SpringerLink
Log in

Deep sedation in pediatric imaging: efficacy and safety of intravenous chlorpromazine

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The quality of MRI and CT depends largely on immobility of the patient during the procedure, which is often difficult to achieve without sedation in children below the age of 6 years.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous chlorpromazine sedation for repeated imaging in young children treated for cancer.

Materials and methods

From July 2003 to January 2007, information on children younger than 6 years of age having MRI or CT was prospectively collected. Forty-five minutes before the scan, a 10-min infusion of chlorpromazine 0.5 mg/kg was administered and managed by non-anesthetic staff. Patient monitoring included continuous measurement of pulse, respiration, oxygen saturation and arterial blood pressure. Procedure-related parameters and adverse events were documented. Sedation was considered successful when the procedure was completed and at least 95% of images were usable.

Results

One-hundred-one procedures (82 MRI, 19 CT) were evaluated in 62 children, 3–74 months old. Adequate sedation was achieved in 96% of cases, with mean induction time, 22 min; mean duration of sleep, 72 min, and mean duration of procedure, 33 min. Mean time spent in the radiology unit was 104 min. Ninety-six percent of imaging procedures were successfully completed. No cardiac, respiratory, neurological or allergic complication occurred.

Conclusion

Intravenous chlorpromazine is safe and effective for procedural sedation in young children with cancer undergoing MRI and CT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hubbard AM, Markowitz RI et al (1992) Sedation for pediatric patients undergoing CT and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16:3–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pereira JK, Burrows PE et al (1993) Comparison of sedation regimens for pediatric outpatient CT. Pediatr Radiol 23:341–344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Le Dosseur P, Dacher JN et al (2003) [Medical and organizational aspects of sedation in imaging]. Arch Pediatr 10(Suppl 1):227s–230s

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dalal PG, Murray D et al (2006) Sedation and anesthesia protocols used for magnetic resonance imaging studies in infants: provider and pharmacologic considerations. Anesth Analg 103:863–868

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chung T, Hoffer FA, Connor L et al (2000) The use of oral pentobarbital sodium (Nembutal) versus oral chloral hydrate in infants undergoing CT and MR imaging—a pilot study. Pediatr Radiol 30:332–335

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T et al (2000) Sedation/Analgesia for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in children. J Perianesth Nurs 15:415–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mason KP, Sanborn P et al (2004) Superiority of pentobarbital versus chloral hydrate for sedation in infants during imaging. Radiology 230:537–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dacher JN, Neuenschwander S et al (1996) Sedation with oral hydroxyzine and rectal chloral hydrate in pediatric MRI and CT. J Radiol 77:1189–1192, discussion 1193–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Le Dosseur P et al (2000) Principle of precaution and pediatric imaging: the good side and the less good one. J Radiol 81:935–936

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. American Academy of Pediatrics Comittee on drugs. Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients During and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures. Pediatrics 110:836–838

  11. Sanborn PA, Michna E et al (2005) Adverse cardiovascular and respiratory events during sedation of pediatric patients for imaging examinations. Radiology 237:288–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Trotti A, Byhardt R et al (2000) Common toxicity criteria: version 2.0. An improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment: impact on radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47:13–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ramsay MA, Savege TM et al (1974) Controlled sedation with alphaxalone-alphadolone. Br Med J 2:656–659

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sutherland P, Platt M (2000) Sedation and general anaesthesia in children undergoing MRI and CT. Br J Anaesth 85:803–804

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Moro-Sutherland DM, Algren JT et al (2000) Comparison of intravenous midazolam with pentobarbital for sedation for head computed tomography imaging. Acad Emerg Med 7:1370–1375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Acworth JP, Purdie D et al (2001) Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam is superior to intranasal midazolam for emergency paediatric procedural sedation. Emerg Med J 18:39–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Masue T, Shimonaka H et al (2003) Oral high-dose midazolam premedication for infants and children undergoing cardiovascular surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 13:662–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T et al (2004) Pentobarbital vs chloral hydrate for sedation of children undergoing MRI: efficacy and recovery characteristics. Paediatr Anaesth 14:589–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Varner PD, Ebert JP et al (1985) Methohexital sedation of children undergoing CT scan. Anesth Analg 64:643–645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Audenaert SM, Montgomery CL et al (1995) A prospective study of rectal methohexital: efficacy and side effects in 648 cases. Anesth Analg 81:957–961

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Austin T, Vilke GM et al (2003) Safety and effectiveness of methohexital for procedural sedation in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 24:315–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Brien JF, Falk JL et al (1991) Rectal thiopental compared with intramuscular meperidine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine for pediatric sedation. Ann Emerg Med 20:644–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Glasier CM, Stark JE et al (1995) Rectal thiopental sodium for sedation of pediatric patients undergoing MR and other imaging studies. AJNR 16:111–114

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Alp H, Guler I et al (1999) Efficacy and safety of rectal thiopental: sedation for children undergoing computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Int 41:538–541

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenberg SB, Faerber EN et al (1993) High-dose chloral hydrate sedation for children undergoing MR imaging: safety and efficacy in relation to age. AJR 161:639–641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Di Liddo L, D’Angelo A et al (2006) Etomidate versus midazolam for procedural sedation in pediatric outpatients: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 48:433–440, 440 e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Merola C, Albarracin C et al (1995) An audit of adverse events in children sedated with chloral hydrate or propofol during imaging studies. Paediatr Anaesth 5:375–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hertzog JH, Dalton HJ et al (2000) Prospective evaluation of propofol anesthesia in the pediatric intensive care unit for elective oncology procedures in ambulatory and hospitalized children. Pediatrics 106:742–747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Connors K, Terndrup TE (1994) Nasal versus oral midazolam for sedation of anxious children undergoing laceration repair. Ann Emerg Med 24:1074–1079

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kogan A, Katz J et al (2002) Premedication with midazolam in young children: a comparison of four routes of administration. Paediatr Anaesth 12:685–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Coventry DM, Martin CS et al (1991) Sedation for paediatric computerized tomography—a double-blind assessment of rectal midazolam. Eur J Anaesthesiol 8:29–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Karian VE, Burrows PE et al (1999) Sedation for pediatric radiological procedures: analysis of potential causes of sedation failure and paradoxical reactions. Pediatr Radiol 29:869–873

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Goodson JM, Moore PA (1983) Life-threatening reactions after pedodontic sedation: an assessment of narcotic, local anesthetic, and antiemetic drug interaction. J Am Dent Assoc 107:239–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cote CJ, Notterman DA et al (2000) Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: a critical incident analysis of contributing factors. Pediatrics 105(4 Pt 1):805–814

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cote CJ, Karl HW et al (2000) Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: analysis of medications used for sedation. Pediatrics 106:633–644

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs (1985) Guidelines for the elective use of conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia in pediatric patients. Pediatrics 76:317–321

    Google Scholar 

  37. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs (1992) Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Pediatrics 89:1110–1115

    Google Scholar 

  38. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs (2002) Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: addendum. Pediatrics 110:836–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bordes M, Semjen F et al (2007) [Which anaesthesia for children undergoing MRI? An Internet survey in the French university hospitals]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 26:287–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bryan YF, Hoke LK et al (2009) A randomized trial comparing sevoflurane and propofol in children undergoing MRI scans. Paediatr Anaesth 19:672–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sun L (2010) Early childhood general anaesthesia exposure and neurocognitive development. Br J Anaesth 105(Suppl 1):i61–i68

    Google Scholar 

  42. Heistein LC, Ramaciotti C et al (2006) Chloral hydrate sedation for pediatric echocardiography: physiologic responses, adverse events, and risk factors. Pediatrics 117:e434–e441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T et al (2000) Prolonged recovery and delayed side effects of sedation for diagnostic imaging studies in children. Pediatrics 105:E42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoffman GM, Nowakowski R et al (2002) Risk reduction in pediatric procedural sedation by application of an American Academy of Pediatrics/American Society of Anesthesiologists process model. Pediatrics 109:236–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Krauss B, Green SM (2006) Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. Lancet 367:766–780

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sanderson PM (1997) A survey of pentobarbital sedation for children undergoing abdominal CT scans after oral contrast medium. Paediatr Anaesth 7:309–315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Cote CJ, Cohen IT et al (2002) A comparison of three doses of a commercially prepared oral midazolam syrup in children. Anesth Analg 94:37–43, table of contents

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Golparvar M, Saghaei M et al (2004) Paradoxical reaction following intravenous midazolam premedication in pediatric patients—a randomized placebo controlled trial of ketamine for rapid tranquilization. Paediatr Anaesth 14:924–930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Roback MG, Wathen JE et al (2005) Adverse events associated with procedural sedation and analgesia in a pediatric emergency department: a comparison of common parenteral drugs. Acad Emerg Med 12:508–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Younge PA, Kendall JM (2001) Sedation for children requiring wound repair: a randomised controlled double blind comparison of oral midazolam and oral ketamine. Emerg Med J 18:30–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Michonneau for his help in creating the study database, and the MRI/CT-scan technologists and pediatric oncology nurses for fulfilling the database. The authors also thank MD. Reynaud for general support and editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pediatric Oncology Unit, IHOP, Lyon, France

    C. Heng Vong & P. Marec Bérard

  2. Biostatistics and Therapeutic Evaluation Unit Centre Régional Léon Bérard, Lyon, France

    A. Bajard

  3. Radiology Unit, Centre Régional Léon Bérard, Lyon, France

    P. Thiesse

  4. Pediatric Oncology Unit, The Hospital For Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    E. Bouffet

  5. Anesthesiology Unit, Centre Régional Léon Bérard, Lyon, France

    H. Seban

  6. Oncologue Pédiatre, Institut d’Hémato-Oncologie Pédiatrique, 1 place Joseph Renaut, 69008, Lyon, France

    P. Marec Bérard

Authors
  1. C. Heng Vong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Bajard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Thiesse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Bouffet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Seban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Marec Bérard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Marec Bérard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heng Vong, C., Bajard, A., Thiesse, P. et al. Deep sedation in pediatric imaging: efficacy and safety of intravenous chlorpromazine. Pediatr Radiol 42, 552–561 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2310-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2310-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation