No abstract

Multi-disciplinary consensus guidelines for maintenance sedation and analgesia in critically ill children have been successfully produced and are supported by levels of evidence (excluding sedation and analgesia for procedures and excluding neonates). The working group has highlighted the paucity of high-quality evidence in these important clinical areas and this emphasises the need for further randomised clinical trials in this area.

There is considerable heterogeneity of sedation techniques. NMBs are used in a large portion of this population. Withdrawal symptoms were associated with higher doses of sedation and greater lengths of stay and were not ameliorated by withdrawing sedation gradually ('tapering').

SummaryBehind the multiple arguments for and against the use of premedication, sedative drugs in children is a noble principle that of minimizing psychological trauma related to anesthesia and surgery. However, several confounding factors make it very difficult to reach didactic evidence-based conclusions. One of the key confounding issues is that the nature of expectations and responses for both parent and child vary greatly in different environments around the world. Studies applicable to one culture and to one hospital system (albeit multicultural) may not apply elsewhere. Moreover, the study of hospital-related distress begins at the start of the patient's journey and ends long after hospital discharge; it cannot be focused completely on just the moment of anesthetic induction. Taking an example from actual practice experience, the trauma caused by the actual giving of a premedication to a child who absolutely does not want it and may struggle may not be recorded in a study but could form a significant component of overall effect and later psychological pathology. Clearly, attitudes by health professionals and parents to the practice of routine pediatric premedication, vary considerably, often provoking strong opinions. In this pro-con article we highlight two very different