy products. Proper history and physical examination should be obtained in all patients prior to proceeding with the procedural sedation. An allergy history is especially important.
  8. “This child needs a CT scan. I’m going to use ketamine since I’m very comfortable with that medication." Ketamine is not an ideal medication for radiographic imaging since the child may still move quite a lot. Pentobarbital may be a more preferable choice, since its onset of action is quick and the duration of sedation is short.
  9. “The child’s initial IM ketamine dose wore off prior to the orthopedic surgeon being done with the procedure." Although an IV catheter is not necessary with all procedural sedations, it must be anticipated if more than 1 dose will need to be administered or if the case may present other difficulties. If more sedation is required, an IV can be placed after the initial sedation, although it is preferable before.
  10. “It’s the middle of the night. Since this child is now sleeping, I’m fairly certain there is no need to wait for the sedation medication to wear off.” Although it can be difficult to assess, the patient should always be observed to return to baseline status. The parents should be encouraged to wake the child up for an evaluation prior to being discharged from the ED.

Tables and Figures

Table 1. American Society of Anesthesiologists Patient Classifications

References

Evidence-based medicine requires a critical appraisal of the literature based upon study methodology and number of subjects. Not all references are equally robust. The findings of a large, prospective, randomized, and blinded trial should carry more weight than a case report.

To help the reader judge the strength of each reference, pertinent information about the study, such as the type of study and the number of patients in the study will be included in bold type following the references, where available. The most informative

references cited in this paper, as determined by the author, will be noted by an asterisk (*) next to the number of the reference.

  1. McGrath PJ, McAlpine L. Psychologic perspectives on pediatric pain. J Pediatr. 1993;122(5 Pt 2):S2. (Review)
  2. Walco GA, Cassidy RC, Schechter NL. Pain, hurt, and harm. The ethics of pain control in infants and children. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(8):541. (Review)
  3. Kennedy RM, Luhmann JD. The “ouchless emergency department”. Getting closer: advances in decreasing distress during painful procedures in the emergency department. Pediatric Clin North Am. 1999;46(6):1215-1247. (Review)
  4. Petrack EM, Christopher NC, Kriwinsky J. Pain management in the emergency department: patterns of analgesic utilization. Pediatrics. 1997;99(5):711. (Retrospective chart review)
  5. Joseph MH, Brill J, Zeltzer LK. Pediatric pain relief in trauma. Pediatr Rev. 1999;20(3):75.
  6. Patatas K, Koukkoulli A. The use of sedation in the radiology department. Clin Radiol. 64:655-663. (Review)
  7. * Marcias CG, Chumpitazi CE. Sedation and anesthesia for CT: emerging issues for providing high-quality care. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41(2):S517-S522. (Review)
  8. * American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Coté CJ, Wilson S, Work Group on Sedation. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update. Pediatrics. 2006;118(6):2587. (AAP guidelines)
  9. Coté CJ. “Conscious sedation”: time for this oxymoron to go away. J Pediatr. 2001;139(1):15. (Commentary)
  10. Green SM, Krauss B. The semantics of ketamine. Ann Emerg Med. 2000;36(5):480. (Editorial)
  11. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Tait AR. Adverse events and risk factors associated with the sedation of children by nonanesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. 1998;86:227. (Prospective implementation of a QA tool; 1140 patients).
  12. * Krauss B, Green SM. Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. Lancet. 2006;367 (9512):766. (Review)
  13. * American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures. Anesthesiology. 1999;896-905. (Guidelines)
  14. Green SM et al. Fasting and emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a consensus-based clinical practice advisory. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(4):454. (Clinical practice advisory)
  15. * American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2002;(96):1004–1017. (Guidelines)
  16. Green SM, Krauss B. Pulmonary aspiration risk during ED procedural sedation: an examination of the role of fasting and sedation depth. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:35-42. (Review)
  17. * Roback MG et al. Preprocedural fasting and adverse events in procedural sedation and analgesia in a pediatric emergency department: Are they related? Ann Emerg Med. 2004;44:454-459. (Prospective; 2085 patients)
  18. Sury M et al. Sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in children and young people: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2010;341:c6819. (Review of guidelines)
  19. McQuillen KK, Steele DW. Capnography during sedation/analgesia in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2000;16(6):401. (Prospective case series; 106 patients)
  20. Lightdale JR et al. Microstream capnography improves patient monitoring during moderate sedation: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):e1170. (Randomized study; 163 patients)
  21. * Newman DH 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;42(5):627. (Prospective; 1367 patients)
  22. Kennedy RM, Luhmann JD. The “ouchless emergency department.” Getting closer: advances in decreasing distress during painful procedures in the emergency department. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1999;46(6):1215. (Review)
  23. Ernst AA, Marvez E et al. Lidocaine adrenaline tetracaine gel versus tetracaine adrenaline cocaine gel for topical anesthesia in linear scalp and facial lacerations in children aged 5 to 17 years. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):255. (Randomized; 95 patients)
  24. * Eidelman A, Weiss JM et al. Topical anaesthetics for repair of dermal laceration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011, (Systematic review of 23 randomized trials; 3128 patients)
  25. Zempsky WT, Cravero JP, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. Relief of pain and anxiety in pediatric patients in emergency medical systems. Pediatrics. 2004;114(5):1348. (Review)
  26. Singer AJ, Stark MJ. Pretreatment of lacerations with lidocaine, epinephrine, and tetracaine at triage: a randomized double-blind trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7(7):751-756. (Randomized; 43 patients)
  27. Bjerring P, Arendt-Nielsen L. Depth and duration of skin analgesia to needle insertion after topical application of EMLA cream. Br J Anaesth. 1990;64(2):173.
  28. Cordoni A, Cordoni LE. Eutectic mixture of local anesthetics reduces pain during intravenous catheter; 57 patients)
  29. Berde CB. Toxicity of local anesthetics in infants and children. J Pediatr. 1993;122(5 Pt 2):S14.
  30. Lesko SM, Mitchell AA. The safety of acetaminophen and ibuprofen among children younger than two years old. Pediatrics. 1999;104(4):e39. (Randomized clinical trial; 27,065 children)
  31. Perrott DA, Piira T, Goodenough B, et al. Efficacy and safety of acetaminophen vs ibuprofen for treating children’s pain or fever: a meta-analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(6):521-526. (Meta-analysis)
  32. Lesko SM, Mitchell AA. An assessment of the safety of pediatric ibuprofen: a practitioner-based randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 1995;273(12):929-933. (Randomized double-blind controlled trial; 84,192 patients)
  33. Chauhan RD, Idom CB, Noe HN. Safety of ketorolac in the pediatric population after ureteroneocystostomy. J Urol. 2001;166(5):1873-1875. (Retrospective review; 118 patients)
  34. * Lieh-Lai MW, Kauffman RE, Uy HG, et al. A randomized comparison of ketorolac tromethamine and morphine for postoperative analgesia in critically ill children. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(12):2786-2791. (Prospective randomized double-blind parallel single-dose positive control study; 102 patients)
  35. Bean-Lijewski JD, Stinson JC. Acetaminophen or ketorolac for post myringotomy pain in children? A prospective, double-blinded comparison. Paediatr Anaesth. 1997;7(2):131-137. (Prospective randomized double-blinded study; 132 patients)
  36. Tobias JD. Weak analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents in the management of children with acute pain. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2000;47(3):527. (Review)
  37. Krauss B. Management of acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing procedures in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2001;17(2):115-122. (Review)
  38. Krauss B. Managing acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing procedures in the emergency department. Emerg Med 2001;13(3):293-304. (Review)
  39. Flood RG, Krauss B. Procedural sedation and analgesia for children in the emergency department. Emerg Med Clin N Am. 2003;21(1):121-139. (Review)
  40. Muller P, Vogtmann C. Three cases with different presentation of fentanyl-induced muscle rigidity—A rare problem in intensive care of neonates. Am J Perinato 2000;17(1):23-26. (Case report; 3 cases)
  41. Fahnenstich H, Steffan J, Kau N, et al. Fentanyl-induced chest wall rigidity and laryngospasm in preterm and term infants. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(3):836-839. (Prospective case series; 89 patients)
  42. Borland M et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing intranasal fentanyl to intravenous morphine for managing acute pain in children in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(3):335. (Prospective randomized controlled trial, 67 patients)
  43. Miner JR et al. Randomized clinical trial of nebulized fentanyl citrate versus IV fentanyl citrate in children presenting to the emergency department with acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(10):895. (Randomized controlled, 41patients)
  44. Krauss B, Green SM. Sedation and analgesia for procedures in children. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(12):938-945. (Review)
  45. Davies FC, Eaters M. Oral midazolam for conscious sedation of children during minor procedures. J Accid Emerg Med. 1998; 15;244-248. (Two stage trial, 50 patients)
  46. Fatovich DM, Jacobs IG. A randomized, controlled trial of oral midazolam and buffered lidocaine for suturing laceration in children. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:209-214. (Prospective, randomized control, 101 patients)
  47. Connors K, Terndrup TE. Nasal versus oral midazolam for sedation of anxious children undergoing laceration repair. Ann Emerg Med. 1994; 24:1074-1079. (Randomized control; 58 patients)
  48. Theroux MC, West DW et al. Efficacy of intranasal midazolam in facilitating suturing of lacerations in preschool children in the emergency department. Pediatrics. 1993;91:624-27. (Randomized control; 59 patients)
  49. Ackworth JP, Purdie D, et al. Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam is superior to intranasal midazolam for emergency pediatric procedural sedation. Emerg Med J. 2001; 18:39-45. (Single blinded, randomized; 53 patients)
  50. Golparvar M, Saghaei M, Sajedi P, et al. Paradoxical reaction following intravenous midazolam premedication in pediatric patients – A randomized placebo controlled trial of ketamine for rapid tranquilization. Paediatr Anaesth. 2004;14(11):924-930. (Prospective randomized comparative study; 706 patients)
  51. Coté CJ. Sedation for the pediatric patient. A review. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1994;41(1):31. (Review)
  52. Sedik H. Use of intravenous methohexital as a sedative in pediatric emergency departments. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(6):665. (Data report; 55 patients)
  53. Proudfoot J. Analgesia, anesthesia, and conscious sedation. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1995;13(2):357.
  54. Moro-Sutherland DM, Algren JT et al. Comparison of intravenous Midazolam with pentobarbital for sedation for head computer tomography imaging. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7:1370-1375. (Prospective randomized; 55 patients)
  55. Bassett KE, Anderson JL et al. Propofol for procedural sedation in children in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;43(6):773 (Case series; 393 patients)
  56. Green SM, Krauss B. Propofol in emergency medicine: pushing the sedation frontier. Ann Emerg Med 2003;(42 )92-97. (Review)
  57. Miner JR, Burton JH. Clinical practice advisory: emergency department procedural sedation with propofol. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(2):182. (Review)
  58. * Green SM, Roback MG et al. Clinical practice guideline for emergency department ketamine dissociative sedation: 2011 update. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:449-461. (Clinical guideline)
  59. Green SM, Roback MG, Krauss B, et al. Predictors of airway and respiratory adverse events with ketamine sedation in emergency department: an individual-patient data meta-analysis of 8282 children. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54:158-168. (Meta-analysis; 8282 patients)
  60. Mayberg TS, Lam AM, Matta BF, et al. Ketamine does not increase cerebral blood flow velocity or intracranial pressure during isoflurane/nitrous oxide anesthesia in patients undergoing craniotomy. Anesth Anal. 1995;81:84-89. (Prospective comparison; 20 patients)
  61. Bar-Joseph G, Guilburd Y, Tamir A, et al. Effectiveness of ketamine in decreasing intracranial pressure in children with intracranial hypertension. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2009;4:40-46. (Prospective control trial; 30 patients)
  62. Bourgoin A, Albanese J, Wereszyczynski N, et al. Safety of sedation with ketamine in severe head injury patients: comparison with sufentanil. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:711-717. (Prospective randomized double-blind study; 25 patients)
  63. Brown L, Christian-Kopp S, Sherwin TS, et al. Adjunctive atropine is unnecessary during ketamine sedation in children. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:314-318. (Prospective observational study; 1090 patients)
  64. Sherwin TS, Green SM, Khan A, et al. Does adjunctive midazolam reduce recovery agitation after ketamine sedation for pediatric procedures? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2000;35:239-244. (Randomized double-blind clinical trial; 104 patients)
  65. 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 8282 children. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54:171-180. (Meta- analysis; 8282 patients)
  66. Langston WT, Wathen JE, Roback MG, et al. 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;52:30-34. (Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial; 127 patients)
  67. Green SM, Johnson NE. Ketamine sedation for pediatric procedures: part 2, review and implications. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19:1033-1046. (Review)
  68. Annequin D, Carbajal R et al. Fixed 50% nitrous oxide oxygen mixture for painful procedures: a French survey. Pediatrics Emerg Care. 1995;11:93-97 (Survey Review; 1019 patients)
Already purchased this course?
Log in to read.
Purchase a subscription

Price: $449/year

140+ Credits!

Money-back Guarantee
Publication Information
Authors

Inna Elikashvili; Adam E. Vella

Publication Date

August 1, 2012

Get Permission

Get A Sample Issue Of Emergency Medicine Practice
Enter your email to get your copy today! Plus receive updates on EB Medicine every month.
Please provide a valid email address.