-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jan 2023Sedation techniques and drugs are increasingly used in children undergoing imaging procedures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an overview of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sedation techniques and drugs are increasingly used in children undergoing imaging procedures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an overview of literature concerning sedation of children aged 0-8 yr for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures using needle-free pharmacological techniques.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies on the use of needle-free pharmacological sedation techniques for MRI procedures in children aged 0-8 yr. Studies using i.v. or i.m. medication or advanced airway devices were excluded. We performed a meta-analysis on sedation success rate. Secondary outcomes were onset time, duration, recovery, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven studies were included, with 22 380 participants. The pooled success rate for oral chloral hydrate was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.96); for oral chloral hydrate and intranasal dexmedetomidine 95% (95% CI: 0.92-0.97); for rectal, oral, or intranasal midazolam 36% (95% CI: 0.14-0.65); for oral pentobarbital 99% (95% CI: 0.90-1.00); for rectal thiopental 92% (95% CI: 0.85-0.96); for oral melatonin 75% (95% CI: 0.54-0.89); for intranasal dexmedetomidine 62% (95% CI: 0.38-0.82); for intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam 94% (95% CI: 0.78-0.99); and for inhaled sevoflurane 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
We found a large variation in medication, dosage, and route of administration for needle-free sedation. Success rates for sedation techniques varied between 36% and 98%.
Topics: Child; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Administration, Oral; Chloral Hydrate; Administration, Intranasal; Conscious Sedation
PubMed: 36283870
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.09.007 -
Journal of Neurochemistry Jul 2012Protective effects of statins have been well documented for stroke therapy. Here, we used a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess these evidences. We identified... (Review)
Review
Protective effects of statins have been well documented for stroke therapy. Here, we used a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess these evidences. We identified 190 studies using statin treatment in stroke animal models by electronic searching. From those, only studies describing ischemic occlusive stroke and reporting data on infarct volume and/or neurological outcome were included in the analysis (41 publications, 1882 animals). The global estimate effect was assessed by Weighted Mean Difference meta-analysis. Statins reduced infarct volume by 25.12% (20.66%-29.58%, P < 0.001) and consistently, induced an improvement on neurological outcome (20.36% (14.17%-26.56%), P < 0.001). Stratified analysis showed that simvastatin had the greatest effect on infarct volume reduction (38.18%) and neurological improvement (22.94%), whereas bigger infarct reduction was observed giving the statin as a pre-treatment (33.5%) compared with post-treatment (16.02%). The use of pentobarbital sodium, the timing of statin administration, the statement of conflict of interest and the type of statin studied were found to be independent factors in the meta-regression, indicating their influence on the results of studies examining statin treatment. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides further evidences of the efficacy of statins, supporting their potential use for human stroke therapy.
Topics: Animals; Brain Ischemia; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Infarction, Middle Cerebral Artery; Mice; Publication Bias; Rats; Regression Analysis; Research Design; Stroke
PubMed: 22548274
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2012.07773.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2013Mannitol is sometimes effective in reversing acute brain swelling, but its effectiveness in the ongoing management of severe head injury remains unclear. There is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mannitol is sometimes effective in reversing acute brain swelling, but its effectiveness in the ongoing management of severe head injury remains unclear. There is evidence that, in prolonged dosage, mannitol may pass from the blood into the brain, where it might cause increased intracranial pressure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different mannitol therapy regimens, of mannitol compared to other intracranial pressure (ICP) lowering agents, and to quantify the effectiveness of mannitol administration given at other stages following acute traumatic brain injury.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) and PubMed. We checked reference lists of trials and review articles, and contacted authors of trials. The search was updated on the 20th April 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of mannitol, in patients with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. The comparison group could be placebo-controlled, no drug, different dose, or different drug. We excluded cross-over trials, and trials where the intervention was started more than eight weeks after injury.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently rated quality of allocation concealment and extracted the data. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each trial on an intention to treat basis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four eligible randomised controlled trials. One trial compared ICP-directed therapy to 'standard care' (RR for death = 0.83; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.46). One trial compared mannitol to pentobarbital (RR for death = 0.85; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38). One trial compared mannitol to hypertonic saline (RR for death = 1.25; 95% CI 0.47 to 3.33). One trial tested the effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of mannitol against placebo (RR for death = 1.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 6.38).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Mannitol therapy for raised ICP may have a beneficial effect on mortality when compared to pentobarbital treatment, but may have a detrimental effect on mortality when compared to hypertonic saline. ICP-directed treatment shows a small beneficial effect compared to treatment directed by neurological signs and physiological indicators. There are insufficient data on the effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of mannitol.
Topics: Acute Disease; Brain Injuries; Diuretics, Osmotic; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Mannitol; Pentobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 23918314
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001049.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2012Raised intracranial pressure (ICP) is an important complication of severe brain injury, and is associated with high mortality. Barbiturates are believed to reduce ICP by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Raised intracranial pressure (ICP) is an important complication of severe brain injury, and is associated with high mortality. Barbiturates are believed to reduce ICP by suppressing cerebral metabolism, thus reducing cerebral metabolic demands and cerebral blood volume. However, barbiturates also reduce blood pressure and may, therefore, adversely effect cerebral perfusion pressure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of barbiturates in reducing mortality, disability and raised ICP in people with acute traumatic brain injury. To quantify any side effects resulting from the use of barbiturates.
SEARCH METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched on 26 September 2012: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), PsycEXTRA (Ovid SP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Searching was not restricted by date, language or publication status. We also searched the reference lists of the included trials and review articles. We contacted researchers for information on ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of one or more of the barbiturate class of drugs, where study participants had clinically diagnosed acute traumatic brain injury of any severity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Data from seven trials involving 341 people are included in this review.For barbiturates versus no barbiturate, the pooled risk ratio (RR) of death from three trials was 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.47). Death or disability, measured using the Glasgow Outcome Scale was assessed in two trials, the RR with barbiturates was 1.15 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.64). Two trials examined the effect of barbiturate therapy on ICP. In one, a smaller proportion of patients in the barbiturate group had uncontrolled ICP (68% versus 83%); the RR for uncontrolled ICP was 0.81 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.06). In the other, mean ICP was also lower in the barbiturate group. Barbiturate therapy results in an increased occurrence of hypotension (RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70). For every four patients treated, one developed clinically significant hypotension. Mean body temperature was significantly lower in the barbiturate group.In one study of pentobarbital versus mannitol there was no difference in death between the two study groups (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.94). Pentobarbital was less effective than mannitol for control of raised ICP (RR 1.75; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.92).In one study the RR of death with pentobarbital versus thiopental was 1.78 (95% CI 1.03 to 3.08) in favour of thiopental. Fewer people had uncontrollable ICP with thiopental (RR 1.64; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.60). There was no significant difference in the effects of pentobarbital versus thiopental for death or disability, measured using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.94), or hypotension (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence that barbiturate therapy in patients with acute severe head injury improves outcome. Barbiturate therapy results in a fall in blood pressure in one in four patients. This hypotensive effect will offset any ICP lowering effect on cerebral perfusion pressure.
Topics: Barbiturates; Brain Injuries; Central Nervous System Agents; Cerebrovascular Circulation; Humans; Hypotension; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 23235573
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000033.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to July 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2017), Embase (1980 to July 2017), and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (via CENTRAL) using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo for children undergoing non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with a total of 2390 children. The studies were all conducted in hospitals that provided neurodiagnostic services. Most studies assessed the proportion of sedation failure during the neurodiagnostic procedure, time for adequate sedation, and potential adverse effects associated with the sedative agent.The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed, as reflected by a wide variation in their 'Risk of bias' profiles. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 13 studies had high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in single small studies.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had lower sedation failure when compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a higher risk of sedation failure after one dose compared to those who received intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study, low-quality evidence), but after two doses there was no evidence of a significant difference between the two groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study, very low-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared to have more sedation failure when compared with music therapy, but the quality of evidence was very low for this outcome (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study). Sedation failure rates were similar between oral chloral hydrate, oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to achieve adequate sedation when compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), and rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study, low-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence).No data were available to assess the proportion of children with successful completion of neurodiagnostic procedure without interruption by the child awakening. Most trials did not assess adequate sedation as measured by specific validated scales, except in the comparison of chloral hydrate versus intranasal midazolam and oral promethazine.Compared to dexmedetomidine, chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 12.04 95% CI 1.58 to 91.96). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate (including behavioural change, oxygen desaturation) although there was an increased risk of adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was very variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine for children undergoing paediatric neurodiagnostic procedures. The sedation failure was similar for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. When compared with intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy, oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate. However, it must be noted that the evidence for the outcomes for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy was of very low to low quality, therefore the corresponding findings should be interpreted with caution.Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially the risk of major adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Chloral Hydrate; Dexmedetomidine; Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Electroencephalography; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Melatonin; Midazolam; Music Therapy; Neuroimaging; Pentobarbital; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29099542
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011786.pub2 -
Epilepsia Feb 2002New continuous infusion antiepileptic drugs (cIV-AEDs) offer alternatives to pentobarbital for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). However, no... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
New continuous infusion antiepileptic drugs (cIV-AEDs) offer alternatives to pentobarbital for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). However, no prospective randomized studies have evaluated the treatment of RSE. This systematic review compares the efficacy of midazolam (MDL), propofol (PRO), and pentobarbital (PTB) for terminating seizures and improving outcome in RSE patients.
METHODS
We performed a literature search of studies describing the use of MDL, PRO, or PTB for the treatment of RSE published between January 1970 and September 2001, by using MEDLINE, OVID, and manually searched bibliographies. We included peer-reviewed studies of adult patients with SE refractory to at least two standard AEDs. Main outcome measures were the frequency of immediate treatment failure (clinical or electrographic seizures occurring 1 to 6 h after starting cIV-AED therapy) and mortality according to choice of agent and titration goal (cIV-AED titration to "seizure suppression" versus "EEG background suppression").
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies describing a total of 193 patients fulfilled our selection criteria: MDL (n = 54), PRO (n = 33), and PTB (n = 106). Forty-eight percent of patients died, and mortality was not significantly associated with the choice of agent or titration goal. PTB was usually titrated to EEG background suppression by using intermittent EEG monitoring, whereas MDL and PRO were more often titrated to seizure suppression with continuous EEG monitoring. Compared with treatment with MDL or PRO, PTB treatment was associated with a lower frequency of short-term treatment failure (8 vs. 23%; p < 0.01), breakthrough seizures (12 vs. 42%; p < 0.001), and changes to a different cIV-AED (3 vs. 21%; p < 0.001), and a higher frequency of hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg; 77 vs. 34%; p < 0.001). Compared with seizure suppression (n = 59), titration of treatment to EEG background suppression (n = 87) was associated with a lower frequency of breakthrough seizures (4 vs. 53%; p < 0.001) and a higher frequency of hypotension (76 vs. 29%; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the inherent limitations of a systematic review, our results suggest that treatment with PTB, or any cIV-AED infusion to attain EEG background suppression, may be more effective than other strategies for treating RSE. However, these interventions also were associated with an increased frequency of hypotension, and no effect on mortality was seen. A prospective randomized trial comparing different agents and titration goals for RSE with obligatory continuous EEG monitoring is needed.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; GABA Modulators; Humans; Midazolam; Pentobarbital; Propofol; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 11903460
DOI: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.28501.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.
Topics: Child; Chloral Hydrate; Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Pentobarbital
PubMed: 34397100
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011786.pub3 -
Jornal de Pediatria 2017This systematic review of national or regional guidelines published in English aimed to better understand variance in pre-hospital and emergency department treatment of...
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review of national or regional guidelines published in English aimed to better understand variance in pre-hospital and emergency department treatment of status epilepticus.
SOURCES
Systematic search of national or regional guidelines (January 2000 to February 2017) contained within PubMed and Google Scholar databases, and article reference lists. The search keywords were status epilepticus, prolonged seizure, treatment, and guideline.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
356 articles were retrieved and 13 were selected according to the inclusion criteria. In all six pre-hospital guidelines, the preferred route of medication administration was to use alternatives to the intravenous route: all recommended buccal and intranasal midazolam; three also recommended intramuscular midazolam, and five recommended using rectal diazepam. All 11 emergency department guidelines described three phases in therapy. Intravenous medication, by phase, was indicated as such: initial phase - ten/11 guidelines recommended lorazepam, and eight/11 recommended diazepam; second phase - most (ten/11) guidelines recommended phenytoin, but other options were phenobarbital (nine/11), valproic acid (six/11), and either fosphenytoin or levetiracetam (each four/11); third phase - four/11 guidelines included the choice of repeating second phase therapy, whereas the other guidelines recommended using a variety of intravenous anesthetic agents (thiopental, midazolam, propofol, and pentobarbital).
CONCLUSIONS
All of the guidelines share a similar framework for management of status epilepticus. The choice in route of administration and drug type varied across guidelines. Hence, the adoption of a particular guideline should take account of local practice options in health service delivery.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Child; Clinical Protocols; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 28941387
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2017.08.004 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2020We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the clinical effect of dexmedetomidine in preventing pediatric emergence agitation (EA) or delirium...
We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the clinical effect of dexmedetomidine in preventing pediatric emergence agitation (EA) or delirium (ED) following anesthesia compared with placebo or other sedatives. The databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until 8th January 2020. Inclusion criteria were participants with age<18 years and studies of comparison between dexmedetomidine and placebo or other sedatives. Exclusion criteria included adult studies; duplicate publications; management with dexmedetomidine alone; review or meta-analysis; basic research; article published as abstract, letter, case report, editorial, note, method, or protocol; and article presented in non-English language. Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case-control trials (CCTs) including 7,714 patients were included. The results showed that dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the incidence of post-anesthesia EA or ED compared with placebo [OR = 0.22, 95% CI: (0.16, 0.32), = 75, < 0.00001], midazolam [OR = 0.36, 95% CI: (0.21, 0.63), = 57, = 0.0003], and opioids [OR = 0.55, 95% CI: (0.33, 0.91), = 0, = 0.02], whereas the significant difference was not exhibited compared with propofol (or pentobarbital) [OR = 0.56, 95% CI: (0.15, 2.14), = 58, = 0.39], ketamine [OR = 0.43, 95% CI: (0.19, 1.00), = 0, = 0.05], clonidine [OR = 0.54, 95% CI: (0.20, 1.45), = 0.22], chloral hydrate [OR = 0.98, 95% CI: (0.26, 3.78), = 0.98], melatonin [OR = 1.0, 95% CI: (0.13, 7.72), = 1.00], and ketofol [OR = 0.55, 95% CI: (0.16, 1.93), = 0.35]. Compared with placebo, midazolam, and opioids, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the incidence of post-anesthesia EA or ED in pediatric patients. However, dexmedetomidine did not exhibit this superiority compared with propofol and ketamine. With regard to clonidine, chloral hydrate, melatonin, and ketofol, the results needed to be further tested due to the fact that only one trial was included for each control drug.
PubMed: 32766178
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2020.00329