The American journal of emergency medicine · 2018
Procedural sedation in children with autism spectrum disorders in the emergency department.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brown James J, Gray James M, Roback Mark G, Sethuraman Usha, Farooqi Ahmad, Kannikeswaran Nirupama
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) present more frequently to the emergency department (ED) than children with normal development, and frequently have injuries requiring procedural sedation. Our objective was to describe sedation practice and outcomes in children with ASD in the ED.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of children with ASD who underwent sedation at two tertiary care EDs between January 2009-December 2016. Data were collected on children 1-18 years of age with ASD who were sedated in the ED.
RESULTS: There were 6020 ED visits by children with ASD, 126 (2.1%) of whom received sedation. The most frequent indications for sedation were laceration repair (24.6%), incision and drainage (17.5%), diagnostic imaging (14.3%), and physical examination (11.9%). The most common sedatives used were ketamine (50.8%) and midazolam (50.8%). Ketamine was most commonly given intravenously (71.9%), while midazolam was usually given intranasally (71.9%). Procedures could not be completed in 4 (3.2%) patients, and adverse events were noted in 23 (18.3%) patients. Only four (3.2%) patients required supplemental oxygenation, and one received positive pressure ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS: Children with autism in the ED commonly received sedation; one in four of which were for non-painful diagnostic procedures or physical examination. Over one-third received sedation via a non-parenteral route for intended minimal sedation. Sedative medication dosing and observed adverse events were similar to those reported previously in children without ASD. Emergency providers must be prepared to meet the unique sedation needs of children with ASD.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of children with ASD who underwent sedation at two tertiary care EDs between January 2009-December 2016. Data were collected on children 1-18 years of age with ASD who were sedated in the ED.
RESULTS: There were 6020 ED visits by children with ASD, 126 (2.1%) of whom received sedation. The most frequent indications for sedation were laceration repair (24.6%), incision and drainage (17.5%), diagnostic imaging (14.3%), and physical examination (11.9%). The most common sedatives used were ketamine (50.8%) and midazolam (50.8%). Ketamine was most commonly given intravenously (71.9%), while midazolam was usually given intranasally (71.9%). Procedures could not be completed in 4 (3.2%) patients, and adverse events were noted in 23 (18.3%) patients. Only four (3.2%) patients required supplemental oxygenation, and one received positive pressure ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS: Children with autism in the ED commonly received sedation; one in four of which were for non-painful diagnostic procedures or physical examination. Over one-third received sedation via a non-parenteral route for intended minimal sedation. Sedative medication dosing and observed adverse events were similar to those reported previously in children without ASD. Emergency providers must be prepared to meet the unique sedation needs of children with ASD.