High-dose rectal midazolam for pediatric procedures: A randomized trial of sedative efficacy and agitation

被引:26
作者
Kanegaye, JT
Favela, JL
Acosta, M
Bank, DE
机构
[1] Childrens Hosp & Hlth Ctr, Div Emergency Med, San Diego, CA 92123 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Diego, Sch Med, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Pediat, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
关键词
midazolam; administration; rectal; conscious sedation; skin/injuries; child;
D O I
10.1097/01.pec.0000092578.40174.85
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Objectives: To compare 2 doses of rectal midazolam, used for pediatric emergency department sedation, with regard to sedative efficacy and frequency of paradoxical agitation. Methods: Children less than or equal to48 months old undergoing cutaneous procedures received midazolam by rectum, randomized in double-blind fashion to standard (0.5 mg/kg, SDM) or high (1 mg/kg, HDM) doses. Behaviors were scored on a 5-point sedation scale before and during procedures. Proportions manifesting successful sedation and postprocedure agitation were compared between the 2 doses. Results: Sixty-five patients (32 SDM, 33 HDM) underwent sedated procedures (repair of lacerations, 97%). Behavior scores improved for both groups following medication administration and at best sedation during procedure. HDM produced better sedation at time of first suture (successful sedation: 70%, SDM vs. 91%, HDM; intergroup difference = 21%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2, 41) and at best point during the procedure (72%, SDM vs. 97%, HDM; Delta = 25%; 95% CI = 8, 43). However, sedative efficacy declined such that only 50% and 73% of the SDM and HDM groups, respectively, had successful sedation at the worst point during the procedures. Postprocedure agitation occurred in 17% of patients (6%, SDM vs. 27%, HDM; Delta = 21%; 95% CI = 3, 39). Conclusions: Rectal midazolam improved sedation scores over preprocedure levels and was more effective with a dose of 1 mg/kg than with 0.5 mg/kg. However, inadequate sedation in 27-50% of patients and prolonged agitation in 27% of patients at higher doses counter the advantages of rectal midazolam.
引用
收藏
页码:329 / 336
页数:8
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
*AB CONC INC, 1988, STATV 512PLUS COMP P
[2]  
CARBAJAL R, 1996, ANESTH ANALG, V82, P885
[3]   Serum lidocaine concentrations after subcutaneous administration in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in a pediatric institution [J].
Cassidy, SC ;
Jones, PR ;
Cox, S ;
Walson, PD ;
Allen, HD .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 1996, 129 (03) :464-466
[4]   Safety and efficacy of flumazenil in reversing conscious sedation in the emergency department [J].
Chudnofsky, CR .
ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1997, 4 (10) :944-950
[5]   NASAL VERSUS ORAL MIDAZOLAM FOR SEDATION OF ANXIOUS CHILDREN UNDERGOING LACERATION REPAIR [J].
CONNORS, K ;
TERNDRUP, TE .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1994, 24 (06) :1074-1079
[6]  
COTE CJ, 1994, PEDIATR CLIN N AM, V41, P31
[7]   Chloral hydrate versus midazolam for sedation of children for neuroimaging: A randomized clinical trial [J].
D'Agostino, J ;
Terndrup, TE .
PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE, 2000, 16 (01) :1-4
[8]   THE EFFECT OF ORAL MIDAZOLAM ON ANXIETY OF PRESCHOOL-CHILDREN DURING LACERATION REPAIR [J].
HENNES, HM ;
WAGNER, V ;
BONADIO, WA ;
GLAESER, PW ;
LOSEK, JD ;
WALSHKELLY, CM ;
SMITH, DS .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1990, 19 (09) :1006-1009
[9]   PARADOXICAL REACTION TO MIDAZOLAM AND CONTROL WITH FLUMAZENIL [J].
HONAN, VJ .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1994, 40 (01) :86-88
[10]   COMPARISON OF THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF INTRANASAL MIDAZOLAM OR SUFENTANIL FOR PREINDUCTION OF ANESTHESIA IN PEDIATRIC-PATIENTS [J].
KARL, HW ;
KEIFER, AT ;
ROSENBERGER, JL ;
LARACH, MG ;
RUFFLE, JM .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1992, 76 (02) :209-215