Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics

The Korean Pediatric Society (대한소아청소년과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Study of sedation according to neurologic and non-neurologic pediatric patients

소아연령에서 질환별 진정에 관한 연구

  • Kim, Jeong Hwa (Department of Pediatrics, Chonbuk National University Medical School) ;
  • Kim, Min Seon (Department of Pediatrics, Chonbuk National University Medical School) ;
  • Lee, Dae-Yeol (Department of Pediatrics, Chonbuk National University Medical School) ;
  • Kim, Sun Jun (Department of Pediatrics, Chonbuk National University Medical School)
  • 김정화 (전북대학교 의학전문대학원 소아과학교실) ;
  • 김민선 (전북대학교 의학전문대학원 소아과학교실) ;
  • 이대열 (전북대학교 의학전문대학원 소아과학교실) ;
  • 김선준 (전북대학교 의학전문대학원 소아과학교실)
  • Received : 2008.06.06
  • Accepted : 2008.09.01
  • Published : 2008.10.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sedatives for pediatric patients using noninvasive procedures. Methods : We performed a prospective study in 446 (aged 1 month-21 y) consecutive pediatric patients undergoing sedation to study noninvasive sedation techniques from February to August 2007. We reviewed demographic data, sedative drugs, dosage, complications, and successful rates of sedation according to the underlying diseases. Results : The overall successful rate of sedation was 435/446 (97.5%). The overall rate of successful sedation using chloral hydrate was 99.1% (420/424), and was 70.6% (12/17) and 60.0% (3/5) with ketamine and midazolam, respectively. Of the neurologic patients (n=172, aged 1 month to 21 years), 136 patients were sedated for EEGs, 5 patients for renal scans, and 31 patients for neuroimaging studies such as brain CT or MRI. All non-neurological patients (n=274, aged 1 month to 5 years) were diagnosed with urinary tract infection and sedated for renal scan. The overall success rate of sedation for this group was 99.6% (273/274). A total of 14 adverse events were observed (3.1%). Most adverse reactions were mild in severity and clinically insignificant. Conclusion : Using chloral hydrate alone has enough effect to sedate non-neurologic patients. However, neurologic patients in the severe course group, especially those suffering from intractable epilepsy, autism, or severe cerebral palsy, must be medicated with chloral hydrate 2 times at most; instead, injections of ketamine or midazolam in the early stage may result in a more promising outcome.

목적: 소아 환자에서의 검사 시 필수적인 수면유도를 위해 사용되는 약물이 시술자에 따라 선택이 다양하며, 대상 환자에 따라 그 효과 또한 다양하게 나타난다. 본 연구는 사용된 약물에 따라 약물의 효율성과 안정성을 신경계 질환자와 비 신경계 질환자를 비교 분석하고자 하였다. 방 법: 2007년 2월부터 2007년 8월까지 전북대학교 병원 소아과에서 뇌파 또는 신경 방사선학적 검사를 위해 수면유도를 시행한 172명과 요로감염 환자 등 비 신경계 환자 274명, 총 446명의 소아과 환자를 대상으로 수면 유도 성공여부, 추가 약물, 부작용 발현 등 전향적인 방법으로 연구를 하였다. 결 과: 대상 환자는 신경계 질환자 172명(남: 101명, 여: 71명), 비 신경계 질환자 274명 (남: 211명, 여: 63명)이었다. 수면유도에 사용 된 약물은 chloral hydrate(150/172명, 274/274명으로 각각 87.20%, 100.0% 평균 용량: 50.0 mg/kg), ketamine 17/172 (9.8%), midazolam 5/172 (2.9%) 순서로 사용 되었다. 수면유도의 성공률은 chloral hydrate의 경우 420/424 (99.1%), ketamin은 12/17 (70.6%), midazolam은 3/5 (60%)였다. 실험을 진행하는 동안 총 수면 유도 성공률은 435/446 (97.5%)였으며, 부작용의 발생률은 3.1%로 검사 시행 중에 환자가 깨거나 구토를 하는 것이었으며, 대개는 경미하였고 임상적으로 유의한 부작용은 아니었다. 신경계 환자의 경우 172명이 분석되었는데 뇌파를 위한 수면유도는 136명, DMSA renal scan은 5명, 뇌 전산화 단층 촬영은 3명, 뇌 자기 공명 영상은 28명이었다. 이들 그룹의 성공률은 뇌파의 경우 94.9%, DMSA renal scan 100%, 뇌 전산화 단층 촬영 100 %, 뇌 자기 공명 영상 89.3%였다. 비신경계 환자의 경우 274명을 분석하였고, 모두 DMSA renal scan을 시행하였으며, 성공률은 99.6%였다. 결 론: 수면유도는 영 유아의 경우 소아과 영역에서 술기를 실시하는데 중요한 것으로, 수면유도를 위한 약물에 관하여 여러 논란이 존재한다. 각각의 수면유도 약물사이에 성공률과 부작용 발생률에 따라 술기에 맞게 약물을 선택하여야 할 것으로 여겨지며, 환자 요인 분석에 따르면 신경계 환자의 경우 다른 환자 군에 비교하였을 때 수면유도가 힘든 점으로 미루어보아 일차 약물의 선택에 있어서 다른 기준이 요구될 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. Meyer S, Grundmann U, Gottschling S, Kleinschmidt S, Gortner L. Sedation and analgesia for brief diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in children. Eur J Pediatr 2007;166: 291-302 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-006-0356-0
  2. Epstein BS. The American Society of Anesthesiologist's efforts in developing guidelines for sedation and analgesia for nonanesthesiologists: the 40th Rovenstine Lecture. 2003;98: 1261-8
  3. Hoffman GM, Nowakowski R, Troshynski TJ, Berens RJ, Weisman SJ. Risk reduction in pediatric procedural sedation by application of an American Academy of Pediatrics/American society of Anesthesiologists process model. Pediatrics 2002;109:236-43 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.109.2.236
  4. 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. Pediatr Anesth 2008;18:9- 10 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2007.02404.x
  5. Hohl CM, Sadatsafavi M, Nosyk B, Anis AH. Safety and clinical effectiveness of midazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systemic review. Acad Emerq Med 2008;15:1-8 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2007.00022.x
  6. Costa LR, Costa PS, Lima AR. A randomized double-blinded trial of chloral hydrate with or without hydroxyzine versus placebo for pediatric dental sedation. Braz Dent J 2007;18: 334-340 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402007000400012
  7. Loewy J, Hallan C, Friedman E, Martinez C. Sleep/sedation in children undergoing EEG testing: A comparison of chloral hydrate and music therapy. Am J Electroneurodiagnostic Technol 2006;46:343-55
  8. Goodman GA, Rall TW, Nies AS. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 8th ed. New York: Maxwell Macmillan international Editions, 1991:364-5
  9. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Eldevik OP, Rockwell DT, Wong JH, Tait AR. Sedation and general anaesthesia in children undergoing MRI and CT: adverse events and outcomes. Br J Anaesth 2000;84:743-8 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013586
  10. Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S, Prochaska G, Tait AR. Sedation failures in children undergoing MRI and CT: is temperament a factor? Paediatr Anaesth 2000;10:319-23 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9592.2000.00510.x
  11. Mckee MR, Sharieff GQ, Kanegaye JT, Stebel M. Oral analgesia before pediatric ketamine sedation is not associated with an increased risk of emesis and other adverse events. J Emerq Med 2008;35:23-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.08.076
  12. Tosun Z, Esmaoglu A, Coruh A. Propofol-ketamine vs propofol- fentanyl combinations for deep sedation and analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing burn dressing changes. Pediatr Anesth 2008;18:43-7
  13. Petrack EM. Ketamine. Clin Ped Emerg Med 2000;1:281-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1522-8401(00)90041-7
  14. Greenberg SB, Faerber EN, Radke JL, Aspinall CL, Adams RC, Mercer-Wilson DD. Sedation of difficult-to-sedate children undergoing MR imaging: value of thioridazine as an adjunct to chloral hydrate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163: 165-8 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.163.1.8010205
  15. Cengiz M, Baysal Z, Ganidagli S. Oral sedation with midazolam and diphenhydramine compared with midazolam alone in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth 2006;16:621-6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01820.x
  16. Everitt I, Younge P, Barnett P. Paediatric sedation in emergency department: what is our practice? Emerg Med (Fremantle) 2002;14,62-6 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2002.00285.x
  17. Acworth JP, Purdie D, Clark RC. Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam is superior to intranasal midazolam for emergency paediatric procedural sedation. Emerg Med J 2001;18:39-45 https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.18.1.39
  18. Mattioli C, Gemma M, Baldoli C, Sessa M, Albertin A, Beretta L. Sedation for children with metachromatic leukodystrophy undergoing MRI. Pediatr Anesth 2007;17:64-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.02002.x
  19. Cutler KO, Bush AJ, Godambe SA, Gilmore B. The use of a pediatric emergency medicine-staffed sedation service during imaging: a retrospective analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2007;25:654-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2006.11.043
  20. Cortellazzi P, Lamperti M, Minati L, Falcone C, Pantaleoni C, Caldiroli D. Sedation of neurologically impaired children undergoing MRI: a sequential approach. Pediatr Anesth 2007; 17:630-6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.02178.x
  21. Vade A, Sukhani R, Dolenga M, Habisohn-Schuck C. Chloral hydrate sedation of children undergoing CT and MR imaging : safety as judged by American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. AJR　Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:905-9 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.165.4.7676990
  22. Greenberg SB, Faerber EN, Aspinall CL, Adams RC. Highdose chloral hydrate sedation for children undergoing MR imaging: safety and efficacy in relation to age. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;161:639-41 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.161.3.8352124