DG Journal Club
METHODS A retrospective chart review of patients under the age of twelve years who underwent AT during 2018 was performed at a tertiary children’s hospital. Exclusion criteria were: patients with concomitant procedures done at the time of AT, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score greater than 3, or unclear documentation of PPIA participation. Patients were categorized into one of four groups: those who received PPIA, those who received midazolam, and those who received both or neither. Time spent in holding, the operating room, and in recovery were recorded. For comparison of continuous variables, either a One-Way ANOVA or a Kruskal-Wallis test was used as appropriate with post-hoc comparisons using a Dunn’s Test.
RESULTS A total of 274 patient charts were reviewed. After application of exclusion criteria, 152 charts were included for analysis. A total of 69 patients had PPIA alone, 18 received midazolam alone, 57 received both, and 8 had neither. The median age of the patients was 5.34 years (range 0.62-11.97). There was no significant difference in median time in holding between groups, but there was a significant difference in both OR and recovery time (p = 0.005 and p = 0.021 respectively). On further analysis with post-hoc pairwise comparisons, the only significant difference was between the midazolam only group and the group who received both PPIA and midazolam (p < 0.05), with patients receiving both having a shorter OR duration.
CONCLUSION Patients who received both PPIA and midazolam had a shorter OR duration than patients in the midazolam only group. There were no significant differences found in holding time or recovery time between groups. This supports the conclusion that PPIA can be implemented when deemed appropriate without increasing time spent in the operating room and may even have a beneficial effect when compounded with midazolam.