PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Procedural Sedation”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

Emergency department management of pain and anxiety related to orthopedic fracture care: a guide to analgesic techniques and procedural sedation in children.

Orthopedic fractures and joint dislocations are among the most painful pediatric emergencies. Safe and effective management of fracture-related pain and anxiety in the emergency department reduces patient distress during initial evaluation and often allows definitive management of the fracture. No consensus exists on which pharmacologic regimens for procedural sedation/analgesia are safest and most effective. For some children, control of fracture pain is the primary goal, whereas for others, relief from anxiety is an additionally important objective. Furthermore, strategies for the management of fracture pain may vary by fracture location and patient characteristics; thus, no single regimen is likely to provide the best means of analgesia and anxiolysis for all patients. Effective analgesia can be provided by local or regional anesthesia, such as hematoma, Bier, or nerve blocks. Alternatively, induction of deep sedation with analgesic agents such as ketamine or fentanyl, often combined with sedative-anxiolytic agents such as midazolam, may be used to manage distress associated with fracture reduction. A combination of local anesthesia with moderate sedation, for example nitrous oxide, is another attractive option.

Analgesia↗

[Perioperative anxiety behavior of IVF patients and a suitable simplified analgo-sedation procedure in transvaginal follicle puncture].

In the present prospective study, perioperative anxiety was investigated in 52 patients, who underwent transvaginal follicular centesis for IVF treatment. Also the surgical and anaesthesiological procedures are described. The mean age of the patients was 32.2 years, and the mean period of desire for children 9.1 years. On average, six stimulation cycles were carried out. In an operation with a duration of approx. 20 minutes, an average of six oocytes were collected. As an alternative to general anaesthesia, an analgosedation, given intravenously with midazolam (0.1 mg/kg) and fentanyl (2 micrograms/kg) has been described. This necessitates continuous anaesthesiological monitoring due to respiratory depression, induced by the risk of medication. In our study, IVF patients who had a long history of desire for children, in some cases with several previous operations, show a low to moderate anxiety level before the operation. "Hospital routine" has evidently led to this low anxiety level, which is maintained after the operation.

Adult↗

Safety and comfort during sedation for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures.

Sedation during diagnostic or therapeutic procedures must be safe and comfortable for patients. To achieve this, additional suitably qualified staff must be available throughout the procedure to administer sedation and monitor the patient. Anaesthesiologists possess the necessary knowledge and skills to perform sedation safely but are often unavailable. Non-anaesthesiologists performing sedation should be fully trained in the physiology of sedation, the pharmacology of sedatives and analgesics, the monitoring of patients, and in airway support, ventilatory care, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The presence of an anaesthesiologist is desirable when dealing with patients at high-risk of complications. Good sedation practice involves presedation assessment and optimal selection of patients, careful monitoring and support from dedicated staff, and adherence to recovery and discharge criteria.

Adult↗

Sedation in pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic procedures.

Sedation is routinely used in pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic procedures. Meperidine with promethazine and chlorpromazine; meperidine with pentobarbital; and meperidine, morphine, pentobarbital, thiopental, methohexital, chloral hydrate, and benzodiazepines as single agents have been used at different doses in patients for various procedures including computed tomography, endoscopy, electroencephalography, and bone marrow biopsies. Most available studies, however, have not compared these drugs in a controlled and blind manner, and the data have often been collected retrospectively. In addition, the degree and duration of sedation required may depend on the procedure. Thus, it is difficult to recommend the drug of choice for producing sedation. Serious cardiac and respiratory effects and excessive sedation have been associated with these drugs, even when normal doses were used. Controlled studies and specific guidelines are needed for optimal use and monitoring of these drugs in pediatric patients.

Child↗

Sedation of pediatric patients for nuclear medicine procedures.

Sedation of the pediatric patient for nuclear medicine imaging procedures requires careful planning, patient preparation, and monitoring to ensure patient safety. The American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the safe use of sedation recommend a systematic plan for the use of sedative agents. Elements of the plan include informed consent, a patient pre-sedation health evaluation, monitoring by a cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained health-care practitioner, and recovery of the patient to the pre-sedation state before discharge. Other considerations include the formation of a sedation committee to monitor the sedation program, as well as provision of adequate space and equipment to monitor and care for patients appropriately. The choice of sedative to be used should be based on a predetermined sedation formulary and the assessment of the patient's physical status according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists' status classification system. Chloral hydrate used at a maximum dosage level of 100 mg/kg is a preferred sedative agent because it provides the widest margin of safety. Implementation of the guidelines provides a coordinated approach to the use of sedation for multiple procedures performed on the same day that require sedation, thus enhancing patient safety and successful completion of all procedures. Adequate resources, including personnel and equipment, are necessary for successful implementation of an adequate sedation program.

Child↗

Pediatric sedation for procedures titrated to a desired degree of immobility results in unpredictable depth of sedation.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the need to attain immobility during pediatric sedation for procedures determines the depth of sedation, which cannot always be predicted. DESIGN: A retrospective review of sedation documents of 301 consecutive sedations of pediatric patients undergoing various procedures SETTING: Division of Critical Care sedation service within a children's hospital. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The medical records and sedation forms of our most recent 301 consecutive sedations were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the data gathered, the patients were categorized according to their achieved level of immobility, their level of consciousness according to the definitions of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the procedures for which sedation was administered, and the sedatives used. A total of 125 males and 89 females received 301 sedations. Their ages ranged from 22 days to 29 years (mean 7 y + 6 y). We recognized four categories of immobility for procedures. In category 1, some motion was allowed during painless and noninvasive procedures to the extent that it did not risk the patient nor hinder the successful performance of the procedures. In category 2, the patients were kept motionless during painless and noninvasive procedures. In category 3, the patients were kept motionless during painful and invasive procedures with the addition of local anesthetic. In category 4, the patients remained motionless throughout their painful or invasive procedure without the use of local anesthetics. There were 32, 10, 156 and 103 sedations in each category, respectively. Conscious sedation (CS) was observed in six sedations (19%) in category 1 of immobility; it was observed in none (0%) in category 2, in 4 sedations (2.6%) in category 3, and in 1 sedation (1%) in category 4. Deep sedation (DS) was noted in 26 category 1 sedations (81%), in 10 category 2 sedations (100%), in 136 category 3 sedations (87%), and in 63 category 4 sedations (61%). General anesthesia (GA) was only observed in categories 3 and 4 in 16 sedations (10%) and 39 sedations (38%), respectively. Intravenous (IV) ketamine, as a single agent or in combination with other agents, was the most frequently used sedative (88%) followed by IV benzodiazepines (64%), propofol (39%), opiates (15%), and barbiturates (5%). A total of 59 (19%) adverse events were encountered during the 301 sedations. In categories 1 and 2, no adverse event (0%) was encountered. In category 3, 19 adverse events took place (32%), and 40 adverse events (68%) (P< 0.05) occurred in category 4. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric sedation results in 4 categories of immobility. Complete immobility during painful and invasive procedures is associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. The depth of sedation (ie, CS, DS, or GA) required to achieve each category of immobility is unpredictable and varies from patient to patient. Thus, granting a limited sedation authority (conscious sedation only) to physicians may be of limited practical value.

Adolescent↗

Ketamine Plus Midazolam versus Fentanyl Plus Midazolam for Sedation and Analgesia during Image-guided Procedures in Interventional Radiology: Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background Opioid-benzodiazepine regimens remain common for radiologist-administered procedural sedation despite respiratory and analgesic effectiveness concerns. Purpose To compare intraprocedural pain and patient-reported experience between ketamine/midazolam and fentanyl/midazolam during image-guided procedural sedation. Materials and Methods This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single academic center between June 2025 and February 2026. Adults undergoing image-guided lung or bone biopsy or abscess drainage were randomized to fentanyl/midazolam or ketamine/midazolam administered by interventional radiologists. Procedures were performed using US, CT, CT fluoroscopy, or combined CT and US guidance. The primary outcome was maximum intraprocedural pain (0-10 on the Numeric Rating Scale). Secondary outcomes included sedation depth, physiologic parameters, oxygen desaturation, patient-reported experience assessed using a modified Heidelberg questionnaire, and complications. Results Among 264 randomized procedures (132 procedures per group) in 260 participants (median age, 68 years [IQR, 61-75 years]; 135 [52%] female), ketamine/midazolam resulted in lower maximum intraprocedural pain than fentanyl/midazolam (mean difference, -1.4 points [95% CI: -2.0, -0.8]; P < .001). Pain scores greater than 4 occurred less frequently with ketamine/midazolam (2.3% vs 17%; absolute difference, 14 percentage points [95% CI: 8, 21]; P < .001). Ketamine/midazolam was associated with higher nadir oxygen saturation (mean difference, +1.4% [95% CI: 0.6, 2.2]; P = .001) and fewer oxygen desaturation events below 90% (three [2.3%] vs 13 [9.8%]; absolute difference, 7.6 percentage points [95% CI: 1.9, 13.3]; P = .02). Ketamine/midazolam produced deeper sedation and higher intraprocedural systolic blood pressure. Hallucinations occurred more frequently with ketamine/midazolam (15 [11.4%] vs five [3.8%]; absolute difference, 7.6 percentage points [95% CI: 1.3, 13.9]; P = .03), though overall procedural comfort, reduced recall, and perceived adequacy of sedation were improved. Procedure-related and sedation-related complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion Radiologist-administered ketamine/midazolam during image-guided procedural sedation improved analgesia and patient-reported experience with fewer hypoxemic events and no increase in complications compared with fentanyl/midazolam. Clinical trial registration no. NCT07040163

Aged↗

A comparison of oral diazepam versus midazolam, administered with intravenous meperidine, as premedication to sedation for pediatric endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to compare the effects of oral midazolam and oral diazepam, administered with intravenous (IV) meperidine, on pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural sedation and recovery in children undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy. The costs of pre-procedure sedation were compared for the two benzodiazepines. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 154 children (mean age 96.73 +/- 59.34 months, 53% male) undergoing endoscopy. Oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, maximum dose of 20 mg) or oral diazepam (0.3 mg/kg, maximum dose of 10 mg) was given before IV insertion, and with IV meperidine (2 mg/kg, maximum dose of 100 mg) given to all patients just before upper endoscopy. Further "rescue" midazolam doses (to a maximum cumulative dose of 5 mg) were given as needed to achieve a pre-procedure sedation score of > or =2. All patients received intravenous propofol for procedural sedation. Patients were evaluated for the efficacy and safety of pre-procedural sedation, sedation during upper endoscopy, and recovery following completion of the procedure. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between study groups for level of pre-procedural sedation, need for midazolam rescue in endoscopy, effectiveness of procedural sedation, occurrence of adverse events, and recovery parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Oral midazolam and diazepam, in conjunction with IV administration of meperidine, provide comparable, effective, and safe premedication for children undergoing upper endoscopy. The cost of midazolam was substantially higher than diazepam.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

Deep sedation with propofol by nonanesthesiologists: a prospective pediatric experience.

BACKGROUND: The need to perform procedural sedation for children has increased in recent years, and so has the experience of nonanesthesiologists in this field. The use of propofol increases the success of satisfactory deep sedation, but it can produce rapid and profound decreases in level of consciousness and cardiorespiratory function. Data are needed to assess the safety of this drug outside an anesthesiology setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess safety and efficacy of procedural sedation with propofol in a pediatric ward of a tertiary-care pediatric teaching hospital with trained personnel and monitoring facilities. METHODS: Patients admitted to the hospital who needed invasive procedures underwent procedural sedation by the pediatric sedation unit with intravenous propofol. A training protocol was developed to educate nurses and residents. RESULTS: We performed 1059 procedures. Sedation was achieved in all procedures, and all but 1 were successfully performed. No patient required intubation. Transient desaturation resolving spontaneously occurred in 134 (12.7%) of 1059 patients. Major desaturation requiring a short course of ventilation occurred in 4 (0.8%) of 483 patients undergoing upper endoscopies, in 1 (0.3%) of 287 patients undergoing painful procedures, and in none of the 289 patients undergoing colonoscopies. Laryngospasm occurred in 10 (2.1%) of 483 patients undergoing upper endoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: In this experience, the use of propofol with concurrent oxygen administration allowed sedations in children with no significant complications for colonoscopies and painful procedures. Complications in the group of upper endoscopies appear too high for recommending propofol in a sedation unit with residents in attendance. This protocol of procedural sedation by nonanesthesiologists allowed a significant increase in the number of procedures performed with sedation and saved anesthesiology resources.

Adolescent↗

Attitudes of children with leukemia toward repeated deep sedations with propofol.

Procedural sedation is generally recommended for children requiring repeated painful diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. A child with leukemia undergoes an average of 20 procedures such as lumbar puncture and bone marrow aspiration through the course of illness. No data are currently available about the psychological impact of repeated sedations on children. The objective of this study was to evaluate the attitudes of patients with leukemia toward repeated deep sedations using propofol. A questionnaire addressing sedation-related distress was given to 30 children with leukemia. Procedure-related distress was evaluated using the Amended Observational Scale of Behavioural Distress. Another questionnaire concerning the same issues was given to an historical group of 39 children who had undergone painful procedures without sedation in previous years. Fear and distress were significantly reduced in the sedation group compared with the historical one. Fear of sedation was reported by 17% of children of this group. Distressed behavior was observed in 27%. In conclusion, sedation-related distress was observed in a subgroup of patients; in these cases, specific strategies could be considered to reduce sedation-related distress.

Adolescent↗