• No results found

Upper Respiratory Infections and Airway Adverse Events in Pediatric Procedural Sedation

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "Upper Respiratory Infections and Airway Adverse Events in Pediatric Procedural Sedation"

Copied!
12
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Upper Respiratory Infections

and Airway Adverse Events in

Pediatric Procedural Sedation

Michael D. Mallory, MD, MPH, a Curtis Travers, MPH, b Courtney E. McCracken, PhD, b

James Hertzog, MD, c Joseph P. Cravero, MDd

abstract

BACKGROUND: Upper respiratory infections (URIs) are associated with airway adverse events (AAEs) during general anesthesia. There have been no large studies examining the relationship between URIs and AAEs during pediatric procedural sedation. We

hypothesized that there would be a relationship between URI status and AAEs in pediatric procedural sedation.

METHODS: We examined prospectively collected data from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database. Specific questions regarding URI status were added to the database to facilitate our analysis. Characteristics of patients, procedure types, adjunctive

medications, adverse events, and airway interventions (AIs) were reported. We performed bivariate analysis of adverse events and URI status, then used a multivariable logistic regression model to assess the relationship between URI status and adverse events. We examined the secondary outcome of AI similarly.

RESULTS: Of the 105 728 sedations entered into the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium

database during the study period, we were able to use 83 491 for analysis. Controlling

for multiple patient, drug, and procedure characteristics, recent and current URI were associated with increased frequency of AAEs. In general, the frequency of AAEs and AIs increased from recent URI, to current URI-clear secretions to current URI-thick secretions. We did not find a relationship between URI status and non-AAEs.

CONCLUSIONS: URI status is associated with a statistically significant increase in frequency of AAEs and AI during pediatric procedural sedation for the population sedated by our consortium. Although URI status merits consideration in determining potential risk for sedation, rates of some AAEs and AIs remained low regardless of URI status.

aPediatric Emergency Medicine Associates, Childrens Healthcare of Atlanta at Scottish Rite, Atlanta, Georgia; bDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University, Childrens Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia; cDepartment

of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Nemours Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, Delaware; and dDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Boston Childrens Hospital,

Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts

Dr Mallory conceptualized and designed the study, assisted in statistical analysis, reviewed the analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted; Drs Cravero and Hertzog conceptualized and designed the study, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted; and Mr Travers and Dr McCracken conducted the initial analyses and provided critical review of the manuscript.

DOI: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1542/ peds. 2017- 0009 Accepted for publication Apr 19, 2017

To cite: Mallory MD, Travers C, McCracken CE, et al. Upper Respiratory Infections and Airway Adverse Events in Pediatric Procedural Sedation. Pediatrics. 2017;140(1): e20170009

WhaT’s KnOWn On ThIs subjecT: Several studies suggest that when anesthesia is administered to patients with a URI there are increased AAEs. Until now, there have been no studies that assess the relationship between URI and AAEs in pediatric procedural sedation.

(2)

The identification of potential patient or procedural factors associated with the occurrence of adverse outcomes during pediatric procedural sedation can be used to enhance patient safety. Upper respiratory infections (URIs) are the most common illnesses in children. Estimates of the prevalence of these infections indicate as many as 30% of children have a URI during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere.1, 2 The

impact of this disease burden on pediatric procedural sedation is unclear. Numerous studies suggest that when anesthesia is administered to patients with a current or

recent URI there is an increased incidence of perioperative adverse events.3–6 These studies suggest

that the incidence of airway adverse events (AAEs) such as coughing, bronchospasm, and laryngospasm is higher not only during an active URI, but may also be increased in the 2 to 4 weeks after the infection. On the other hand, there are no studies that specifically address the issue as to whether the presence of a URI at the time of pediatric procedural sedation is associated with an increase in similar adverse events. Because it is impossible to study this subject in a randomized, controlled, or blinded manner, we used an observational methodology in a large, ongoing, multicenter collaborative data sharing effort (the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium [PSRC] database) to investigate the relationship between URI symptoms and the frequency of AAEs as reported by our member institutions. This database is designed to collect data on sedation demographics, practice characteristics, and adverse events that occur during procedural sedation or immediately afterward. To facilitate this study, we customized the data collection interface for a defined period, adding questions about URI symptoms specifically so that we could

investigate this potential association. We hypothesized that we would

find an increased incidence of AAEs in patients with current URIs. We also examined airway interventions (AIs) as a secondary outcome, and hypothesized that we would find an increased incidence of AIs in patients with current URI as well.

MeThODs

The Pediatric sedation Research consortium

The PSRC was established in 2003 as a collaborative, multidisciplinary group of sedation practitioners dedicated to promoting the delivery of optimal sedation for children undergoing tests and procedures. The PSRC database was initiated in 2004 for the purpose of collecting information on a large number of pediatric procedural sedations to better understand and improve the practice of sedation in children. Participation in the PSRC database is voluntary, but participating institutions are required to obtain approval from their respective institutional review boards, identify a primary investigator, and agree to standardized methodology for data collection and quality oversight. Audits are required every 6 months to include an accounting of numbers of sedation encounters and quality of data entry to ensure data integrity. To avoid selection bias, primary investigators agree to only enter data from sedation areas in which >90% of sedation encounters can be reliably captured. Data collection methodology has been described in a detailed report of the first 30000 sedations published in 20067 and in numerous subsequent

publications.7–12

Data were entered into the PSRC database via a standardized, web-based data collection tool. A secure site, web-based data system, maintained by the Dartmouth Bioinformatics Group was employed for data collection and storage. The data entry tool consisted of

∼25 separate areas of inquiry and collected information on patient demographics, diagnostic categories associated with the procedure, coexisting diagnoses, procedures performed, medications administered, adverse events and interventions. To ensure consistency in data entry, for any field that involves interpretation, pop-up text was available to explain the field. Only deidentified data were collected.

In 2012, questions designed to specifically identify patients with a URI were added to the PSRC data collection tool (Supplemental Figure 2). Parents were asked about symptoms related to the upper respiratory tract. If the child had runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, or mild cough (without sputum production), and the parent and sedation provider agreed that these symptoms were because of a current URI, they were eligible for inclusion in the URI cohort. This definition is similar to that previously used in the anesthesiology literature.6, 13 The instructions to

(3)

accurately characterized by thin and/ or clear secretions or thick and/ or green secretions by the parent or the provider. Data for this study were collected between November 10, 2012 and July 7, 2015. Forty-five centers contributed data to the PSRC database during this period (Supplemental Table 6).

The PSRC database collects data on multiple potential adverse events. Definitions for the adverse events have been agreed on and are available to all participants as a part of the data entry tool. The data collection tool includes “hover text” that defines each element we are collecting. For example, if the PSRC member places the cursor over

“oxygen desaturation”, the definition pops up in text. This definition reads,

“oxygen saturation decreased to <90% for more than 30 seconds.”

There is also an option for “<80% for more than 30 seconds” and “<70% for more than 30 seconds.” Our definition of laryngospasm requires evidence of stridorous breathing with or without evidence of frank airway obstruction. We do not require that an intervention was taken to reverse the event.

In collaboration with the

participating centers, the authors (a priori) defined those events that seemed directly related to the airway as AAEs. This category included airway obstruction, apnea oxygen desaturation, cough, secretions requiring suction, laryngospasm, stridor, wheezing, emergent AI, and snoring.

AIs collected by the PSRC include bag-mask ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure,

endotracheal tube placement, jaw thrust or chin lift, nasotracheal tube placement, nasopharyngeal airway placement, oxygen delivery (blowby, nasal cannula, or mask blowby), oral airway placement, airway repositioning, suction, laryngeal mask airway placement, and other.

statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine patient characteristics, procedures performed, and medications used. For ease of presentation, nil per os (NPO) data were collapsed into a single variable to indicate the presence of one or more NPO violations. A patient was deemed to have had an NPO violation if before sedation they had clear liquids within 2 hours, breast milk within 4 hours, nonfat solids within 6 hours, or a full meal within 8 hours.

χ2 tests were used to assess for

differences in variables based on URI status. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to assess the adjusted association of URI status with AAEs and AIs. Variables shown to be associated with adverse events in our data and previous studies were included in the initial model. Interactions between medication variables were assessed and significant interaction terms were retained in the model. Models were assessed for collinearity and adjusted by removing variables, if necessary. Because of the large number of sedations in our dataset, we could control for a large number of variables in the model. We controlled for demographic factors, comorbidities, procedure types, and locations as well as sedative agents and adjunctive medications. The final model included American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, age, obesity, sex, NPO status, asthma, developmental delay, metabolic and/or genetic, neurologic, seasonal allergy, procedure type (bone, dental, gastrointestinal, hematology and/ or oncology, neurologic, radiology, surgery, painful, other), propofol, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, atropine, glycopyrrolate, fentanyl, and the interaction between propofol and fentayl. Because suction and dental procedures were highly correlated (suction was performed in >80% of dental procedures), we removed dental procedures from

the model for suction. Obesity was defined as a weight greater than the 95th percentile for sex and age based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth curves.

ResulTs

(4)

and 6.5% of all patients respectively. Administration of these agents did vary by URI status (P < .001).

Rates of adverse events by URI status are provided in Table 4. Most of the AAEs occurred with increasing frequency from no URI to recent URI,

to current URI with thin and/or clear secretions, and then to current URI with thick and/or green secretions. Exceptions included stridor (only 2 recorded for current URI with thick and/or green secretions), and emergent AI (only 1 recorded for

current URI with thick and/or green secretions). All of the AAEs except apnea demonstrated a statistically significant association with URI status in χ2 analysis. Occurrence of

any AAE increased progressively from 6.3% for those with no URI to Table 1 Demographic Characteristics by URI Status

No URI (n = 70830) Recent URI (n = 3354) Current URI With Clear Secretion (n = 9307)

Current URI With Thick Secretion (n = 658) Mean age in months (median; IQR) 79.1 (60; 33–120) 55.8 (36; 20–72) 54.1 (36; 20–72) 57.6 (36; 19–84)

Girl, n (%) 31995 (45.2) 1483 (44.2) 3736 (43.2) 271 (41.2)

ASA status, n (%)

I 15129 (21.4) 728 (21.7) 1573 (18.2) 62 (9.4)

II 45023 (63.6) 2189 (65.3) 5662 (65.5) 415 (63.1)

III 10512 (14.8) 430 (12.8) 1393 (16.1) 169 (25.7)

IV 166 (0.2) 7 (0.2) 21 (0.2) 12 (1.8)

≥1 NPo violation (%) 8861 (12.5) 688 (20.5) 798 (9.2) 78 (11.9)

Clear liquids within 2 h 763 (1.1) 37 (1.1) 110 (1.3) 10 (1.5)

Breast milk within 4 h (n = 5981) 18 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 4 (1.3) 1 (3.1)

Nonfat solids within 6 h 1096 (1.6) 48 (1.4) 123 (1.4) 13 (2.0)

Full meal within 8 h (n = 78950) 7946 (11.9) 648 (20.4) 664 (8.2) 67 (10.9)

IQR, interquartile range.

Table 2 Most Common Procedures by URI Status

Procedure overall (n = 83491) No URI (n = 70830) Recent URI (n = 3354) Current URI With Clear Secretion (n = 8649)

Current URI With Thick Secretion (n = 658)

Any radiology 46183 (55.3) 37935 (53.6) 2056 (61.3) 5751 (66.5) 441 (67.0)

MRI 36715 (44.0) 30167 (42.6) 1544 (46.0) 4687 (54.2) 317 (48.2)

other radiology 9946 (11.9) 8164 (11.5) 533 (15.9) 1121 (13.0) 128 (19.5)

Hematology and/or oncology

16068 (19.3) 13976 (19.7) 536 (16.0) 1459 (16.9) 97 (14.7)

Gastrointestinal 6796 (8.1) 6176 (8.7) 130 (3.9) 466 (5.4) 24 (3.7)

Neurological 4791 (5.7) 4084 (5.8) 206 (6.1) 461 (5.3) 40 (6.1)

other 3887 (4.7) 3433 (4.9) 144 (4.3) 276 (3.2) 34 (5.2)

Painful procedurea 33856 (40.6) 29924 (42.3) 1155 (34.4) 2553 (29.5) 224 (34.0)

Data are presented as n (%).

a Includes bone marrow biopsy, cardiac (other), dental, fracture reduction, gastrointestinal (other), joint injection, lP (lumbar puncturediagnostic and/or therapeutic), other painful procedure, orthopedic (other), PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter), renal biopsy, minor surgical, and upper endoscopy procedures.

Table 3 Sedatives, Analgesics, and Adjunctive Medications by URI Category

Medication overall (n = 83491) No URI (n = 70830) Recent URI (n = 3354) Current URI With Clear Secretion (n = 8649)

Current URI With Thick Secretion (n = 658) Sedatives

Propofol 72627 (87.0) 61413 (86.7) 2777 (82.8) 7874 (91.0) 563 (85.6)

Ketamine 5576 (6.7) 4966 (7.0) 193 (5.8) 391 (4.5) 26 (4.0)

Pentobarbital 628 (0.8) 522 (0.7) 22 (0.7) 80 (0.9) 4 (0.6)

Dexmedetomidine 3344 (4.0) 2830 (4.0) 206 (6.1) 278 (3.2) 30 (4.6)

Analgesics

Fentanyl 19005 (22.8) 16604 (23.4) 721 (21.5) 1551 (17.9) 129 (19.6)

Morphine 394 (0.5) 375 (0.5) 3 (0.1) 16 (0.2) 0 (0.0)

Adjunctive medications

Atropine 2278 (2.7) 1860 (2.6) 291 (8.7) 123 (1.4) 4 (0.6)

Glycopyrrolate 5442 (6.5) 3921 (5.5) 180 (5.4) 1210 (14.0) 131 (19.9)

Medication combinations

Propofol + ketamine 2122 (2.5) 1937 (2.7) 43 (1.3) 135 (1.6) 7 (1.1)

Propofol + fentanyl 17582 (21.1) 15362 (21.7) 639 (19.1) 1467 (17.0) 114 (17.3)

(5)

22.2% for those with current URI with thick and/or green secretions. Adverse events not directly related to the airway were less likely to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship with URI status.

Rates of AI by URI status are provided in Table 5. Like AAEs, most AIs increased from no URI to recent URI, to current URI with thin and/or clear secretions, and then to current URI with thick and/or green secretions.

Figure 1 provides a forest plot of the odds ratios for adverse events based on URI status by using no URI as the referent from the multivariable logistic regression model that controlled for a multitude of patient and procedure characteristics. The

outcomes for which odds ratios are depicted include all individual AAEs, occurrence of any AAE, occurrence of any non-AAE, and procedure not complete because of a problem related to sedation. Recent URI and current URI with thick and/or green secretions demonstrated a statistically significant association with 7 of 10 AAEs when compared with no URI. Current URI with thin and/or clear secretions demonstrated a statistically significant association with 8 of 10 AAEs when compared with no URI. For a number of the AAEs, confidence intervals of odds ratios for URI with thick and/or green secretions and URI with thin and/or clear secretions did not overlap, indicating differences in the odds ratios for various AAEs

based on the characteristics and timing of their URI. Because the event "procedure unable to be completed due to problem with sedation" was strongly associated with URI status, and because this outcome could be plausibly related to the occurrence of AAEs, we chose to include it in Fig 1.

Figure 2 provides a forest plot of the odds ratios for the various AIs based on URI status by using no URI as the referent from the multivariable logistic regression model that controlled for the same characteristics as the model used to create Fig 1. As with AAEs, there were statistically significant differences between the odds ratios for various AIs based on the characteristics and timing of their URI.

Table 4 Adverse Events by URI Status

No URI (n = 70830) Recent URI (n = 3354) Current URI With Clear Secretion (n = 9307)

Current URI With Thick URI (n

= 658)

P

Any complication 5560 (7.9) 348 (10.4) 1381 (16.0) 158 (24.0) <.001

AAEs

Wheezing 29 (0.04) 8 (0.2) 26 (0.3) 12 (1.8) <.001

Secretions requiring treatment

482 (0.7) 48 (1.4) 352 (4.1) 59 (9.0) <.001

Cough 1026 (1.5) 113 (3.4) 508 (5.9) 57 (8.7) <.001

Stridor 100 (0.1) 10 (0.3) 37 (0.4) 2 (0.3) <.001

Desaturation 1213 (1.7) 72 (2.2) 325 (3.8) 53 (8.1) <.001

Emergent AI 111 (0.2) 10 (0.3) 23 (0.3) 1 (0.2) .038

Airway obstruction 1364 (1.9) 77 (2.3) 341 (3.9) 45 (6.8) <.001

Snoring 1220 (1.7) 60 (1.8) 297 (3.4) 39 (5.9) <.001

laryngospasm 229 (0.3) 16 (0.5) 63 (0.7) 6 (0.9) <.001

Apnea > 15 s 605 (0.9) 24 (0.7) 94 (1.1) 9 (1.4) .054

Any airway-related adverse event

4433 (6.3) 304 (9.1) 1258 (14.6) 146 (22.2) <.001

Adverse events not directly related to the airway

Agitation 213 (0.3) 13 (0.4) 25 (0.3) 1 (0.2) .295

Intravenous-related problem

268 (0.4) 12 (0.4) 46 (0.5) 4 (0.6) .043

Unexpected change in heart rate and/ or blood pressure >30%

241 (0.3) 6 (0.2) 15 (0.2) 3 (0.5) .026

Procedure not completed because of a problem with sedation

168 (0.2) 13 (0.4) 60 (0.7) 14 (2.1) <.001

Vomiting 174 (0.3) 7 (0.2) 15 (0.2) 3 (0.5) .373

Aspiration 11 (0.02) 1 (0.03) 2 (0.02) 0 (0.0) .868

Unplanned admission 16 (0.02) 1 (0.03) 6 (0.07) 0 (0.0) .097

Unable to sedate 78 (0.1) 4 (0.1) 21 (0.2) 3 (0.5) .001

Emergency call to anesthesia

15 (0.02) 2 (0.06) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.0) .423

Myoclonus 62 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 8 (0.1) 2 (0.3) .087

(6)

DIscussIOn

URIs are ubiquitous in children.14

Therefore, it is not surprising that children with active or recent URIs will present for therapeutic or diagnostic procedures facilitated by procedural sedation. Given the high prevalence of URIs in childhood, a generalized decision to cancel or delay a sedation and procedure because of a URI would have an enormous impact on the ability to accomplish needed tests and procedures in this patient population. The deferral or delay of a procedure could adversely affect outcomes for children undergoing cancer treatment or other time-sensitive procedures. Even if it would not affect patient health, the blanket cancellation of procedures for all children with URIs would lead to costly logistical problems for parents and medical centers alike. Understanding the potential risks and complications of providing sedation to a child with an active or recent URI is necessary to assist practitioners in developing an optimal sedation plan or in the decision to defer a procedure. Appreciation of the rate and nature of AAEs and AIs associated with URIs will allow appropriate counseling of patients and families concerning the risk versus benefit of procedural sedation.

URIs are associated with AAEs during general anesthesia in children. Investigators in the field of anesthesia have defined AAE to include specific events such as oxygen desaturation, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, coughing, and breath-holding.5, 6, 15–17 Review of this data

has led to the conclusion that when the URI is not associated with fever or any lower respiratory tract or systemic symptoms the majority of these AAEs are minor in nature and

do not indicate that anesthesia is contraindicated. Whether children are at the same risk (or greater) for AAEs during procedural sedation during an uncomplicated URI is uncertain. There is limited data in this area of practice. Grunwell et al18

performed a retrospective case-control evaluation of children who had failed procedural sedation in a single institution. Eighty-three cases of failed sedation between January 2007 and December 2011 were Table 5 AI by URI Status

No URI (n = 70830) Recent URI (n = 3354) Current URI With Clear Secretion (n = 8649)

Current URI With Thick Secretion (n = 658)

P

None 19846 (28.0) 780 (23.3) 1838 (21.3) 116 (17.6) <.001

Bag-mask ventilation 1087 (1.5) 65 (1.9) 205 (2.4) 29 (4.4) <.001

CPAP 1330 (1.9) 83 (2.5) 273 (3.2) 38 (5.8) <.001

Endotracheal tube 127 (0.2) 1 (0.0) 21 (0.2) 4 (0.6) .006

Jaw thrust or chin lift 5712 (8.1) 247 (7.4) 956 (11.1) 118 (17.9) <.001

Nasotracheal tube 41 (0.1) 1 (0.0) 13 (0.2) 1 (0.2) .011

Nasopharyngeal airway 564 (0.8) 41 (1.2) 189 (2.2) 22 (3.3) <.001

Mask or NC oxygen blowby 48160 (68.0) 2428 (72.4) 6381 (73.8) 503 (76.4) <.001

oral airway 558 (0.8) 19 (0.6) 145 (1.7) 26 (4.0) <.001

Repositioning 13835 (19.5) 610 (18.2) 2479 (28.7) 192 (29.2) <.001

Suction 2629 (3.7) 250 (7.5) 725 (8.4) 106 (16.1) <.001

Supraglottic or lMA 141 (0.2) 5 (0.2) 30 (0.4) 9 (1.4) <.001

other 184 (0.3) 15 (0.5) 34 (0.4) 6 (0.9) .001

Data are presented as n (%). CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; lMA, laryngeal mask airway; NC, nasal cannula.

FIGuRe 1

(7)

compared with a convenience sample of 523 successful sedation cases between January 2011 and February 2011. Thirteen patient characteristics and comorbidities were subsequently analyzed for possible association with failed sedation. After regression analysis, the presence of URI, obstructive sleep apnea or snoring, ASA classification III, and older age were likely to predict sedation failure. However, the presence of a URI alone was a poor predictor of whether a child would fail sedation. Furthermore, no correlation between the presence of URI and the nature of any AAE could be made in this study.

We are aware of no prior studies that have examined the relationship between current or recent patient URI and AAEs during pediatric procedural sedation. Our data demonstrate that both current and recent URI symptoms in children are associated with an increased risk of specific AAEs during pediatric procedural sedation. Furthermore, it appears that the

character of the URI is an important determinant of risk for AAEs. Children with a current URI were more likely to experience airway obstruction, oxygen desaturation, snoring, cough that interfered with the procedure, secretions requiring suctioning, laryngospasm, stridor, wheezing, any AAE, or an inability to complete the procedure because of a sedation related problem than those children who did not have a URI. Children with URI were also more likely to receive AIs, including intubation. However, they do not appear to have a statistically significant increased risk of apnea or need for emergent AIs when compared with those without URI. This implies that intubation, in the few cases that it was used, was likely an intended part of the sedation plan. And for almost all patients who were intubated, the sedation provider was an intensivist or anesthesiologist. Furthermore, our data indicate that the character of secretions matters: children with URIs characterized by

thick and/or green secretions were more likely to experience airway obstruction, oxygen desaturation, snoring, secretions requiring suction, wheezing, or the occurrence of any AAE than those children with URI characterized by thin and/or clear secretions. Children with a recent URI (within 2 weeks of the procedure, but not with active symptoms at the time of the procedure) were more likely to experience airway obstruction, oxygen desaturation, cough that interfered with the procedure, secretions requiring suctioning, stridor, emergent AI, wheezing, and any AAE than those children who did not have a URI. There was no increased risk of a non-AAE for either children with a current or a recent URI when compared with children without a URI. Our use of multivariable regression analyses to account for variables characterizing demographics, underlying medical problems, procedures, sedative medications, and adjunctive medications, which could

independently impact AAEs, failed to show any effect of these factors and strengthens the validity of the association between URI and AAEs as well as AIs during procedural sedation.

It is interesting to note that the odds ratios were higher for patients with a current URI versus a recent URI for all AAEs except for the need for an emergent AI and apnea. Our findings are similar but distinct when compared with those in the anesthesia literature17 in which

AAEs are noted to be significantly increased over baseline for the 2 weeks after the resolution of a URI. Subtle differences in these findings are likely because of the more invasive airway management that is associated with general anesthesia versus procedural sedation.17 Airway hyper-reactivity

in association with a viral infection diminishes with resolution of the infection, but the increased odds

FIGuRe 2

(8)

for an emergent AI in the recent URI group highlights the need for ongoing vigilance during procedural sedation in this 2-week period after a URI.

As with any study that includes tens of thousands of patients, we found statistical significance in some AAE subcategories in which the absolute difference in incidence is relatively small. For example, although the difference in laryngospasm between those with a URI (0.7%) and without a URI (0.3%) is statistically significant, the clinical significance may not be of great concern to the sedation provider. On the other hand, the consistency of the increase in risk between the different URI categories is noteworthy, as is the cumulative adverse event rate, which was found to be over 15% in those with a URI and 6.3% in those without.

Notable demographic findings include an older age for patients with no recent or current URI who undergo sedation. It is likely that older patients have already developed an immunity to many of the viruses that cause URI symptoms. Medication utilization also differed for patients with a current URI versus no URI, with current URI patients receiving more propofol and less ketamine and narcotic. This may be because of the increased frequency of URI in patients who were sedated for MRI compared with those who underwent a painful procedure. The ease of titration and rapid offset of propofol would be desirable in patients with an active URI, as would avoiding the sialorrhea associated with ketamine. Anticholinergic medications were also more commonly used in patients with a current URI than those without a URI, although the impact of this practice on decreasing AAEs is uncertain. A meta-analysis of ketamine use for pediatric procedural sedation

found an increase in adverse events associated with use of anticholinergics in conjunction with ketamine.19 Our data indicate the

need for additional study regarding the need for adding anticholinergics when sedating children with URIs.

The large number of patients available for analysis because of our multicenter approach is an important strength of this study. Our study incorporated specific questions about the presence of a URI to our existing prospectively collected database for the duration of the study period. These focused questions allow for identification of patients with current and recent URI. It is likely that our identification of patients with a current URI is more accurate than those with a recent URI, which is the reason they are present in a greater number. On the other hand, those identified as having had a recent infection are almost certainly accurately identified. Furthermore, complications were specifically defined a priori for consistency in data collection. Our results reflect the effect of URIs on AAEs across various pediatric procedural sedation programs, institutions, provider types, and medication regimens. Thus, our results should be minimally impacted by individual center effect and applicable to many current pediatric procedural sedation practices.

Previous reports from the PSRC have outlined the limitations of our database.7, 12 This is a retrospective

analysis of prospectively collected data and has all the inherent difficulties associated with observational data. Blinding and randomization are not possible, and although definitions of the various AAEs are provided with the database entry tool, there may be some variation in various providers’ threshold for calling

out a particular AAE. Twenty-one percent of database entries during the study period could not be used because of URI status or other data elements not being recorded, which may have caused a selection bias. Unfortunately, subgroup analysis is not possible with this database model. Additionally, we are not able to comment on the number of patients who may have presented for sedation only to have been turned away because of the severity of URI symptoms. It is possible that our selection of patients with URIs represents a group with milder symptoms. We also recognize that the centers involved in the PSRC are willing to devote significant time and effort to this quality improvement project and, as such, may be higher performance systems than average. The data presented here may not reflect data that would be collected from all centers around the United States or internationally where procedural sedation care is provided for children.

cOnclusIOns

(9)

Similar to the data that has been produced concerning general anesthesia, our data supports the general safety of procedural sedation in children with URIs.

acKnOWleDGMenTs

The authors recognize the members of the Society for Pediatric Sedation

without whom this project would not have been completed. The PSRC database is maintained as a core function of and with funding from the Society for Pediatric Sedation.

The authors wish to recognize Susan Gallagher for her contributions to this project.

ReFeRences

1. Dingle JH, Badger GF, Jordan WS. Illness in the Home: Study of 25, 000 Illnesses in a Group of Cleveland Families. Cleveland, oH: Western Reserve University; 1964

2. Gwaltney JM Jr, Hendley Jo, Simon G, Jordan WS Jr. Rhinovirus infections in an industrial population. I. The occurrence of illness. N Engl J Med. 1966;275(23):1261–1268

3. Cohen MM, Cameron CB. Should you cancel the operation when a child has an upper respiratory tract infection? Anesth Analg. 1991;72(3):282–288 4. Parnis SJ, Barker DS, Van Der Walt

JH. Clinical predictors of anaesthetic complications in children with respiratory tract infections. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001;11(1):29–40

5. Schreiner MS, o’Hara I, Markakis DA, Politis GD. Do children who experience laryngospasm have an increased risk of upper respiratory tract infection? Anesthesiology. 1996;85(3):475–480 6. Tait AR, Malviya S, Voepel-lewis T,

Munro HM, Seiwert M, Pandit UA. Risk factors for perioperative adverse respiratory events in children with upper respiratory tract infections. Anesthesiology. 2001;95(2):299–306 7. Cravero JP, Blike GT, Beach M,

et al; Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Incidence and nature

of adverse events during pediatric sedation/anesthesia for procedures outside the operating room: report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Pediatrics. 2006;118(3):1087–1096

8. Beach Ml, Cohen DM, Gallagher SM, Cravero JP. Major adverse events and relationship to nil per os status in pediatric sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room: a report of the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Anesthesiology. 2016;124(1):80–88

9. Cravero JP, Beach Ml, Blike GT, Gallagher SM, Hertzog JH; Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. The incidence and nature of adverse events during pediatric sedation/ anesthesia with propofol for procedures outside the operating room: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Anesth Analg. 2009;108(3):795–804

10. langhan Ml, Mallory M, Hertzog J, lowrie l, Cravero J; Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Physiologic monitoring practices during pediatric procedural sedation: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(11):990–998

11. Mallory MD, Baxter Al, yanosky DJ, Cravero JP; Pediatric Sedation

Research Consortium. Emergency physician-administered propofol sedation: a report on 25, 433 sedations from the pediatric sedation research consortium. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(5):462–468.e1

12. Scherrer PD, Mallory MD, Cravero JP, lowrie l, Hertzog JH, Berkenbosch JW; Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. The impact of obesity on pediatric procedural sedation-related outcomes: results from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25(7):689–697 13. Malviya S, Voepel-lewis T, Siewert M, Pandit UA, Riegger lQ, Tait AR. Risk factors for adverse postoperative outcomes in children presenting for cardiac surgery with upper respiratory tract infections. Anesthesiology. 2003;98(3):628–632

14. Chonmaitree T, Revai K, Grady JJ, et al. Viral upper respiratory tract infection and otitis media complication in young children. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(6):815–823

15. Flick RP, Wilder RT, Pieper SF, et al. Risk factors for laryngospasm in children during general anesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth. 2008;18(4):289–296

16. Rolf N, Coté CJ. Frequency and severity of desaturation events during general anesthesia in children with and

abbRevIaTIOns

AAE:  airway adverse event AI:  airway intervention ASA:  American Society of

Anesthesiology

URI:  upper respiratory infection PSRC:  Pediatric Sedation

Research Consortium NPO:  nil per os

Address correspondence to Michael D. Mallory, MD, MPH, Emergency Medicine, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta at Scottish Rite, 2133 Kodiak Drive, Atlanta, GA 30345. E-mail: michael.mallory@pemaweb.org

PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; online, 1098-4275). Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

FInancIal DIsclOsuRe: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. FunDInG: No external funding.

(10)

without upper respiratory infections. J Clin Anesth. 1992;4(3):200–203 17. von Ungern-Sternberg BS, Boda K,

Chambers NA, et al. Risk assessment for respiratory complications in paediatric anaesthesia: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2010;376(9743):773–783

18. Grunwell JR, McCracken C, Fortenberry J, Stockwell J, Kamat P. Risk factors leading to failed procedural sedation in children outside the operating room. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2014;30(6):381–387

19. Green SM, Roback MG, Krauss B, et al; Emergency Department

(11)

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2017-0009 originally published online June 29, 2017;

2017;140;

Pediatrics

Joseph P. Cravero

Michael D. Mallory, Curtis Travers, Courtney E. McCracken, James Hertzog and

Procedural Sedation

Upper Respiratory Infections and Airway Adverse Events in Pediatric

Services

Updated Information &

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/1/e20170009 including high resolution figures, can be found at:

References

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/1/e20170009#BIBL This article cites 18 articles, 1 of which you can access for free at:

Subspecialty Collections

sub

http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/emergency_medicine_

Emergency Medicine

following collection(s):

This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the

Permissions & Licensing

http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml in its entirety can be found online at:

Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or

Reprints

(12)

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2017-0009 originally published online June 29, 2017;

2017;140;

Pediatrics

Joseph P. Cravero

Michael D. Mallory, Curtis Travers, Courtney E. McCracken, James Hertzog and

Procedural Sedation

Upper Respiratory Infections and Airway Adverse Events in Pediatric

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/1/e20170009

located on the World Wide Web at:

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/suppl/2017/06/21/peds.2017-0009.DCSupplemental Data Supplement at:

by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397.

Figure

Table 1  Demographic Characteristics by URI Status
Table 4  Adverse Events by URI Status
Table 5  AI by URI Status
FIGuRe 2A forest plot of odds ratios from multivariable logistic regression model for AIs by URI status (no current or recent URI as reference).compared with a convenience sample character of the URI is an important

References

Related documents

Figure 1: The plots of the extracted amount of water moisture versus dehydration time for bananas planted in (a) Nantou, (b) Taichung, and (c) Pingtung.. observed by Farhaninejad

ESEM analysis on one deep thread revealed electron dense cortical bone tissue with a large number of osteons and osteocytes lacunae disposed close to the apical

[r]

A four million people are non-native speakers of English B two per cent of the population are Polish speakers C 150,000 people are Polish speakers.

The discussion in this section is divided into three parts, covering ( i ) the initial physico-chemical properties of the three fresh OSW materials and the pre-treatment

The purpose of the graduate curriculum in American higher education is to train scholars within a disciplinary community. 5) noted that such indi- viduals are expected to

SPED 788 Public Policy &amp; Legal Rights of People with Disability 3 SPED 801 Diversity in Special Education: Family Systems, Resources, and Culture 3 SPED 745

Exploring the European Commission’s Network and Information Security Directive (NIS) and its effect on the retail banking industry to ensure customer trust and avoid