3.1. Subjects
This was a single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial approved by Xuzhou Children's Hospital's Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from the guardians of all participating children. Ninety children (44 boys and 46 girls) undergoing elective fiberoptic bronchoscopy between January and October 2022 were enrolled. They were evenly assigned to the control group (group C), treatment group 1 (group D1), and treatment group 2 (group D2) using the random number table method. Each subject was assigned a random number in the order of enrollment. After the random envelope was removed, the subjects were assigned according to each random number and treated correspondingly.
The children included in the study were aged between 3 and 7 years old, with a mean age of 5.12 ± 1.80 years. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical data between the 3 groups (P > 0.05). Inclusion criteria were (1) children aged 3 - 7 years old with ASA I-II; (2) children meeting the indications for fiberoptic bronchoscopy; and (3) children with normal development and no mental abnormalities.
Exclusion criteria were (1) children with allergies to anesthetic drugs; (2) children with a history of hemorrhage, coagulation abnormalities, or pulmonary hypertension; (3) children with neurological lesions; (4) children with weakness, malnutrition; or hyperthermia, (5) children who had undergone fiberoptic bronchoscopy multiple times before the current examination; or (6) children with refractory bronchopneumonia.
3.2. Anesthetic Methods
The children were instructed to abstain from food for 6 hours and from drinking water for 2 hours prior to the fiberoptic bronchoscopy procedure. They were accompanied by family members when entering the examination room. Venous access was established before entering the examination room, and routine monitoring of vital signs was initiated upon entry. Local anesthesia was administered by spraying 3 mL of 2% lidocaine on the surface of the oral cavity and throat using a laryngeal anesthesia tube.
For group C, 5 mL of normal saline was intravenously injected. For groups D1 and D2, 0.5 and 0.75 mg/kg of esketamine diluted to 5 mL were intravenously injected, respectively. Subsequently, all 3 groups underwent mask inhalation of sevoflurane, with the sevoflurane vaporizer adjusted to 4% and the oxygen flow rate adjusted to 6 L/min.
Fiberoptic bronchoscopy was performed once the children exhibited no eyelash reflex and did not respond to lower jaw stimulation. In instances of severe bucking, coughing, or body movements that interfered with the procedure, mask inhalation of sevoflurane was resumed until the end-tidal concentration reached 1 MAC. If SpO2 fell below 85%, the examination was suspended and resumed after arterial blood oxygen saturation improved following pressurized oxygen administration through the mask to assist ventilation.
All children were examined by the same skilled respiratory physician. The administration of anesthetic medication during fiberoptic bronchoscopy was performed by the same anesthetist. However, the assessment of the administration was performed by another anesthetist who was unaware of the study to avoid bias in results.
3.3. Observation of Indicators
The primary observation indicator was the incidence rate of NPOBCs in children. The secondary observation indicators included routine vital signs, face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability (FLACC) pain scale scores, modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS) scores, State Anxiety Inventory (SAI) scores, incidence rates of PAED, time to fiberoptic bronchoscopy, time to awakening, satisfaction degree, and incidence rates of adverse reactions.
3.4. Evaluation of Incidence Rate of Negative Postoperative Behavioral Changes
At 1, 7, 14, and 30 days after fiberoptic bronchoscopy, we used the Post Hospitalization Behavior Questionnaire (PHBQ) to assess the incidence rate of NPOBCs. Post Hospitalization Behavior Questionnaire was designed by Vernon in 1966 and composed of 27 items divided into 6 subscales, including general anxiety and regression, separation anxiety, eating disturbance, aggression toward authority, apathy/withdrawal, and anxiety about sleep. Each item was scored as follows: 0 for no difference from NPOBCs before the examination, -1 for a decrease in NPOBCs compared to those before the examination, -2 for a significant decrease in NPOBCs compared to those before the examination, 1 for an increase in NPOBCs compared to those before the examination, and 2 for a significant increase in NPOBCs compared to those before the examination. A total score > 0 indicated the occurrence of NPOBCs.
3.5. Monitoring of Routine Vital Signs
The routine vital signs of the children were monitored, including the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) measurements taken at various time points: Before fiberoptic bronchoscopy (T0), immediately after the examination began (T1), 1 min after the examination began (T2), 5 min after the examination began (T3), and immediately after the examination ended (T4).
3.6. Evaluation for Postoperative Pain Using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability Scale Score
The FLACC scale assessed leg movement, facial expression, cry, bodily activity, and consolability. Parents rated their children's pain for each category on a scale ranging from 0 to 2. The total score was 10 points, with a higher score indicating more severe pain.
3.7. Evaluation Criteria for Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale Score
Children's anxiety levels before entering the examination room were assessed using the mYPAS score. This evaluation consisted of 22 items, covering aspects such as dependence on parents, emotions, language, and more, with a scoring range of 23 - 100 points. The score was positively correlated with the anxiety level of children.
3.8. Evaluation Criteria for Parental Anxiety Score
Parental anxiety in the waiting area of the examination was assessed using the SAI score, with a total of 20 items scored, 10 each in the positive and negative directions. The score was positively correlated with the level of parental anxiety.
3.9. Evaluation Criteria for Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium Score
The assessment of PAED in children after awakening was conducted using the PAED scale. This scale included 5 items: Eye contact with the nurse, awareness of surroundings, purposeful activity, difficulty in comforting, and emotional disturbance, with a total score ranging from 0 to 20 points. A higher score indicated a greater risk of PAED, and a score of ≥ 12 points suggested the presence of PAED.
3.10. Satisfaction Degree
The satisfaction degree was categorized as follows: Satisfied, basically satisfied, and unsatisfied.
- Satisfied: No or mild bucking during the examination and no requirement for additional medication.
- Basically satisfied: With obvious paroxysmal cough during the examination, without apparent cyanosis or breath-holding, and requiring additional medication less than twice.
- Unsatisfied: Severe bucking during the examination, cyanosis, and breath-holding affecting the operator, and requiring additional medication more than twice.
3.11. Observation of Adverse Reactions
The incidence rates of adverse reactions, such as bucking, coughing, nausea, vomiting, and a decrease in SpO2, were recorded and compared between the 3 groups.
3.12. Statistical Analysis
All data were statistically analyzed using SPSS version 20 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). Normally distributed measurement data were expressed as mean ± SD ( ± s) and compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Pairwise comparisons between groups were conducted using the least significant difference (LSD)-t-test. The measurement data that were not normally distributed were presented as median (M) and interquartile range (IQR), and group comparisons were made using the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For count data, the χ2 test or Fisher's exact probability test was performed, and the Bonferroni method was used to adjust the α level for pairwise comparisons. A 2-tailed P-value of < 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.