Experience of intravenous sedation for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in a developing country

What is it about?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of intravenous sedation for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) at a tertiary care teaching hospital in a developing country. We undertook a retrospective review of the sedation service records of pediatric patients who underwent GIE. All endoscopies were performed by a pediatric gastroenterologist. All of the sedation was administered by staff anesthesiologist or anesthetic personnel in the gastroenterology procedure room.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Sedation was provided for 222 procedures in 214 patients ranged in age from younger than 1 to 17 years and in weight from 2.7 to 80.0 kg. Intravenous sedation was provided in 176 patients (82.2%). Of these patients, 185 procedures were performed and reviewed, with 152 (82.2%) procedures were esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) alone, 14 (7.6%) procedures were colonoscopy alone, 18 (9.7%) procedures were EGD and colonoscopy, and one procedure was endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Most common indications of the procedure were screening for esophageal varices (25.2%), abdominal pain (15.9%), history of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (13.6%), and unexplained anemia (10.3%). The majority of preanesthetic problems were hematologic disease, anemia (38.2%); liver disease, cirrhosis (13.5%); and electrolyte imbalance (13.5%). Propofol (94.0%), fentanyl (87.0%), and midazolam (67.8%) were frequently used. The mean dose of propofol was 7.8 ± 4.1 mg/kg/h), fentanyl 2.3 ± 1.1 mcg/kg/h), and midazolam 0.1 ± 0.1 mg/kg/h). Most of them were used in combination. The combination of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam was commonly employed (46.4%). The mean sedation time of all procedures was 28.2 min and was different according to procedure type. Complications occurred infrequently (13.5%) and were medication or airway related. All complications were easily treated, with no adverse sequelae. Intravenous sedation was successful except for one patient who required general anesthesia. However, all procedures were completed successfully.

Perspectives