Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of repeated sedations for the radiotherapy of young children with cancer: a prospective study of 1033 consecutive sedations

Abstract

Purpose: A prospective observational study to examine our current practice of either conscious sedation (C.S.) or general anesthetic (G.A.) for children undergoing radiation therapy (we use the term sedation to include both C.S. and G.A.). Specifically, the study examines the reasons for selection of patients, choice of drugs, safety and effectiveness of the procedure, side effects of repeated daily sedation, and compliance of the family with the regimen. Methods and Materials: Recorded data included patient demographics, sedation technique, time for various stages of the procedure, breathing support required, sedation outcome, and complications. Results: One hundred ninety-eight consecutive children underwent 4232 procedures involving either simulation or radiation treatment, an average of 21 procedures each. Seventy-four (37%) required sedation for a total of 1033 procedures, an average of 14 sedations each. For those patients who received sedation, the age ranged from 9 months to 14 years (median, 3.8) and 96% had a mold, (85% of the head and neck). The doctor’s assessment of the need for sedation was correct 89% of the time. Thirty-seven percent required sedation at the start of treatment, but, even after 30 fractions, 15% still required sedation. Presedation status correlated with successful sedation and treatment ( p = 0.0001). Ninety-six percent had some form of i.v. access, usually a portacath (76%); 883 sedations were performed with G.A. and 148 with C.S.; 93% of sedations were completed satisfactorily, 5% with some difficulty, and the patient was unable to be treated in 2%. With G.A., satisfactory sedation was achieved 97% of the time, whereas, with C.S., satisfactory sedation was achieved only 68% of the time. There were no complications for 97% of observations. Not one serious complication occurred. An endotracheal tube was used only twice during G.A. For C.S., the results for chloral hydrate, meperidine, and midazolam were, respectively, at least one complication, 23%, 0%, 5%; satisfactory sedation for treatment, 60%, 60%, 82%; and unable to treat 20%, 13%, 5%. For G.A., only 1 patient was unable to be treated. The median time from start of medication to the end of radiation treatment was a median of 10 min (75% complete within 15 min) for G.A., vs. 30 min (75% complete in 50 min) for C.S. On multivariate analysis, the only significant factor predicting a successful outcome was a G.A. using propofol (odds ratio, 20.6), vs. C.S. using either chloral hydrate, meperidine, or midazolam. ( p = 0.0001). Conclusion: In this study, there were no serious complications of sedation in 1033 procedures. As a result of the study, we developed improved methods for better preparation of the patient and family to try to reduce the need for sedation, and reduce the indications for C.S., while confirming the safety and efficacy of a G.A. with propofol for children needing sedation for daily radiation therapy.