Search

Importance: Ileocolic intussusception is an important cause of intestinal obstruction in children. Reduction of ileocolic intussusception using air or fluid enema is the standard of care. This likely distressing procedure is usually performed without sedation or analgesia, but practice variation exists., Objective: To characterize the prevalence of opioid analgesia and sedation and assess their association with intestinal perforation and failed reduction., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study reviewed medical records of children aged 4 to 48 months with attempted reduction of ileocolic intussusception at 86 pediatric tertiary care institutions in 14 countries from January 2017 to December 2019. Of 3555 eligible medical records, 352 were excluded, and 3203 medical records were eligible. Data were analyzed in August 2022., Exposures: Reduction of ileocolic intussusception., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were opioid analgesia within 120 minutes of reduction based on the therapeutic window of IV morphine and sedation immediately before reduction of intussusception., Results: We included 3203 patients (median [IQR] age, 17 [9-27] months; 2054 of 3203 [64.1%] males). Opioid use was documented in 395 of 3134 patients (12.6%), sedation 334 of 3161 patients (10.6%), and opioids plus sedation in 178 of 3134 patients (5.7%). Perforation was uncommon and occurred in 13 of 3203 patients (0.4%). In the unadjusted analysis, opioids plus sedation (odds ratio [OR], 5.92; 95% CI, 1.28-27.42; P = .02) and a greater number of reduction attempts (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.03-2.11; P = .03) were significantly associated with perforation. In the adjusted analysis, neither of these covariates remained significant. Reductions were successful in 2700 of 3184 attempts (84.8%). In the unadjusted analysis, younger age, no pain assessment at triage, opioids, longer duration of symptoms, hydrostatic enema, and gastrointestinal anomaly were significantly associated with failed reduction. In the adjusted analysis, only younger age (OR, 1.05 per month; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06 per month; P < .001), shorter duration of symptoms (OR, 0.96 per hour; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99 per hour; P = .002), and gastrointestinal anomaly (OR, 6.50; 95% CI, 2.04-20.64; P = .002) remained significant., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of pediatric ileocolic intussusception found that more than two-thirds of patients received neither analgesia nor sedation. Neither was associated with intestinal perforation or failed reduction, challenging the widespread practice of withholding analgesia and sedation for reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children.

Objective: Mortality in pediatric septic shock remains unacceptably high. Delays in vasopressor administration have been associated with an increased risk of mortality. Current treatment guidelines suggest the use of a peripheral vascular line (PVL) for inotropic administration in fluid-refractory septic shock when a central vascular line is not already in place. The aim of this study was to report local adverse effects associated with inotropic drug administration through a PVL at a pediatric emergency department setting in the first hour of treatment of septic shock., Methods: A prospective, descriptive, observational cohort study of patients with septic shock requiring PVL inotropic administration was conducted at the pediatric emergency department of a tertiary care pediatric hospital. For the infusion and postplacement care of the PVL for vasoactive drugs, an institutional nursing protocol was used., Results: We included 49 patients; 51% had an underlying disease. Eighty-four percent of the children included had a clinical "cold shock." The most frequently used vasoactive drug was epinephrine (72%). One patient presented with local complications., Conclusions: At our center, infusion of vasoactive drugs through a PVL was shown to be safe and allowed for adherence to the current guidelines for pediatric septic shock., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)