Oren Feldman1, Giora Weiser2, Mona Hanna3, Ori Devir4, Uri Balla5, David W Johnson6, Eran Kozer7, Itai Shavit1. 1. Pediatric Emergency Department, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. 2. Pediatric Emergency Department, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 3. Pediatric Department B, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. 4. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 5. Pediatric Emergency Department, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel. 6. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 7. Pediatric Emergency Unit, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pneumatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception is often performed without sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success rate of pneumatic reduction of intussusception with and without sedation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Israel in two tertiary care centers using a similar protocol for pneumatic reduction of intussusception. In one center, patients had pneumatic reduction of intussusception under propofol-based sedation, while in the other, patients had pneumatic reduction of intussusception without any sedation. Children aged 3 months to 8 years who were diagnosed with ileocolic intussusception between January 1, 2008 and July 31, 2015 were included in the study. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for the possible confounders of age, gender, number of cases of intussusception prior to the study period, time period from the beginning of symptoms to emergency department admission (<12 h, >12 h), and time period from emergency department admission to the beginning of pneumatic reduction of intussusception. Secondary outcomes of the study included the proportion of bowel perforations during the procedure, and the proportion of early (within 48 h) recurrence of intussusception. RESULTS: The sedation and nonsedation cohorts included 124 and 90 patients, respectively. The cohorts were comparable with regard to demographic characteristics, hemodynamic vital signs on admission to the emergency department, blood gases tests during emergency department stay, and time variables prior to reduction of intussusception. Multivariable regression revealed reduction of intussusception success rates of 89.5% and 83.3% for the sedation group and nonsedation group, respectively, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-5.3. Three sedated patients and 0 nonsedated patients developed bowel perforations during the procedure. Rates of early recurrence of intussusception of sedated patients and nonsedated patients were 5.1% (6/117) and 1.3% (1/79), respectively (P = 0.15, RR = 3.9, 95% CI: 0.47 to 31.81). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the pneumatic reduction of intussusception under propofol-based sedation had a slightly higher success rate than the pneumatic reduction of intussusception without sedation; however, the safety of this practice is yet to be determined.
BACKGROUND:Pneumatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception is often performed without sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success rate of pneumatic reduction of intussusception with and without sedation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Israel in two tertiary care centers using a similar protocol for pneumatic reduction of intussusception. In one center, patients had pneumatic reduction of intussusception under propofol-based sedation, while in the other, patients had pneumatic reduction of intussusception without any sedation. Children aged 3 months to 8 years who were diagnosed with ileocolic intussusception between January 1, 2008 and July 31, 2015 were included in the study. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for the possible confounders of age, gender, number of cases of intussusception prior to the study period, time period from the beginning of symptoms to emergency department admission (<12 h, >12 h), and time period from emergency department admission to the beginning of pneumatic reduction of intussusception. Secondary outcomes of the study included the proportion of bowel perforations during the procedure, and the proportion of early (within 48 h) recurrence of intussusception. RESULTS: The sedation and nonsedation cohorts included 124 and 90 patients, respectively. The cohorts were comparable with regard to demographic characteristics, hemodynamic vital signs on admission to the emergency department, blood gases tests during emergency department stay, and time variables prior to reduction of intussusception. Multivariable regression revealed reduction of intussusception success rates of 89.5% and 83.3% for the sedation group and nonsedation group, respectively, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-5.3. Three sedated patients and 0 nonsedated patients developed bowel perforations during the procedure. Rates of early recurrence of intussusception of sedated patients and nonsedated patients were 5.1% (6/117) and 1.3% (1/79), respectively (P = 0.15, RR = 3.9, 95% CI: 0.47 to 31.81). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the pneumatic reduction of intussusception under propofol-based sedation had a slightly higher success rate than the pneumatic reduction of intussusception without sedation; however, the safety of this practice is yet to be determined.