Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Midazolam in Pediatric Emergence Agitation Management Following Anesthesia; A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 2 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-08-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2797
Nastaran Sadat Mahdavi, Fatemeh Jafari, Farnaz Shahabi Shojaei, Seyed Sajjad Razavi, Morteza Mortazavi, Ali Reza Mahdavi
{"title":"Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Midazolam in Pediatric Emergence Agitation Management Following Anesthesia; A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Nastaran Sadat Mahdavi, Fatemeh Jafari, Farnaz Shahabi Shojaei, Seyed Sajjad Razavi, Morteza Mortazavi, Ali Reza Mahdavi","doi":"10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Emergence agitation (EA) occurs shortly after emergence from anesthesia in pediatric patients causing disorientation, restlessness, and non-purposeful movement. This study aimed to compare intranasal dexmedetomidine (DEX) and oral midazolam in managing EA in pediatric patients scheduled for neurosurgical procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 50 pediatric patients who underwent neurosurgical procedure in an educational hospital between March and June 2024. One group received intranasal DEX (2 mcg/kg) and other group received oral midazolam (1 mg/kg of midazolam) before induction of anesthesia. The rate of EA as well as vital signs changes were compared between the two groups using statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>50 participants were enrolled in the study and randomly divided to DEX and midazolam groups (25 participants in each group). The two groups were similar regarding age (p = 0.538); sex (p = 0.417); pre-operation heart rate (p = 0.675); systolic (p = 0.226) and diastolic (p = 0.753) blood pressure; and pre-operative mean arterial blood pressure (p = 0.634). Among all participants, 13 (26.00%) patients showed signs of EA after extubation (2 patients (8.00%) in DEX group and 11 (44.00%) patients in midazolam group; p = 0.004). Regrading vital signs, only the decrease in heart rate after extubation in the DEX group was significantly greater than that observed in the midazolam group (-9.28±12.88 vs. -2.48±8.23, respectively; p = 0.0310). The number needed to treat (NNT), relative risk reduction (RRR), and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of using intranasal DEX in management of EA were 2.77 (95%confidence interval (CI): 1.72-7.19), 81.8% (95%CI: 26.0%-95.5%), and 36.0% (95%CI: 13.9%-58.1%) respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intranasal DEX compare to oral midazolam demonstrated superior efficacy in managing postoperative EA in pediatric patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":8146,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"e66"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12478627/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2797","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Emergence agitation (EA) occurs shortly after emergence from anesthesia in pediatric patients causing disorientation, restlessness, and non-purposeful movement. This study aimed to compare intranasal dexmedetomidine (DEX) and oral midazolam in managing EA in pediatric patients scheduled for neurosurgical procedures.

Methods: This double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 50 pediatric patients who underwent neurosurgical procedure in an educational hospital between March and June 2024. One group received intranasal DEX (2 mcg/kg) and other group received oral midazolam (1 mg/kg of midazolam) before induction of anesthesia. The rate of EA as well as vital signs changes were compared between the two groups using statistical analysis.

Results: 50 participants were enrolled in the study and randomly divided to DEX and midazolam groups (25 participants in each group). The two groups were similar regarding age (p = 0.538); sex (p = 0.417); pre-operation heart rate (p = 0.675); systolic (p = 0.226) and diastolic (p = 0.753) blood pressure; and pre-operative mean arterial blood pressure (p = 0.634). Among all participants, 13 (26.00%) patients showed signs of EA after extubation (2 patients (8.00%) in DEX group and 11 (44.00%) patients in midazolam group; p = 0.004). Regrading vital signs, only the decrease in heart rate after extubation in the DEX group was significantly greater than that observed in the midazolam group (-9.28±12.88 vs. -2.48±8.23, respectively; p = 0.0310). The number needed to treat (NNT), relative risk reduction (RRR), and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of using intranasal DEX in management of EA were 2.77 (95%confidence interval (CI): 1.72-7.19), 81.8% (95%CI: 26.0%-95.5%), and 36.0% (95%CI: 13.9%-58.1%) respectively.

Conclusion: Intranasal DEX compare to oral midazolam demonstrated superior efficacy in managing postoperative EA in pediatric patients.

Abstract Image

鼻用右美托咪定与口服咪达唑仑在小儿麻醉后急症躁动管理中的应用一项双盲随机临床试验。
儿科患者麻醉苏醒后不久出现出现性躁动(EA),引起定向障碍、不安和无目的运动。本研究旨在比较鼻内右美托咪定(DEX)和口服咪达唑仑在治疗小儿神经外科手术患者EA方面的效果。方法:对2024年3月至6月在某教育医院接受神经外科手术的50例儿童患者进行双盲随机临床试验。麻醉诱导前,一组经鼻给药DEX (2 mcg/kg),另一组口服咪达唑仑(咪达唑仑1 mg/kg)。采用统计学方法比较两组患者EA发生率及生命体征变化情况。结果:50名受试者入组,随机分为DEX组和咪达唑仑组(每组25人)。两组年龄相近(p = 0.538);性别(p = 0.417);术前心率(p = 0.675);收缩压(p = 0.226)和舒张压(p = 0.753);术前平均动脉血压(p = 0.634)。拔管后出现EA症状的患者13例(26.00%),其中DEX组2例(8.00%),咪达唑仑组11例(44.00%);P = 0.004)。在生命体征方面,仅DEX组拔管后心率下降明显大于咪达唑仑组(分别为-9.28±12.88 vs -2.48±8.23,p = 0.0310)。鼻内DEX治疗EA所需治疗数(NNT)、相对风险降低率(RRR)和绝对风险降低率(ARR)分别为2.77(95%可信区间(CI): 1.72 ~ 7.19)、81.8% (95%CI: 26.0% ~ 95.5%)和36.0% (95%CI: 13.9% ~ 58.1%)。结论:与口服咪达唑仑相比,鼻内DEX在小儿术后EA患者的治疗中表现出更好的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信