Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Koch, M.E., Kain, Z.N., Ayoub, C., et al. (1998) The Sedative and Anlgesic Sparing Effects of Music. Anesthesiology, 89, 300-306.

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Children in Emergency Department—Role of Adjunct Therapies

    AUTHORS: Nirupama Kannikeswaran, Ahmad Farooqi, Cindy Chidi, Deepak Kamat

    KEYWORDS: Procedural Sedation, Music Therapy, Certified Child Life Specialists, Emergency Department, Children

    JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol.7 No.11, November 24, 2017

    ABSTRACT: Objective: To compare sedation efficacy and parent/consultant satisfaction between standard sedation, sedation with music listening, and sedation with Certified Child life Specialists (CCLS) in children undergoing procedural sedation in the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED). Methods: Eligible children, aged 3 - 18 years, were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: 1) standard sedation; 2) sedation with music listening; 3) sedation with CCLS intervention. All 3 groups received intravenous ketamine. The child life group received age appropriate comforting measures, while the music group listened to music of their choice during the procedure. The primary outcome was sedation efficacy, measured by Ramsay Sedation scale, FACES-P scale and need for re-dosing. The secondary outcome was parent/consultant satisfaction. Results: Fifty nine patients were analyzed (standard sedation: 20; sedation with music listening: 20; and sedation with CCLS: 19). There was no significant difference in mean initial ketamine dosing (1.58 ± 0.44 vs. 1.68 ± 0.36 vs. 1.42 ± 0.47, p = 0.26). There was no significant difference in median Ramsay Sedation scores [6(IQR:4,6) vs. 6 (IQR:4,6) vs. 6 (IQR:5,6)], FACES-R pain score [0 (IQR:0.0) vs. 0 (IQR:0.0) vs. 0 (IQR:0.0)] and need for re-dosing [9/20 (45%) vs. 4/20 (20%) vs. 8/19 (42.1%)] amongst the 3 groups. Parent and consultant satisfaction was high in all 3 groups. Conclusion: Our pilot study did not demonstrate a difference in sedation efficacy or parent/consultant satisfaction when adjunct therapies were used during PSA. Further studies with a large sample size are needed to define the role for such adjunct therapies during procedural sedation in PED.