Background Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome is a well-known adverse effect of sedatives and analgesics commonly used in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit, with an incidence of up to 64.6%. When standard sedative and analgesic treatment is inadequate, dexmedetomidine may be added. The effect of supplemental dexmedetomidine on iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome is unclear. Objective To explore the potentially preventive effect of dexmedetomidine, used as a supplement to standard morphine and midazolam regimens, on the development of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit. Methods This retrospective observational study used data from patients on a 10-bed general pediatric intensive care unit. Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome was measured using the Sophia Observation withdrawal Symptoms-scale. Results In a sample of 102 patients, the cumulative dose of dexmedetomidine had no preventive effect on the development of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (P = .19). After correction for the imbalance in the baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not receive dexmedetomidine, the cumulative dose of midazolam was found to be a significant risk factor for iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (P < .03). Conclusion In this study, supplemental dexmedetomidine had no preventive effect on iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in patients receiving sedative treatment in the pediatric intensive care unit. The cumulative dose of midazolam was a significant risk factor for iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome.

Background: Early mobilisation of critically ill adults has been proven effective and is safe and feasible for critically ill children. However, barriers and perceived benefits of paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff involvement in mobilising critically ill children are largely unknown. In this study, we explored the barriers and perceived benefits regarding early mobilisation of critically ill children as perceived by PICU staff.Methods: A cross-sectional survey study among staff from seven PICUs in the Netherlands has been carried out.Results: Two hundred and fifteen of the 641 health care professionals (33.5%) who were invited to complete a questionnaire responded, of whom 159 (75%) were nurses, 40 (19%) physicians, and 14 (6%) physical therapists. Respondents considered early mobilisation potentially beneficial to shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation (86%), improve wake/sleep rhythm (86%) and shorten the length of stay in the PICU (85%). However, staff were reluctant to mobilize patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (63%), and patients with traumatic brain injury (49%). Perceived barriers to early mobilisation were hemodynamic instability (78%), risk of dislocation of lines/tubes (74%), and level of sedation (62%). In total, 40.3% of PICU nurses stated that physical therapists provided enough support in their PICU, but 84.6% of the physical therapists believed support was sufficient. Conclusion:Participating PICU staff considered early mobilisation as potentially beneficial in improving patient outcomes, although barriers were noted in certain patient groups.Relevance to Practice: We identified barriers to early mobilisation which should be addressed in implementation research projects in order to make early mobilisation in critically ill children work.