Dataset Information

Sleep deprivation did not enhance the success rate of chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

ABSTRACT:

Study objective

In Asian countries, oral chloral hydrate is the most commonly used sedative for non-invasive procedures. Theoretically, mild sleep deprivation could be considered as one of assisted techniques. However, there is no consensus on sleep deprivation facilitating the sedation during non-painful procedures in children. The aim of our study is to analyze the clinical data of children undergoing non-invasive procedural sedation retrospectively and to evaluate the association between mild sleep deprivation and sedative effects in non-invasive procedures.

Measurements

Consecutive patients undergoing chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedures between December 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 were included in this study. The propensity score analysis with 1: 1 ratio was used to match the baseline variables between patients with sleep deprivation and non-sleep deprivation. The primary outcome was the failure rate of sedation with the initial dose. The secondary outcomes included the failure rate of sedation after supplementation of chloral hydrate, the incidence of major and minor adverse events, initial and supplemental dose of chloral hydrate, and the length of sedation time.

Main results

Of the 7789 patients undergoing chloral hydrate sedation, 6352 were treated with sleep deprivation and 1437 with non-sleep deprivation. After propensity score matching, 1437 pairs were produced. The failure rate of sedation with initial chlorate hydrate was not significantly different in two groups (8.6% [123/1437] vs. 10.6% [152/1437], p = 0.08), nor were the failure rates with supplemental chlorate hydrate (0.8% [12/1437] vs. 0.9% [13/1437], p = 1) and the length of sedation time (58 [45, 75] vs. 58 [45, 75] min; p = 0.93).

Conclusions

The current results do not support sleep deprivation have a beneficial effect in reducing the pediatric chloral hydrate sedation failure rate. The routine use of sleep deprivation for pediatric sedation is unnecessary.

SUBMITTER: Cui Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7802942 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sleep deprivation did not enhance the success rate of chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Cui Yu Y Guo Langtao L Mu Qixia Q Cheng Qin Q Kang Lu L He Yani Y Tang Min M Wu Qunying Q

PloS one 20210112 1

<h4>Study objective</h4>In Asian countries, oral chloral hydrate is the most commonly used sedative for non-invasive procedures. Theoretically, mild sleep deprivation could be considered as one of assisted techniques. However, there is no consensus on sleep deprivation facilitating the sedation during non-painful procedures in children. The aim of our study is to analyze the clinical data of children undergoing non-invasive procedural sedation retrospectively and to evaluate the association betw ...[more]

PMID: 33434236

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUNDWe aimed to test a novel method of delivery of chloral hydrate (CH) sedation in ventilated critically ill young children.METHODSChildren?<?12 years old, within 72 hours of admission, who were ventilated, receiving enteral tube-feeds, with intermittent CH ordered were enrolled after signed consent. Patients received a CH loading-dose of 10 mg/kg enterally, then a syringe-pump enteral infusion at 5 mg/kg/hour, increasing to a maximum of 9 mg/kg/hour. Cases were compared to historical controls matched for age group and Pediatric Risk of Mortality score (PRISM) category, using Fisher's exact test and the t test. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as the use of an enteral CH continuous infusion without discontinuation attributable to a pre-specified potential harm.RESULTSThere were 21 patients enrolled, at age 11.4 (12.1) months, with bronchiolitis in 10 (48%), a mean Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD) score of 6.2 (5.2), and having received enteral CH continuous infusion for 4.5 (2.2) days. Infusion of CH was feasible in 20/21 (95%; 95% CI 76-99%) patients, with one (5%) adverse event of duodenal ulcer perforation on day 3 in a patient with croup receiving regular ibuprofen and dexamethasone. The CH infusion dose (mg/kg/h) on day 2 (n?=?20) was 8.9 (IQR 5.9, 9), and on day 4 (n?=?11) was 8.8 (IQR 7, 9). Days to titration of adequate sedation (defined as???3 PRN doses/shift) was 1 (IQR 0.5, 2.5), and hours to awakening for extubation was 5 (IQR 2, 9). Cases (versus controls) had less positive fluid balance at 48 h (-2 (45) vs. 26 (46) ml/kg, p?=?0.051), and a decrease in number of PRN sedation doses from 12 h pre to 12 hours post starting CH (4.7 (3.3) to 2.6 (2.8), p?=?0.009 versus 2.9 (3.9) to 3.4 (5), p?=?0.74). There were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls in inotrope scores, signs or treatment of withdrawal, or PICU days.CONCLUSIONSDelivering CH by continuous enteral infusion is feasible, effective, and may be associated with less positive fluid balance. Whether there is a risk of duodenal perforation requires further study.

Dataset Information

Sleep deprivation did not enhance the success rate of chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Study objective

Measurements

Main results

Conclusions

Publications

Sleep deprivation did not enhance the success rate of chloral hydrate sedation for non-invasive procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets