Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation in mechanically ventilated pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 4.1
Majid Sezavar, Hosein Akhavan, Gholamreza Khademi, Maryam Naseri, Tahereh Sadeghi, Atiyeh Kaveh
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation in mechanically ventilated pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Majid Sezavar, Hosein Akhavan, Gholamreza Khademi, Maryam Naseri, Tahereh Sadeghi, Atiyeh Kaveh","doi":"10.1186/s44158-026-00370-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The benefits of Dexmedetomidne in sedation of mechanically ventilated pediatric patients are still challenging. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam for achieving deep sedation in pediatric patients receiving mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized clinical trial was conducted across three affiliated hospitals during February 2023 until February 2024. Eligible mechanically ventilated children aged 1 month to 18 years were randomized 1:1 to receive either Dexmedetomidine (0.25-1 mcg/kg/h) or midazolam (1-4 mcg/kg/min) for sedation, alongside fentanyl analgesia. Sedation was assessed using the Ramsey Sedation Scale and target scores set on 5-6. Primary outcomes included success rates in achieving target sedation at the beginning of mechanical ventilation; secondary outcomes encompassed hemodynamic adverse effects (hypotension, bradycardia), follow-up assessment of sedation level of successful patients over the next 6 h, mortality rate, mean arterial blood pressures and heart rates (HR) changes, mechanical ventilation and PICU stay duration.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Among 130 eligible patients, 120 were analyzed after exclusions (60 per group). Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. The primary outcome revealed that Dexmedetomidine was less effective than Midazolam in achieving target sedation levels across all ages (p < 0.001). In infants under one year, there was no significant difference in sedation effectiveness between the two medications (P = 0.157). Notably, Dexmedetomidine patients required higher drug doses to maintain sedation over 6 h, while Midazolam patients experienced fewer adjustments (p < 0.001). Hemodynamic complications were significantly less frequent in the Dexmedetomidine group (3.3% vs. 23.3% for hypotension; p < 0.01). However, the two groups did not differ in terms of MAP and HR changes (P = 0.255; P = 0.063). Mortality, mechanical ventilation duration and length of PICU stay were not different between two groups (P = 0.853; P = 0.076; P = 0.082).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dexmedetomidine is inferior to Midazolam for deep sedation during mechanical ventilation in children aged 1 month to 18 years. However, it can be effective in infants under one year of age. Dexmedetomidine presents a lower risk of hemodynamic side effects compared to Midazolam.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>IRCT20190522043672N3 on February 16, 2023.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13067651/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-026-00370-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The benefits of Dexmedetomidne in sedation of mechanically ventilated pediatric patients are still challenging. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam for achieving deep sedation in pediatric patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted across three affiliated hospitals during February 2023 until February 2024. Eligible mechanically ventilated children aged 1 month to 18 years were randomized 1:1 to receive either Dexmedetomidine (0.25-1 mcg/kg/h) or midazolam (1-4 mcg/kg/min) for sedation, alongside fentanyl analgesia. Sedation was assessed using the Ramsey Sedation Scale and target scores set on 5-6. Primary outcomes included success rates in achieving target sedation at the beginning of mechanical ventilation; secondary outcomes encompassed hemodynamic adverse effects (hypotension, bradycardia), follow-up assessment of sedation level of successful patients over the next 6 h, mortality rate, mean arterial blood pressures and heart rates (HR) changes, mechanical ventilation and PICU stay duration.

Main results: Among 130 eligible patients, 120 were analyzed after exclusions (60 per group). Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. The primary outcome revealed that Dexmedetomidine was less effective than Midazolam in achieving target sedation levels across all ages (p < 0.001). In infants under one year, there was no significant difference in sedation effectiveness between the two medications (P = 0.157). Notably, Dexmedetomidine patients required higher drug doses to maintain sedation over 6 h, while Midazolam patients experienced fewer adjustments (p < 0.001). Hemodynamic complications were significantly less frequent in the Dexmedetomidine group (3.3% vs. 23.3% for hypotension; p < 0.01). However, the two groups did not differ in terms of MAP and HR changes (P = 0.255; P = 0.063). Mortality, mechanical ventilation duration and length of PICU stay were not different between two groups (P = 0.853; P = 0.076; P = 0.082).

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is inferior to Midazolam for deep sedation during mechanical ventilation in children aged 1 month to 18 years. However, it can be effective in infants under one year of age. Dexmedetomidine presents a lower risk of hemodynamic side effects compared to Midazolam.

Trial registration: IRCT20190522043672N3 on February 16, 2023.

右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在机械通气患儿镇静中的疗效和安全性:一项随机临床试验。
目的:右美托咪定在机械通气儿童患者镇静中的益处仍然具有挑战性。在这项研究中,我们比较了右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在接受机械通气的儿科患者中实现深度镇静的有效性和安全性。方法:于2023年2月至2024年2月在三家附属医院进行随机临床试验。符合条件的1个月至18岁机械通气儿童按1:1随机分组,接受右美托咪定(0.25-1 mcg/kg/h)或咪达唑仑(1-4 mcg/kg/min)镇静和芬太尼镇痛。采用Ramsey镇静量表和目标评分5-6进行镇静评估。主要结局包括在机械通气开始时达到目标镇静的成功率;次要结局包括血流动力学不良反应(低血压、心动过缓)、6小时内成功患者镇静水平的随访评估、死亡率、平均动脉血压和心率(HR)变化、机械通气和PICU住院时间。主要结果:在130例符合条件的患者中,排除后分析120例(每组60例)。组间人口统计学特征相似。主要结果显示,右美托咪定在所有年龄段达到目标镇静水平的效果都不如咪达唑仑(p结论:右美托咪定在1个月至18岁儿童机械通气时的深度镇静效果不如咪达唑仑。然而,它可能对一岁以下的婴儿有效。与咪达唑仑相比,右美托咪定血流动力学副作用的风险较低。试验注册:IRCT20190522043672N3, 2023年2月16日。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书