Pediatric procedural sedation in Japan: A single‐facility study of 1,436 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) has been established worldwide as standard practice for several decades. However, there are no comprehensive guidelines or multi-facility databases of PPS in Japan, and the current status of PPS and PPS-related adverse events is unclear. The objectives of this study were to investigate the status of PPS in Japan and clarify the adverse events and risk factors. METHODS: This study was a single-facility, database survey performed at Oita University Hospital from September 2016 to March 2019. Children under 18 years of age who had been kept sedated for medical procedures with intravenous sedatives were enrolled in this study. Adverse events were recorded and defined according to the Quebec Guideline. RESULTS: During the study period, PPS was performed for 1,436 consecutive cases. The majority (94%) of the sedatives used were thiamylal alone or thiamylal combined with ketamine. There were a total of 253 adverse events in 233 cases (16.2%), including oxygen desaturation, airway hypersensitivity, and vomiting. Patients recovered from respiratory-related adverse events immediately with simple intervention. No patient required endotracheal intubation and no severe adverse event occurred. Four risk factors (a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, longer procedure time, non-compliance of nil per os status, and no Pediatric Advanced Life Support certification for sedation personnel) were associated with the occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events occurred in 16.2% of all PPS cases. Further studies are needed to analyze the serious adverse events and risk factors for PPS in Japan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".