Aims The prolonged use of benzodiazepines and opioids can lead to an increase in the incidence of withdrawal syndrome. One of the known risk factors is the lack of a sedative-weaning protocol. This study established a sedative-weaning protocol and compared this protocol with the usual care of weaning in high-risk critically ill children. Materials and methods This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary-care hospital. We recruited children aged 1 month to 18 years who had received intravenous sedative or analgesic drugs for at least 5 days. The exclusion criteria were patients who had already experienced the withdrawal syndrome. We established a weaning protocol. Eligible patients were randomly divided into the protocolized (intervention) and usual care (control) groups. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome compared between two groups. Results Thirty eligible patients were enrolled (19 in the intervention and 11 in the control group). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both the groups. The prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome was 84% and 81% of patients in the intervention and control group, respectively. The duration of the initial weaning phase was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group ( p value = 0.026). The cumulative dose of morphine solution for rescue therapy in the intervention group was statistically lower than that in the control group ( p value = 0.016). Conclusion The implementation of the sedative-weaning protocol led to a significant reduction in the percentage of withdrawal days and length of intensive care unit stay without any adverse drug reactions. External validation would be needed to validate this protocol. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03018977 How to cite this article Tiacharoen D, Lertbunrian R, Veawpanich J, Suppalarkbunlue N, Anantasit N. Protocolized Sedative Weaning vs Usual Care in Pediatric Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):451–458.