The incidence and risk factors of apnea in premature infants underwent general anesthesia for cryotherapy or laser photocoagulation for treatment of retinopathy of prematurity at Queen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and risk factors of postoperative apnea in premature infants who received general anesthesia for cryotherapy or laser photocoagulation for treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) at Queen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was performed by reviewing medical records of premature infants with ROP who underwent general anesthesia for cryotherapy or laser photocoagulation during January 2008 and December 2010 at Queen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health. The incidence and risk factors of postoperative apnea were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty of 167 (24%) premature infants had apnea after general anesthesia for treatment of ROP. The risk factors were post-conceptual age and history of apnea. The risk of apnea in patients with post-conceptual age less than 35 weeks was 5.7 times higher than in patients with post-conceptual age more than 37 weeks (95% CI 1.59-20.45). Patients with a prior history of apnea had a 6.42 times greater risk of postoperative apnea compared to patients without a prior history of apnea (95% CI 2.01-20.50). No other serious complications were reported during the study period. CONCLUSION: The incidence of apnea after general anesthesia in infants with ROP treated with cryotherapy or laser photocoagulation was 24%. The risk factors of postoperative apnea were post-conceptual age less than 35 weeks and prior history of apnea. Patients with risk factors should be closely monitored.

National survey of pediatric anesthesia practice in Thailand.

OBJECTIVE: To assess current pediatric anesthesia practice for further education from Royal College of Anesthesiologists of Thailand. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to 500 anesthetists in public hospitals in January 2010 to investigate preoperative data, intraoperative data, postoperative pain management, ambulatory anesthesia, and pediatric anesthesia training requirement. RESULTS: Response rate was 30.6%. Preoperative fasting and infective endocarditis (IE) prophylaxis were appropriate except that half the anesthesiologists preferred giving antibiotics in non-cyanotic heart diseases and ordering complete blood count as a routine investigation in healthy patients undergoing minor surgery. Premedication was preferred in children and adolescents. Parental presence during induction was most often selected in children (74.5%). Modified Ayre T-piece was the most popular breathing circuit used during induction while circle circuit was more likely used during maintenance period. Manual ventilation was preferred in neonates. Scavenging system was rarely used Intraoperative fluid was given based on Holliday & Segar Law (> 90%). Isotonic fluid without glucose was preferred for replacement of third space loss and hypotonic fluid with glucose was preferred for maintenance fluid. Transfusion trigger was inversely correlated with age. Postoperative pain scales were more often used in children and adolescents. Fentanyl was more popular in younger age group. Intermittent intravenous administration was the most preferred route. Age group of infants and older were predominantly accepted to be anaesthetized on an ambulatory basis. Pediatric advanced life support was seldom performed. Intermittent training was more popular than certified fellowship training. CONCLUSION: Routine investigation in healthy patients, IE prophylaxis in non-cyanotic patients, intraoperative fluid replacement, and pediatric advanced life support and postoperative pain management were the issues recommended for further education.

A comparison of oral chloral hydrate and sublingual midazolam sedation for echocardiogram in children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of oral chloral hydrate and sublingual midazolam to sedate the children undergoing echocardiography. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A double-blind, randomized trial study in the children judged to require sedation prior echocardiogram were performed. Two hundred sixty-four patients between 6 months and 5 years of age were randomized to chloral hydrate or midazolam groups. Either 50 mg/kg of chloral hydrate orally or 0.3 mg/kg of midazolam sublingually was given in each groups. If the child was not responded within 30 minutes after the first dose, another half dose of each drug for the second dose will be required. The action duration time, sedation score level and the ability to complete echocardiogram were collected. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body weight, underlying heart disease, baseline O2 saturation and functional heart classification. The children in chloral hydrate group needed the second dose for sedation more than midazolam group (10.6%, 5.3% p = 0.111). The onset, action duration and total study time were significantly shorter in midazolam than in chloral hydrate group (p < 0.001). The number of the patients who had the action duration within the optimal time (< 45 min) were significantly more cases in midazolam than in chloral hydrate group (93.1%, 43.5% p < 0.001). Success rate of echocardiogram was 99.2% in each group. There was no difference in echocardiographic time performed in both groups. The children in chloral hydrate group had deeper in level of sedation (p < 0.001). Both groups showed no significant difference in term of the ability to complete echocardiographic examination. The reaction of the children to take the medication and the number of the patients who had systemic O2 saturation change more than 5%from the baseline were higher in chloral hydrate group significantly (14.4%, 4.5% p = 0.006 and 9.9%, 3.1% p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Sublingual midazolam at the dose of 0.3 mg/kg can be used to sedate the children at age group between 6 months to 5 years who undergoing echocardiogram with comparable rate of success and safety as 50 mg/kg of chloral hydrate orally. The less depth in the level of consciousness after sedation with midazolam compare to chloral hydrate may be advantage in a high risk patient to avoid deep sedation but may be disadvantage in case who need more comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation.