OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of deep sedation provided by pediatric intensivists for elective nonintubated esophagogastroduodenoscopy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The sedation program at the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital. PATIENTS: A 4-year retrospective analysis was done on all outpatient elective pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures performed in an intensivist run sedation program. Safety was examined by reviewing the occurrence of minor and major adverse effects during esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation. Interventions were studied and reported. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 12,447 sedations were performed by the pediatric sedation program for various procedures. Two thousand one hundred forty-seven patients received 2,325 sedations (18.6%) for esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed for various indications. During the same time period, 53 (one for every 40 esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedations) were screened, found unsuitable for nonintubated sedation, and referred for general anesthesia. There were 2,254 sedations with propofol, 65 methohexital, five ketamine, and one fentanyl/midazolam sedation. Propofol sedation proved safe with a 2.1% prevalence of minor adverse events and no major events. Methohexital, on the other hand, had higher rate (p < 0.001) of minor events and one patient developed an anaphylactic reaction to its use. Regression analysis showed that other sedative agents were 8.6 times more likely to be associated with complications than propofol (odds ratio, 8.6; 95% CI, 4.1-18.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that deep sedation for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopies can be provided safely in the appropriately screened patient by nonanesthesiologist physicians in a sedation program. These data suggest that propofol is a safe and effective agent for esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of deep sedation provided by pediatric intensivists for elective nonintubated esophagogastroduodenoscopy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The sedation program at the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital. PATIENTS: A 4-year retrospective analysis was done on all outpatient elective pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures performed in an intensivist run sedation program. Safety was examined by reviewing the occurrence of minor and major adverse effects during esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation. Interventions were studied and reported. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 12,447 sedations were performed by the pediatric sedation program for various procedures. Two thousand one hundred forty-seven patients received 2,325 sedations (18.6%) for esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed for various indications. During the same time period, 53 (one for every 40 esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedations) were screened, found unsuitable for nonintubated sedation, and referred for general anesthesia. There were 2,254 sedations with propofol, 65 methohexital, five ketamine, and one fentanyl/midazolam sedation. Propofol sedation proved safe with a 2.1% prevalence of minor adverse events and no major events. Methohexital, on the other hand, had higher rate (p < 0.001) of minor events and one patient developed an anaphylactic reaction to its use. Regression analysis showed that other sedative agents were 8.6 times more likely to be associated with complications than propofol (odds ratio, 8.6; 95% CI, 4.1-18.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that deep sedation for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopies can be provided safely in the appropriately screened patient by nonanesthesiologist physicians in a sedation program. These data suggest that propofol is a safe and effective agent for esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation.
Authors: Sung Min Yang; Dae Yong Yi; Geun Joo Choi; In Seok Lim; Soo Ahn Chae; Sin Weon Yun; Na Mi Lee; Su Yeong Kim; Eung Sang Choi Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Frances C Lee; Karen Queliza; Bruno P Chumpitazi; Amber P Rogers; Catherine Seipel; Douglas S Fishman Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Yoo Min Lee; Ben Kang; Yu Bin Kim; Hyun Jin Kim; Kyung Jae Lee; Yoon Lee; So Yoon Choi; Eun Hye Lee; Dae Yong Yi; Hyo Jeong Jang; You Jin Choi; Suk Jin Hong; Ju Young Kim; Yunkoo Kang; Soon Chul Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Surender Rajasekaran; Mark Pressler; Jessica L Parker; Alex Scales; Nicholas J Andersen; Anthony Olivero; John R Ballard; Robert McGough Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2018-07-24
Authors: S M Green; P L Leroy; M G Roback; M G Irwin; G Andolfatto; F E Babl; E Barbi; L R Costa; A Absalom; D W Carlson; B S Krauss; J Roelofse; V M Yuen; E Alcaino; P S Costa; K P Mason Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 6.955