Paediatric anaesthesia: Overview

Abstract
Introduction: Propofol is commonly used in procedural sedation in oncology due to its rapid sedative effect and favorable recovery profile. However, several preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated a dose-dependent neurotoxic effect of this drug. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are potential adjuvants that, if used as premedication, could reduce the required dose of propofol. This study compares the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in terms of propofol dose reduction during procedural sedation in oncology patients.

Methods: This one-year retrospective study compared the outcomes of procedural sedation, in terms of propofol-sparing, in 24 pediatric oncology patients who received midazolam (MP group, 52 procedures) or dexmedetomidine (DP group, 51 procedures) as premedication combined with propofol during bone marrow aspiration and/or lumbar puncture procedures. Data on propofol dosage, awakening time, vital parameters, and adverse events were examined.

Results: Premedication with dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower dose of propofol than midazolam (2.51 vs. 4.00 mg/kg, p < 0.001). Wake-up times were longer in the DP group (92 vs. 65 min; p = 0.045). Adverse events were very rare in both groups.

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine demonstrates superior propofol-sparing effects compared to midazolam, although it requires longer recovery times. These results support dexmedetomidine as a promising alternative in sedation protocols in pediatric oncology.

Editorial comment: This retrospectively analysis of a single center series compared procedural sedation strategies for children involving propofol after standardized intravenous premedication with dexmedetomidine or midazolam. The findings demonstrated that dexmedetomidine in those doses and in combination with propofol confirmed sedative potency and duration more than that of the chosen midazolam premedication dosing.

Abstract
Introduction: Children with difficult airways are at high risk of complications. Alternative techniques to direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation include videolaryngoscopy, flexible bronchoscopy and the hybrid technique of simultaneous videolaryngoscopy and flexible bronchoscopy. This analysis aimed to compare the first-attempt success of each technique and assess the complications associated with difficult paediatric intubations in a quaternary paediatric institution.

Methods: The electronic health records of a single quaternary paediatric hospital were searched to identify anaesthesia encounters involving difficult paediatric intubation. This was defined either by the Pediatric Difficult Intubation Registry criteria or as tracheal intubation requiring ≥ 3 attempts. Primary outcomes were the first-attempt success rate and incidence of complications with each tracheal intubation technique.

Results: From April 2019 to January 2024, 559 encounters involving difficult tracheal intubation were identified. First-attempt success was highest for the hybrid technique (70/94, 74.5%) compared with videolaryngoscopy (143/235, 60.9%, p = 0.020) or direct laryngoscopy (19/190, 10.0%, p < 0.001). The hybrid technique was used to rescue 19/27 (70.4%) encounters where videolaryngoscopy alone was unsuccessful and was successful in all these encounters. Eighty-six (15.4%) encounters had at least one complication. The complication rate was significantly higher for patients weighing < 10 kg (45/184, 24.5%) compared with those weighing ≥ 10 kg (41/375, 10.9%, p < 0.001). The hybrid technique was associated with a lower incidence of complications (5/94, 5.3%) compared with videolaryngoscopy (33/235, 14.0%, p = 0.025) or direct laryngoscopy (41/190, 21.6%, p < 0.001).

Discussion: In children with difficult tracheal intubation, the hybrid technique was associated with a higher first-attempt success rate compared with videolaryngoscopy alone or direct laryngoscopy. Consideration should be given to the hybrid technique as a first-line approach when difficult tracheal intubation is anticipated and when there is a failed attempt with either direct laryngoscopy or videolaryngoscopy.