Intramuscular dexmedetomidine and oral chloral hydrate for pediatric sedation for electroencephalography: A propensity score‐matched analysis

Eun‐Young Joo,Yeon Ju Kim,Yong‐Seok Park,Jihoon Park,Myung Hee Song,Kyung‐Don Hahm,In‐Cheol Choi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.13844

2020-03-16

Pediatric Anesthesia

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background</h3><p>Intramuscular dexmedetomidine can be used for pediatric sedation without requiring intravenous access and has advantages for electroencephalography by inducing natural sleep pathway, but only a limited number of studies compared the efficacy of intramuscular dexmedetomidine with oral chloral hydrate.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Aims</h3><p>To compare the efficacy and safety of intramuscular dexmedetomidine and oral chloral hydrate used for sedation during electroencephalography in pediatric patients.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>We reviewed the medical records of pediatric patients who underwent sedation for electroencephalography between January 2015 and December 2016. Initial doses of dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate were 3 mcg/kg and 50 mg/kg, respectively; second doses (1 mcg/kg and 50 mg/kg, respectively) were administered if adequate sedation was not achieved. Demographic data, time of sedative administration, time of sedation and awakening, and time of arrival at recovery room and discharge were analyzed.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Out of a total of 1239 patients, 125 patients had received dexmedetomidine and 1114 had received chloral hydrate. After 1:1 propensity score matching, the dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate groups each had 118 patients. Testing completion rate with a single dose of medication was higher in the dexmedetomidine group (91.5 vs. 71.2%; mean difference [95% CI] 20.3 [10.8‐29.9]; P &lt; 0.0001; Pearson chi square value = 16.09). Sedation onset time was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group as well (16.6 ± 13.0 min vs. 41.5 ± 26.8 min; mean difference [95% CI] 24.8 [19.1‐30.6]; P &lt; 0.0001; T = 8.27). On the contrary, the duration of recovery was longer in the dexmedetomidine group (35.5 ± 40.2 min vs. 18.5 ± 30.7 min; mean difference [95% CI] 18.6 [8.8‐28.5]; P = 0.0002; T = ‐2.82). Total residence time was not significantly different between the two groups (125.8 ± 40.6 min vs. 122.1 ± 42.2 min, mean difference [95% CI] 5.21 [6.1‐16.5], P = 0.3665 T = 0.04).</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>Intramuscular dexmedetomidine showed higher sedation success rate and shorter time to achieving the desired sedation level compared with oral chloral hydrate, and thus may be an effective alternative for oral chloral hydrate in pediatric patients requiring sedation for electroencephalography.</p></section>

pediatrics,anesthesiology