Adverse cardiovascular events are common during dexmedetomidine administration in neonates and infants during intensive care.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the safety of a commonly used sedative, dexmedetomidine in neonates and infants during intensive care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the paediatric intensive care unit at Oulu University Hospital. The study population consisted of all children from birth up to 6 months of age who received dexmedetomidine during 2010-2016. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes were defined as abnormal heart rates or blood pressure values according to the Paediatric Early Warning Score. RESULTS: Of the 172 infants, 56% had congenital malformation, and 48% had undergone surgery. Neonates and 1-3-month-olds experienced bradycardia (86% vs. 73% in 1-3-month-olds and 50% in 3-6-month-olds, p = 0.001) and severe bradycardia (17% vs. 14% in 1-3-month-olds and 0% in 3-6-month-olds, p = 0.005) more often than older patients. The median maximum rate of dexmedetomidine infusion was 0.86 µg/kg/h (IQR = 0.60-1.71 µg/kg/h). A dose-dependent increase in bradycardia and severe hypotension was found. Adverse cardiovascular events were managed with additional fluid boluses and discontinuation of the infusion. CONCLUSION: Adverse cardiovascular events were common during dexmedetomidine administration in neonates and infants. Lower dexmedetomidine doses may be required in sedating neonates.

National survey revealed variable practices in paediatric procedural sedation and patient monitoring.

Paediatric procedures requiring sedation are increasingly being performed off site, but there are no national guidelines for paediatric procedural sedation in Finland or studies on it. Therefore, the aim of this survey was to assess national practices for paediatric procedural sedation outside operation rooms and intensive care units in terms of indications, sedative medication, treatment facilities, patient safety and training of the personnel. An online survey including single- and multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions was sent to Finnish paediatricians, paediatric surgeons and paediatric anaesthesiologists via the electronic mailing lists of national societies in December 2019. A total of 71 responses were received. Lumbar puncture (41%), intra-articular injections (38%) and MRI (17%) were the most common procedures that required routine sedation. Benzodiazepines were the most frequently used sedatives during both painful procedures (80%) and imaging (61%). Pulse oximetry monitoring was reported by 75% of the respondents, but other physiological parameters were rarely monitored (ECG 28%; blood pressure 39%; respiratory rate 34%). The level of sedation was not objectively assessed. Adrenaline (72%) and equipment for managing adverse respiratory outcomes (supplemental oxygen 98%; ventilation equipment 92%) were available in most facilities in which sedation was performed. Only one-third of the respondents had undergone training for paediatric procedural sedation, and only 39% of the hospital units compiled statistical data on sedation-related adverse events. The paediatric procedural sedation practices vary across hospitals. National guidelines for patient monitoring and training of personnel could improve treatment quality and patient safety.

Systematic review and meta-analysis found that intranasal dexmedetomidine was a safe and effective sedative drug during paediatric procedural sedation.

AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine as a sole sedative during paediatric procedural sedation outside the operating room. METHODS: Relevant literature identified by PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2019 was systematically reviewed. Randomised controlled trials that compared intranasal dexmedetomidine with another sedative or placebo during paediatric procedural sedation were included. Trials that studied intranasal dexmedetomidine as a premedication before anaesthesia were excluded. The primary outcome was the success of the planned procedure. RESULTS: We analysed seven randomised controlled trials of 730 patients: four trials with 570 patients compared dexmedetomidine with chloral hydrate and three trials with 160 patients compared dexmedetomidine with midazolam. The incidence of successfully completing the procedure did not differ between dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate, but dexmedetomidine had a higher success rate than midazolam. The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia or respiratory complications did not differ between the sedatives used. Nausea and vomiting were more common in children treated with chloral hydrate than in those treated with other sedatives. CONCLUSION: Intranasal dexmedetomidine was a safe and effective sedative for minor paediatric procedures.