The choice of perioperative inotropic support impacts the outcome of small infants undergoing complex cardiac surgery: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Vaso-inotropic agents are frequently used to prevent and/or treat low cardiac output syndrome in infants undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Due to the lack of comparative studies, their use is largely dependent on physician- and center preferences. The aim was to assess the impact of two different inotropic regimens, milrinone-epinephrine versus dobutamine on postoperative morbi-mortality in young children undergoing complex cardiac surgery. METHODS: All consecutive children younger than one year of age admitted for complex cardiac surgery (Risk Adjustment in Congenital Heart Surgery-1 [RACHS-1] score ≥3) with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) from January 2008 to December 2018 were included. Children received either milrinone in association with low dose epinephrine (milrinone-epinephrine group) or dobutamine (dobutamine group) groups were matched and compared using a propensity score. Our primary outcome was a composite measure including either hospital death and/or the presence of at least two of the following events: respiratory failure, prolonged inotropic support, or renal failure. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty patients were included in the analysis. Children in the milrinone-epinephrine group (N.=184) suffered more frequently from a cyanotic heart disease and had longer surgery, CPB, and aortic cross clamp times than those in the dobutamine group (N.=66). After matching, children in the milrinone-epinephrine group had a higher incidence of severe postoperative morbidity or mortality compared to those in the dobutamine group (27.4 versus 13.9%; P=0.016). Respiratory failure (28% vs. 12%), prolonged inotropic support (71% vs. 35%) and in-hospital death (3 vs. 0%) were more frequent in the milrinone-epinephrine group. CONCLUSIONS: In young infants undergoing complex cardiac surgery, milrinone combined with epinephrine is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative morbidity or mortality compared to dobutamine for perioperative inotropic support. Further prospective randomized studies are required to confirm this finding.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial.

BACKGROUND: Children under 6 years who need magnetic resonance imaging usually require sedation to obtain best quality images, but the optimal sedation protocol remains to be determined. In 2018, we showed a 22% interruption in image acquisition during magnetic resonance imaging when performing a propofol-based sedation using a bolus approach. As non-pharmacological premedication is often insufficient to reduce the anxiety of children related to parental separation, pharmacological premedication may be useful to facilitate the induction of anesthesia. In our institution, effective premedication is obtained oral intake of midazolam, though its administration relies on patients' compliance and could also lead to paradoxical reaction. Dexmedetomidine has a safe profile in the pediatric population and can therefore represent an interesting alternative. The primary objective of this trial is to demonstrate the superiority of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam as premedication in reducing the occurrence of any event requiring temporary or definitive interruption of the examination to allow anesthesiologist intervention in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging under propofol sedation. METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, superiority trial, we planned to include 250 patients, aged 6 months to 6 years, undergoing a scheduled magnetic resonance imaging requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist. After informed consent, the patients will be randomized to receive either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication. The data will be analyzed in intention to treat, using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z, chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney U tests. A P-value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. DISCUSSION: The MIDEX MRI study will assess the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam to improve the quality of a propofol-based sedation prior to magnetic resonance imaging, without negative repercussion on the postoperative period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05192629 . Registered on 14 January 2022. Protocol version 2.1.