Premium
Periprocedural analgesia and sedation in air enema reduction for intussusception: A retrospective Australian cohort study
Author(s) -
Yeoh Kenny,
Palmer Greta M,
Teague Warwick J,
Shavit Itay,
Babl Franz E
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of paediatrics and child health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.631
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1440-1754
pISSN - 1034-4810
DOI - 10.1111/jpc.15142
Subject(s) - medicine , sedation , retrospective cohort study , confidence interval , anesthesia , emergency department , intussusception (medical disorder) , bowel perforation , perforation , surgery , complication , materials science , psychiatry , punching , metallurgy
Aim Periprocedural analgesia or sedation for air enema reduction (AER) of intussusception is a matter of debate. We set out to review Australian periprocedural pain management in AER. Methods Retrospective electronic medical record review of emergency department presentations of intussusception at an Australian children's hospital over 2 years for periprocedural analgesia and sedation and short‐term outcomes. Results A total of 73 patients (mean age 23 months) had ultrasound‐confirmed intussusception. Prior to AER, analgesia was administered to 61 of 73 (83.5%) patients. Opioids were administered in 48 of 73 (65.8%) and 8 of 73 (11.0%) received sedation. Thirteen of 73 (17.8%, 95% confidence interval 9.0–26.6) had spontaneously reduced; 60/73 that underwent primary AER had successful reduction in 54 (90.0%, 95% confidence interval 82.4–97.6). A total of seven patients required surgery. No AER attempts were complicated by bowel perforation. Conclusion The use of periprocedural analgesia for AER in this Australian series was common, whilst sedation use was infrequent. No perforations occurred.