Search

Introduction: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) are frequently used for fracture reduction in pediatric emergency departments (ED). Combining intranasal (IN) fentanyl with inhalation of nitrous oxide (N2O) allow for short recovery time and obviates painful and time-consuming IV access insertions.Methods: We performed a bicentric, prospective, observational cohort study. Patients aged 4-18years were included if they received combined PSA with IN fentanyl and N2O for the reduction of mildly/moderately displaced fracture or of dislocation. Facial Pain Scale Revised (FPS-R) and Face, Leg, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scores were used to evaluate pain and anxiety before, during and after procedure. University of Michigan Sedation Score (UMSS), adverse events, detailed side effects and satisfaction of patients, parents and medical staff were recorded at discharge. A follow up telephone call was made after 24-72h.Results: 90 patients were included. There was no difference in FPS-R during the procedure (median score 2 versus 2), but the FLACC score was significantly higher as compared to before (median score 4 versus 0, Δ 2, 95% CI 0, 2). Median UMSS was 1 (95% CI 1, 2). We recorded no serious adverse events. Rate of vomiting was 12% (11/84). Satisfaction was high among participants responding to this question 85/88 (97%) of parents, 74/83 (89%) of patients and 82/85 (96%) of physicians would want the same sedation again.Conclusion: PSA with IN fentanyl and N2O is effective and safe for the reduction of mildly/moderately displaced fracture or dislocation, and has a high satisfaction rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of oral olanzapine is more effective than a dose of oral diazepam at successfully sedating young people with ASBD., Methods and Analysis: This study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 years and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of oral olanzapine and oral diazepam. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was received from the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/66478/RCHM-2020). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12621001236886., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of intramuscular olanzapine is more effective than intramuscular droperidol at successfully sedating young people with ASBD requiring intramuscular sedation., Methods and Analysis: This study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular droperidol. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was received from the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/69948/RCHM-2021). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12621001238864., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Nasal high-flow oxygen therapy in infants with bronchiolitis and hypoxia has been shown to reduce the requirement to escalate care. The efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy in children aged 1 to 4 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure without bronchiolitis is unknown., Objective: To determine the effect of early high-flow oxygen therapy vs standard oxygen therapy in children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 14 metropolitan and tertiary hospitals in Australia and New Zealand, including 1567 children aged 1 to 4 years (randomized between December 18, 2017, and March 18, 2020) requiring hospital admission for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The last participant follow-up was completed on March 22, 2020., Interventions: Enrolled children were randomly allocated 1:1 to high-flow oxygen therapy (n = 753) or standard oxygen therapy (n = 764). The type of oxygen therapy could not be masked, but the investigators remained blinded until the outcome data were locked., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was length of hospital stay with the hypothesis that high-flow oxygen therapy reduces length of stay. There were 9 secondary outcomes, including length of oxygen therapy and admission to the intensive care unit. Children were analyzed according to their randomization group., Results: Of the 1567 children who were randomized, 1517 (97%) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 1.9 years [IQR, 1.4-3.0 years]; 732 [46.7%] were female) and all children completed the trial. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the high-flow oxygen group with a median of 1.77 days (IQR, 1.03-2.80 days) vs 1.50 days (IQR, 0.85-2.44 days) in the standard oxygen group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]; P < .001). Of the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 4 showed no significant difference. The median length of oxygen therapy was 1.07 days (IQR, 0.50-2.06 days) in the high-flow oxygen group vs 0.75 days (IQR, 0.35-1.61 days) in the standard oxygen therapy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70-0.86]). In the high-flow oxygen group, there were 94 admissions (12.5%) to the intensive care unit compared with 53 admissions (6.9%) in the standard oxygen group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.35-2.75]). There was only 1 death and it occurred in the high-flow oxygen group., Conclusions and Relevance: Nasal high-flow oxygen used as the initial primary therapy in children aged 1 to 4 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure did not significantly reduce the length of hospital stay compared with standard oxygen therapy., Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12618000210279.

Aims: High-flow is increasingly used in children with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), despite limited evidence. The primary feasibility endpoint for this pilot-study was the proportion of treatment failure, secondary outcomes being intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and proportion of patients requiring escalation of care. We measured duration of hospital stay, duration of oxygen therapy and rates of ICU admission., Methods: An open-labelled randomised controlled trial feasibility design was used in two tertiary children's hospitals in the emergency department and general wards. Children aged 0-16 years with AHRF were randomised (1:1) to either high-flow or standard-oxygen. Children on standard-oxygen received rescue high-flow in general wards if failure criteria were met., Results: Of 563 randomised, 283 received high-flow and 280 standard-oxygen with no adverse events. The proportion of children who failed treatment and receiving escalation of care was 11.7% (32/283 children) on high-flow and 18.1% (50/280 infants) on standard-oxygen (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.00). In children with obstructive airway disease, 9.7% on high-flow and 17.4% on standard-oxygen required escalation (risk-difference -7.7% percentage points; 95% confidence interval -14.3, -1.1); in children with non-obstructive disease no difference was observed. Neither difference in ICU admissions nor any difference in length of hospital stay was observed. Sixty percent of children who failed standard-oxygen responded to rescue high-flow., Conclusion: High-flow outside ICU appears to be feasible in children with AHRF and the required proportion of escalation was lower compared to standard-oxygen. The trial design can be applied in a future large randomised controlled trial., (© 2020 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

Introduction: Acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in children is the most frequent reason for non-elective hospital admission. During the initial phase, AHRF is a clinical syndrome defined for the purpose of this study by an oxygen requirement and caused by pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infections, asthma or bronchiolitis. Up to 20% of these children with AHRF can rapidly deteriorate requiring non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy has been used by clinicians for oxygen therapy outside intensive care settings to prevent escalation of care. A recent randomised trial in infants with bronchiolitis has shown that NHF therapy reduces the need to escalate therapy. No similar data is available in the older children presenting with AHRF. In this study we aim to investigate in children aged 1 to 4 years presenting with AHRF if early NHF therapy compared with standard-oxygen therapy reduces hospital length of stay and if this is cost-effective compared with standard treatment., Methods and Analysis: The study design is an open-labelled randomised multicentre trial comparing early NHF and standard-oxygen therapy and will be stratified by sites and into obstructive and non-obstructive groups. Children aged 1 to 4 years (n=1512) presenting with AHRF to one of the participating emergency departments will be randomly allocated to NHF or standard-oxygen therapy once the eligibility criteria have been met (oxygen requirement with transcutaneous saturation <92%/90% (dependant on hospital standard threshold), diagnosis of AHRF, admission to hospital and tachypnoea ≥35 breaths/min). Children in the standard-oxygen group can receive rescue NHF therapy if escalation is required. The primary outcome is hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes will include length of oxygen therapy, proportion of intensive care admissions, healthcare resource utilisation and associated costs. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained in Australia (HREC/15/QRCH/159) and New Zealand (HDEC 17/NTA/135). The trial commenced recruitment in December 2017. The study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. Authorship of all publications will be decided by mutual consensus of the research team., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12618000210279., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DF, SG, AS and SD received travel support from Fisher and Paykel Healthcare. All other authors have no conflicts to disclose. Fisher and Paykel have provided equipment and consumables for the study but have had no input in the study design., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunctions should be accurately and efficiently diagnosed. In this case series, we describe the use of point-of-care ultrasound to rapidly identify pediatric ventriculoperitoneal shunt tubing fracture, obstruction, and infection.