Key result
British guidelines oppose deep sedation by non-anaesthetists in children, whereas American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines consider it acceptable without mandatory anaesthetist supervision.
Why the study?
Is deep sedation by non-anaesthetists safe and acceptable for children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging?
Is deep sedation by non-anaesthetists safe and acceptable for children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights the conflicting guidelines between British and American pediatric societies regarding the safety and acceptability of deep sedation by non-anaesthetists in children.
Current British guidelines oppose the use of deep sedation by non-anaesthetists. 1 2 but all reflect the needs and experience of adult practice. Despite this, and without reference to paediatric opinion, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in 1993 stated: "Intravenous sedation is hazardous in children as the therapeutic margin between sedation and anaesthesia is very narrow. In view of this it should be administered only under very special circumstances." 2 At about the same time quite diVerent conclusions were being reached within the paediatric guidelines produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1985 3 and revised in 1992. 4 These guidelines stated: " . . .deep sedation in children is an acceptable end point . . ." and that it is " . . .not mandatory that deep sedation be supervised by an anaesthetist . . .".
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graham Lawson (2000) conducted an editorial in Magnetic resonance imaging in children. Deep sedation by non-anaesthetists was evaluated. British guidelines oppose deep sedation by non-anaesthetists in children, whereas American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines consider it acceptable without mandatory anaesthetist supervision.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: