• Archives of Craniofacial Surgery
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.119-121
• /
• 2021

Ketamine is used widely in emergency departments for a variety of purposes, including procedural sedation for facial laceration in pediatric patients. The major benefits are its rapid onset of effects, relatively short half-life, and lack of respiratory depression. The known side effects of ketamine are hallucinations, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting. Seizure is not a known side effect of ketamine in patients without a seizure history. Here, we present the case of a patient in whom ketamine likely induced a generalized tonic-clonic seizure when used as a single agent in procedural sedation for facial laceration repair. The aim of this article is to report a rare and unexpected side effect of ketamine used at the regular dose for procedural sedation. This novel case should be of interest to not only emergency physicians but also plastic surgeons.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.6
• /
• pp.527-545
• /
• 2021

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the success rate of nitrous oxide-oxygen procedural sedation (NOIS) in dentistry. A systematic digital search was conducted for publications or reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical performance of NOIS. Abstracts of research papers were screened for suitability, and full-text articles were obtained for those who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria accordingly. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). A total of 19 articles (eight randomized clinical trials with parallel intervention groups and 11 crossover trials), published between May 1988 and August 2019, were finally selected for this review. The studies followed 1293 patients reporting NOIS success rates, with a cumulative mean value of 94.9% (95% CI: 88.8-98.9%). Thirteen trials were conducted on pediatric populations (1098 patients), and the remaining six were conducted on adults (195 patients), with cumulative efficacy rates of 91.9% (95% CI: 82.5-98.1%) and 99.9% (95% CI: 97.7-100.0%), respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.002). Completion of treatment and Section IV of the Houpt scale were the most used efficacy criteria. Within the limitations of this systematic review, the present study provides important information on the efficacy rate of NOIS. However, further well-designed and well-documented clinical trials are required and there is a need to develop guidelines for standardization of criteria and definition of success in procedural sedation. Currently, completion of treatment is the most used parameter in clinical practice, though many others also do exist at the same time. To maximize NOIS efficacy, clinicians should strictly consider appropriate indications for the procedure.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.51 no.7
• /
• pp.398-404
• /
• 2013

Apprehension and phobia regarding dental procedures are represent the most common deterrents in patients seeking dental care and very common. For these individuals, and others who cannot cooperate during care, procedural sedation may permit completion of intraoral procedures. In most cases, the level of sedation may be kept at minimal to moderate levels permitting patient maintenance of their airway patency and ventilation. Unlike many medical procedures, the majority of dental procedures, no matter the depth of sedation, are performed in the presence of complete analgesia provided by local anesthesia. Therefore, the goal of procedural sedation is to primarily suppress patient fear and apprehension and gain cooperation. Any issues regarding actual pain are usually limited to that produced by the local anesthetic injections or, rarely, the extent of the procedure. For the extremely phobic patient, however, allaying apprehension may be very challenging. Intravenous titration of sedative drugs is the most effective route of administration to achieve this goal but requires advanced training beyond that provided in undergraduate training.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.123-133
• /
• 2023

Sedation methods for dental treatment are increasingly explored. Recently, ketofol, which is a combination of ketamine and propofol, has been increasingly used because the advantages and disadvantages of propofol and ketamine complement each other and increase their effectiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology of ketamine and propofol, use of ketofol in various clinical situations, and differences in efficacy between ketofol and other sedatives.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.19-28
• /
• 2023

Background: Fearful and anxious patients who find dental treatment intolerable without sedative and analgesic support may benefit from moderate sedation. Target controlled infusion (TCI) pumps are superior to bolus injection in maintaining low plasma and effect-site concentration variability, resulting in stable, steady-state drug concentrations. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of moderate sedation with remifentanil and propofol using TCI pumps in non-hospital dental settings. Methods: A prospective chart review was conducted on 101 patients sedated with propofol and remifentanil using TCI pumps. The charts were completed at two oral surgeons and one general dentist's office over 6 months. Hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and over-sedation were considered adverse events and were collected using Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation (TROOPS). Furthermore, patient recovery time, sedation length, drug dose, and patient satisfaction questionnaires were used to measure sedation effectiveness. Results: Of the 101 reviewed sedation charts, 54 were of men, and 47 were of women. The mean age of the patients was 40.5 ±18.7 years, and their mean BMI was 25.6 ± 4.4. The patients did not experience hypoxia, bradycardia, and hypotension during the 4694 min of sedation. The average minimum Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) and heartbeats were 75.1 mmHg and 60.4 bpm, respectively. 98% of patients agreed that the sedation technique met their needs in reducing their anxiety, and 99% agreed that they were satisfied with the sedation 24 hours later. The average sedation time was 46.9 ± 55.6 min, and the average recovery time was 12.4 ± 4.4 min. Remifentanil and propofol had mean initial effect-site concentration doses of 0.96 µ/.ml and 1.0 ng/ml respectively. The overall total amount of drug administered was significantly higher in longer sedation procedures compared to shorter ones, while the infusion rate decreased as the procedural stimulus decreased. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, no patients experienced adverse events during sedation, and all patients were kept at a moderate sedation level for a wide range of sedation times and differing procedures. The results showed that TCI pumps are safe and effective for administering propofol and remifentanil for moderate sedation in dentistry.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.89-94
• /
• 2016

Anxiety and phobia in dental procedures are common deterrents for patients visiting the dental care unit. For these individuals, procedural sedation may aid in completion of dental treatments. In most cases, the patients are conscious during sedation, thereby allowing spontaneous ventilation. Intravenous sedation (IVS) is widely used during dental treatment to relieve patient anxiety. IVS is the most effective route of administration to achieve this goal, but it requires advanced training, more than that provided during undergraduate education. During IVS, rapid onset, repetitive drug administration, easy titration, and rapid recovery from sedation can be achieved. However, conscious sedation during IVS can result in deep sedation that can cause respiratory and cardiovascular depression. Therefore, the characteristics of intravenous sedatives should be known. The purpose of this review is to discuss the characteristics and usage of intravenous sedatives currently used for dental procedures.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.50 no.1
• /
• pp.30-36
• /
• 2023

Background Most children with facial lacerations require sedation for primary sutures. However, sedation guidelines for invasive treatment are lacking. This study evaluated the current status of the sedation methods used for pediatric facial laceration repair in Korea. Methods We surveyed one resident in each included plastic surgery training hospital using face-to-face interviews or e-mail correspondence. The health care center types (secondary or tertiary hospitals), sedation drug types, usage, and dosage, procedure sequence, monitoring methods, drug effects, adverse events, and operator and guardian satisfaction were investigated. Results We included 45/67 hospitals (67%) that used a single drug, ketamine in 31 hospitals and chloral hydrate in 14 hospitals. All health care center used similar sedatives. The most used drug administered was 5 mg/kg intramuscular ketamine (10 hospitals; 32%). The most common chloral hydrate administration approach was oral 50 mg/kg (seven hospitals; 50%). Twenty-two hospitals (71%) using ketamine followed this sequence: administration of sedatives, local anesthesia, primary repair, and imaging work-up. The most common sequence used for chloral hydrate (eight hospitals; 57%) was local anesthesia, administration of sedatives, imaging work-up, and primary repair. All hospitals that used ketamine and seven (50%) of those using chloral hydrate monitored oxygen saturation. Median operator satisfaction differed significantly between ketamine and chloral hydrate (4.0 [interquartile range, 4.0-4.0] vs. 3.0 [interquartile range, 3.0-4.0]; p <0.001). Conclusion The hospitals used various procedural sedation methods for children with facial lacerations. Guidelines that consider the patient's condition and drug characteristics are needed for safe and effective sedation.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2014

Dexmedetomidine, an imidazoline compound, is a highly selective ${\alpha}_2$-adrenoceptor agonist with sympatholytic, sedative, amnestic, and analgesic properties. In order to minimize the patients' pain and anxiety during minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) when compared to conventional surgery under general anesthesia, an adequate conscious sedation (CS) or monitored anesthetic care (MAC) should be provided. Commonly used intravenous sedatives and hypnotics, such as midazolam and propofol, are not suitable for operations in a prone position due to undesired respiratory depression. Dexmedetomidine converges on an endogenous non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep-promoting pathway to exert its sedative effects. The great merit of dexmedetomidine for CS or MAC is the ability of the operator to recognize nerve damage during percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, a representative MISS. However, there are 2 shortcomings for dexmedetomidine in MISS: hypotension/bradycardia and delayed emergence. Its hypotension/bradycardiac effects can be prevented by ketamine intraoperatively. Using atipamezole (an ${\alpha}_2$-adrenoceptor antagonist) might allow doctors to control the rate of recovery from procedural sedation in the future. MAC, with other analgesics such as ketorolac and opioids, creates ideal conditions for MISS. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine provides a favorable surgical condition in patients receiving MISS in a prone position due to its unique properties of conscious sedation followed by unconscious hypnosis with analgesia. However, no respiratory depression occurs based on the dexmedetomidine-related endogenous sleep pathways involves the inhibition of the locus coeruleus in the pons, which facilitates VLPO firing in the anterior hypothalamus.

• Clinical Endoscopy
• /
• v.55 no.5
• /
• pp.581-587
• /
• 2022

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

• Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.217-224
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined. Results: Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p=0.010). Conclusion: The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.