Is intranasal dexmedetomidine superior to oral chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in children: A systematic review

2022 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
MohamedB Delvi
2017 ◽  
Vol 101 (10) ◽  
pp. 1423-1430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asimina Mataftsi ◽  
Paraskevi Malamaki ◽  
Efthymia Prousali ◽  
Paraskevi Riga ◽  
Dimitrios Lathyris ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. S101-S102
Author(s):  
Rhodri Saunders ◽  
Michel M. Struys ◽  
Richard Pollock ◽  
Michael L. Mestek ◽  
Jenifer R. Lightdale

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piet L. J. M. Leroy ◽  
Daphne M. Schipper ◽  
Hans (J.) T. A. Knape

Objectives. To investigate which skills and competence are imperative to assure optimal effectiveness and safety of procedural sedation (PS) in children and to analyze the underlying levels of evidence.Study Design and methods. Systematic review of literature published between 1993 and March 2009. Selected papers were classified according to their methodological quality and summarized in evidence-based conclusions. Next, conclusions were used to formulate recommendations.Results. Although the safety profiles vary among PS drugs, the possibility of potentially serious adverse events and the predictability of depth and duration of sedation define the imperative skills and competence necessary for a timely recognition and appropriate management. The level of effectiveness is mainly determined by the ability to apply titratable PS, including deep sedation using short-acting anesthetics for invasive procedures and nitrous oxide for minor painful procedures, and the implementation of non-pharmacological techniques.Conclusions. PS related safety and effectiveness are determined by the circumstances and professional skills rather than by specific pharmacologic characteristics. Evidence based recommendations regarding necessary skills and competence should be used to set up training programs and to define which professionals can and cannot be credentialed for PS in children.


2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 236-239
Author(s):  
Kimberley M. Farr ◽  
Brady S. Moffett ◽  
Jennifer L. Jones ◽  
Amber P. Rogers ◽  
Corrie E. Chumpitazi

Brief Overview: The use of chloral hydrate as the primary sedation agent has declined across the nation after commercial production of the liquid formulation ceased. Although alternative sedatives have gained popularity, some pharmacies have continued to provide oral chloral hydrate by compounding it from raw ingredients. Thus, oral chloral hydrate use has continued in children despite the availability of alternative effective agents. Objective: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate institutional chloral hydrate utilization as the primary agent for procedural sedation. Design/Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients given chloral hydrate for procedural sedation from October 2010 to December 2016. The hospital pharmacy database of chloral hydrate use at our 2 free-standing children’s hospitals was reviewed and matched to procedure billing data. Results: There were 5874 chloral hydrate administrations for procedural sedation during the study period. The highest rates of use occurred in 2014, when there were 1420 chloral hydrate orders within our hospital. The large majority of sedations were for cardiac studies/procedures (n = 4250, 72.4%). Conclusions: Despite significant declines in use of chloral hydrate for procedural sedation across the country, local utilization of oral chloral hydrate remains high. Recent declines may be due to high-use clinical sites transitioning to alternative sedatives such as intranasal dexmedetomidine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document