Intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine association allows shorter induction time for pediatric sedation compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam

Background Non-painful diagnostic procedures require an inactive state for a prolonged time, so that sedation is often needed in younger children to perform the procedures. Our standard of care in this setting consists of the association between oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 mcg/kg). One of the limits of this approach is that the onset of action is quite delayed (up to 55 min) and poorly predictable. We chose to compare this association with intranasal-ketamine and intranasal-dexmedetomidine. Methods This is a “pre-post” study. The study population included the first forty children receiving sedation with the “new” combination intranasal ketamine (3 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (4 mcg/kg) compared to a historical cohort including the last forty children receiving sedation with our standard of care combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine (4mcg/kg) and oral midazolam (0,5 mg/kg). Results The association intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal ketamine allowed for a significantly shorter sedation induction time than the combination intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam (13,5 min versus 35 min). Both group’s cumulative data showed a correlation between age and sedation effectiveness, with younger children presenting a higher success rate and shorter induction time (p 0,001). Conclusions: This study suggests that the ketamine and dexmedetomidine intranasal association may have a shorter onset of action when compared to intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam.

Smartphone Interventions Effect in Pediatric Subjects on the Day of Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Background: A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of smartphone interventions on the anxiety of the pediatric subjects at induction on the day of surgery compared to oral midazolam or standard care as control.Methods: A systematic literature search up to June 2021 was performed and nine studies selected 785 pediatric subjects on the day of surgery at the start of the study; 390 of them were using smartphone interventions, 192 were control, and 203 were using oral midazolam. They were reporting relationships between the effects of smartphone interventions on the anxiety of the pediatric subjects at induction on the day of surgery compared to oral midazolam or control. The mean difference (MD) with its 95% CIs was calculated to assess the effect of smartphone interventions on the anxiety of the pediatric subjects at induction on the day of surgery compared to oral midazolam or control using the continuous method with a fixed or a random-effects model.Results: Smartphone interventions in pediatric subjects were significantly related to lower anxiety at induction on the day of surgery (MD, −19.74; 95% CI, −29.87 to −9.61, p < 0.001) compared to control and significantly related to lower anxiety at induction on the day of surgery (MD, −7.81; 95% CI, −14.49 to −1.14, p = 0.02) compared to oral midazolam.Conclusion: Smartphone interventions in pediatric subjects on the day of surgery may have lower anxiety at induction compared to control and oral midazolam. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of the Effects of Oral Midazolam and Intranasal Dexmedetomidine on Preoperative Sedation and Anesthesia Induction in Children Undergoing Surgeries

Background and Purpose: Premedication with either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine prior to surgery remains less than ideal. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of those two drug regimens would have any beneficial effects on the preoperative sedation and the children’s compliance during anesthesia inhalation induction.Experimental Approach: One hundred thirty-eight children aged 2–6 years were randomly allocated into three groups: Group M with oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg−1, Group D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg−1, and Group M + D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg−1 plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg−1. The primary outcome was the children’s compliance during inhalation induction with sevoflurane. The secondary outcomes included the preoperative sedative effects, behavior scores, parental separation anxiety scores, and the postoperative incidence of emergence agitation and recovery time.Results: Subjects in Group M + D showed higher satisfaction scores of compliance (p = 0.0049) and mask acceptance (MAS) (p = 0.0049) during anesthesia inhalation induction. Subjects in Group M + D had a significantly shorter time than those in Groups M and D to achieve the desired sedation level (p < 0.001) and remained at a higher sedation score in the holding area and up to the anesthesia induction after drug administration (p < 0.001).Conclusion and Implications: We conclude that pediatric patients premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg−1 plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg−1 had significantly improved anesthesia induction compliance, and quicker onset to achieve and maintain a satisfactory level of sedation than those premedicated separately with two drugs. Therefore, the combined premed regimen is a greater choice when we are expecting a higher quality of sedation and a smoother anesthesia induction in children undergoing the surgeries.

Safety and Efficacy of IV Dexmedetomidine as an Adjunct to Propofol to Sedate Anxious and Uncooperative Pediatric Dental Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective : To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine (dex) as an adjunct to propofol sedation in pediatric dental patients. Study design: This RCT enrolled 30 anxious ASA-I 2-5 year olds. Allocated into 2 groups either receiving IV propofol (1 mg/kg)(Gp-P) or [IV dex (1ug/kg) with propofol(1 mg/kg)] (Gp-D) after oral midazolam premedication (0.5 mg/kg). Sedation maintained with propofol infusion at 50–75ug/kg/min. Additional bolus/es of propofol (1mg/kg) was/were administered in case of inadequate sedation. Primary outcome was to compare requirement of propofol in two groups. Secondary outcomes were to compare vital signs, depth of sedation, induction, treatment and recovery time, intra & post-operative complications and analgesic requirement post-operatively. Results : Total propofol (in mgs) used and number of additional boluses were significantly higher in group P (p<0.05). Although within normal limits, heart rate was significantly lower in group D. Respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, NIBP were comparable. Depth of sedation achieved was comparable at all steps (p>0.05). Induction time (mins) was significantly lower in Group P (p<0.05), however treatment and recovery time were similar (p>0.05). Desaturation was observed in 3/15(group P) & 0/15(group D). Analgesic requirement post-operatively was significantly higher in group P (p<0.05). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective adjunct to propofol.

Amnesia after Midazolam and Ketamine Sedation in Children: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

The incidence of peri-procedural amnesia following procedural sedation in children is unclear and difficult to determine. This study aimed to apply quantitative and qualitative approaches to better understand amnesia following dental sedation of children. After Institutional Review Board Approval, children scheduled for sedation for dental procedures with oral midazolam (OM), oral midazolam and ketamine (OMK), or intranasal midazolam and ketamine (IMK) were recruited for examination of peri-procedural amnesia. Amnesia during the dental session was assessed using a three-stage method, using identification of pictures and an animal toy. On the day following the sedation, primary caregivers answered two questions about their children’s memory. One week later, the children received a semi-structured interview. Behavior and level of sedation during the dental session were recorded. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and comparison tests. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. Triangulation was used. Thirty-five children (age: 36 to 76 months) participated in the quantitative analysis. Most children showed amnesia for the dental procedure (82.9%, n = 29/35) and remembered receiving the sedation (82.1%, n = 23/28 for oral administration; 59.3%, n = 16/27 for intranasal administration). The occurrence of amnesia for the dental procedure was slightly higher in the oral midazolam group compared with the other groups (44.8%, n = 13/29 for OM, 13.8%, n = 4/29 for OMK, and 41.4%, n = 12/29 for IMK). Twenty-eight children participated in the qualitative approach. The major theme identified was that some children could remember their procedures in detail. We conclude that peri-procedural amnesia of the dental procedure was common following sedation.

Predictable sedation: Safe administration of oral Midazolam and nitrous oxide gas for paediatric patients in the general dental practice

Behaviour management for anxious paediatric dental patients is challenging. Solutions include education and sedation. Various drugs have been used to effectively sedate paediatric patients during treatment. The aim of this study was to review literature on the sedation of paediatric patients. The study specifically looked at those reviews covering the combination of two sedation methods in case of more challenging paediatric patients. The study undertook a literature review focused on studies using nitrous oxide, Midazolam, or a combination of the two substances. An electronic search was done on EBSCOhost to source articles published from 1979 to 2019. A deeper form of sedation can be achieved for paediatric patients when using a combination of nitrous oxide, oxygen and a hypnotic agent such as Midazolam. Dealing with the anxiety levels of paediatric patients is a challenge for dental health providers. Two of the main strategies used to deal with anxious children are behaviour management and sedation. A critical review of journal articles on the use of nitrous oxide and oxygen in combination with Midazolam was therefore undertaken. The findings suggest that, in order to achieve a deeper form of sedation, the combination of nitrous oxide, oxygen and Midazolam works well to reduce discomfort, anxiety and/or pain in paediatric patients.

To Compare the Efficacy of Oral Midazolam and Triclofos Sodium as Oral Premedication in Children of Sawangi, Maharashtra, India

BACKGROUND The perioperative habits contemplate showing that kids are in more danger of encountering fierce sedative enlistment and unfriendly social sequelae. In paediatric sedation, decent premedication is fundamental to lessen tension and disturbance in youngsters. Parental partition and odd operating room environment as a rule bring about blustery acceptance while giving general sedation. Narcotic premedication is vital for making kids quiet and cooperative in a weird environment. Our study was done to compare the efficacy of midazolam 0.5 mg / kg and triclofos sodium 100 mg / kg as oral premedications in children undergoing elective surgery. METHODS In this prospective randomised comparative study, sixty children posted for elective surgery were enrolled. The patients were randomly divided into midazolam group (Group M) and triclofos sodium group (Group T) of thirty each. Group M received oral midazolam 0.5 mg / kg 30 min before induction, and Group T received oral triclofos sodium 100 mg / kg 60 min before induction. All children were evaluated for level of sedation after premedication, behaviour at the time of separation from parents and at the time of mask placement for induction of anaesthesia. RESULTS Oral midazolam showed satisfactory sedation in children after premedication when compared to oral triclofos (P = 0.003). Both the drugs had a successful separation from parents, and the children were very cooperative during induction. No adverse effects attributable to the premedicants were seen. CONCLUSIONS Oral midazolam is better than triclofos sodium as a sedative anxiolytic in the paediatric population. KEY WORDS Anaesthesia, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Midazolam, Paediatrics, Premedication, Triclofos sodium

Best clinical practice guidance for conscious sedation of children undergoing dental treatment: an EAPD policy document

Background Due to fear and/or behaviour management problems, some children are unable to cooperate for dental treatment using local anaesthesia and psychological support alone. Sedation is required for these patients in order for dentists to be able to deliver high quality, pain-free dental care. The aim of this guideline is to evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry and to provide guidance as to which sedative agents should be used. Methods These guidelines were developed using a multi-step approach adapted from that outlined by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE (2020) Developing NICE Guidelines: the manual. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction#main-stages-of-guideline-development. Accessed 7 Oct 2020). Evidence for this guideline was provided from a pre-existing Cochrane review (Ashley et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD003877, 2018) supplemented by an updated search and data extraction up to May 2020. Results Studies were from 18 different countries and had recruited 4131 participants overall with an average of 70 participants per study. Ages ranged from 0 to 16 years with an average age of 5.6 years across all included studies. A wide variety of drugs or combinations of drugs (n = 38) were used and delivered orally, intranasally, intravenously, rectally, intramuscularly, submucosally, transmucosally or by inhalation sedation. Twenty-four different outcome measures for behaviour were used. The wide range of drug combinations and outcome measures used greatly complicated description and analysis of the data. Conclusion Oral midazolam is recommended for conscious dental sedation. Midazolam delivered via other methods or nitrous oxide/oxygen sedation could be considered, but the evidence for both was very low.