Search

Abstract Background Vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis (AG) is not only a direct cause of fluid loss but it is also a major factor of failure of oral rehydration therapy (ORT). Physicians who provide care to paediatric patients in the emergency department (ED) usually prescribe intravenous fluid therapy (IVT) for mild or moderate dehydration when vomiting is the major symptom. Thus, effective symptomatic treatment of vomiting would lead to an important reduction in the use of IVT and, consequently, of the duration of hospital stay and of frequency of hospital admission. Available evidence on symptomatic treatment of vomiting shows the efficacy of the most recently registered molecule (ondansetron) but a proper evaluation of antiemetics drugs largely used in clinical practice, such as domperidone, is lacking. Objectives To compare the efficacy of ondansetron and domperidone for the symptomatic treatment of vomiting in children with AG who have failed ORT. Methods/Design Multicentre, double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted in paediatric EDs. Children aged from 1 to 6 years who vomiting, with a presumptive clinical diagnosis of AG, and without severe dehydration will be included. After the failure of a initial ORS administration in ED, eligible children will be randomized to receive: 1) ondansetron syrup (0,15 mg/Kg of body weight); 2) domperidone syrup (0,5 mg/Kg of body weight); 3) placebo. The main study outcome will be the percentage of patients needing nasogastric or IVT after symptomatic oral treatment failure, defined as vomiting or fluid refusal after a second attempt of ORT. Data relative to study outcomes will be collected at 30 minute intervals for a minimum of 6 hours. A telephone follow up call will be made 48 hours after discharge. A total number of 540 children (i.e. 180 patients in each arm) will be enrolled. Discussion The trial results would provide evidence on the efficacy of domperidone, which is largely used in clinical practice despite the lack of proper evaluation and a controversial safety profile, as compared to ondansetron, which is not yet authorized in Italy despite evidence supporting its efficacy in treating vomiting. The trial results would contribute to a reduction in the use of IVT and, consequently, in hospital admissions in children with AG. The design of this RCT, which closely reflect current clinical practice in EDs, will allow immediate transferability of results. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01257672

Background: Pain experienced by children in emergency departments (EDs) is often poorly assessed and treated. Although local protocols and strategies are important to ensure appropriate staff behaviours, few studies have focussed on pain management policies at hospital or department level. This study aimed at describing the policies and reported practices of pain assessment and treatment in a national sample of Italian pediatric EDs, and identifying the assocoated structural and organisational factors. Methods: A structured questionnaire was mailed to all the 14 Italian pediatric and maternal and child hospitals and to 5 general hospitals with separate pediatric emergency room. There were no refusals. Information collected included the frequency and mode of pain assessment, presence of written pain management protocols, use of local anaesthetic (EMLA cream) before venipuncture, and role of parents. General data on the hospital and ED were also recorded. Multiple Correspondence Analysis was used to explore the multivariable associations between the characteristics of hospitals and EDs and their pain management policies and practices. Results: Routine pain assessment both at triage and in the emergency room was carried out only by 26% of surveyed EDs. About one third did not use algometric scales, and almost half (47.4%) did not have local protocols for pain treatment. Only 3 routinely reassessed pain after treatment, and only 2 used EMLA. All EDs allowed parents' presence and most (17, 89.9%) allowed them to stay when painful procedures were carried out. Eleven hospitals (57.9%) allowed parents to hold their child during blood sampling. Pediatric and maternal and child hospitals, those located in the North of Italy, equipped with medico-surgical-traumatological ED and short stay observation, and providing full assessment triage over 24 hours were more likely to report appropriate policies for pain management both at triage and in ER. A nurses to admissions ratio = median was associated with better pain management at triage. Conclusions: Despite availability of national and international guidelines, pediatric pain management is still sub-optimal in Italian emergency departments. Multifaceted strategies including development of local policies, staff educational programs, and parental involvement in pain assessment should be carried out and periodically reinforced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The use of antiemetics for vomiting in acute gastroenteritis in children is still a matter of debate. We conducted a double-blind randomized trial to evaluate whether a single oral dose of ondansetron vs domperidone or placebo improves outcomes in children with gastroenteritis. After failure of initial oral rehydration administration, children aged 1-6 years admitted for gastroenteritis to the pediatric emergency departments of 15 hospitals in Italy were randomized to receive one oral dose of ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) or domperidone (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary outcome was the percentage of children receiving nasogastric or intravenous rehydration. A p value of 0.014 was used to indicate statistical significance (and 98.6% CI were calculated) as a result of having carried out two interim analyses. 1,313 children were eligible for the first attempt with oral rehydration solution, which was successful for 832 (63.4%); 356 underwent randomization (the parents of 125 children did not give consent): 118 to placebo, 119 to domperidone, and 119 to ondansetron. Fourteen (11.8%) needed intravenous rehydration in the ondansetron group vs 30 (25.2%) and 34 (28.8%) in the domperidone and placebo groups, respectively. Ondansetron reduced the risk of intravenous rehydration by over 50%, both vs placebo (RR 0.41, 98.6% CI 0.20-0.83) and domperidone (RR 0.47, 98.6% CI 0.23-0.97). No differences for adverse events were seen among groups. In a context of emergency care, 6 out of 10 children aged 1-6 years with vomiting due to gastroenteritis and without severe dehydration can be managed effectively with administration of oral rehydration solution alone. In children who fail oral rehydration, a single oral dose of ondansetron reduces the need for intravenous rehydration and the percentage of children who continue to vomit, thereby facilitating the success of oral rehydration. Domperidone was not effective for the symptomatic treatment of vomiting during acute gastroenteritis., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.