Comparison of the Effects of Intranasal and Oral Midazolam Premedication on Sedation and Separation From Parents for Pediatric Patients.

IF 1.5 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2026-05-13 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1155/anrp/4837750
Dilek Metin Yamac, Nedret Erguven, Ecder Ozenc
{"title":"Comparison of the Effects of Intranasal and Oral Midazolam Premedication on Sedation and Separation From Parents for Pediatric Patients.","authors":"Dilek Metin Yamac, Nedret Erguven, Ecder Ozenc","doi":"10.1155/anrp/4837750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this study is to compare the effect of intranasal and oral midazolam administered for premedication to children of preschool age on hemodynamic parameters, sedation, and separation from parents.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A prospective, randomized, single-blind design was adopted, including 60 children aged 2-6 years scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. Participants were randomly assigned into two equal groups using a sealed-envelope randomization technique (Group O, <i>n</i> = 30, 0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam; Group N, <i>n</i> = 30, 0.25 mg/kg intranasal midazolam). The study drug was administered 20 min prior to induction of anesthesia. Vital signs and sedation score levels were recorded every 5 min. At the end of the 20th minute, the separation from parents score was assessed and recorded. Assessments were completed by an anesthesiologist who did not know the method of administration for premedication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, sex, height, and weight. In Group N, 11/30 (36%) of patients had different types of nasal irritation identified. In both groups, sedation score values examined in the 10th minute were significantly high compared to the initial values. No statistical significance was observed for the other values. There was no statistically significant difference observed for the mean separation from parents scores in Group N and Group O examined in the 20th minute (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our study, 0.25 mg/kg intranasal midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam, administered to children from 2 to 6 years for premedication, were effective methods, with no significant differences between the two kinds of administration in terms of sedation or separation from parents. Due to the nasal irritation emerging in patients with nasal administration, oral midazolam was evaluated as a more preferable method. <b>Trial Registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT07021755.</p>","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":"2026 ","pages":"4837750"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13168865/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/anrp/4837750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the effect of intranasal and oral midazolam administered for premedication to children of preschool age on hemodynamic parameters, sedation, and separation from parents.

Method: A prospective, randomized, single-blind design was adopted, including 60 children aged 2-6 years scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. Participants were randomly assigned into two equal groups using a sealed-envelope randomization technique (Group O, n = 30, 0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam; Group N, n = 30, 0.25 mg/kg intranasal midazolam). The study drug was administered 20 min prior to induction of anesthesia. Vital signs and sedation score levels were recorded every 5 min. At the end of the 20th minute, the separation from parents score was assessed and recorded. Assessments were completed by an anesthesiologist who did not know the method of administration for premedication.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, sex, height, and weight. In Group N, 11/30 (36%) of patients had different types of nasal irritation identified. In both groups, sedation score values examined in the 10th minute were significantly high compared to the initial values. No statistical significance was observed for the other values. There was no statistically significant difference observed for the mean separation from parents scores in Group N and Group O examined in the 20th minute (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: In our study, 0.25 mg/kg intranasal midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam, administered to children from 2 to 6 years for premedication, were effective methods, with no significant differences between the two kinds of administration in terms of sedation or separation from parents. Due to the nasal irritation emerging in patients with nasal administration, oral midazolam was evaluated as a more preferable method. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT07021755.

鼻用与口服咪达唑仑预用药对小儿患儿镇静及与父母分离效果的比较。
目的:本研究的目的是比较学龄前儿童用药前鼻用和口服咪达唑仑对血流动力学参数、镇静作用和与父母分离的影响。方法:采用前瞻性、随机、单盲设计,选择60例2 ~ 6岁儿童在全麻下择期手术。采用密封信封随机化技术将参与者随机分为两组(O组,n = 30, 0.5 mg/kg口服咪达唑仑;n组,n = 30, 0.25 mg/kg鼻内咪达唑仑)。在麻醉诱导前20分钟给药。每5 min记录一次生命体征及镇静评分水平。在第20分钟结束时,评估并记录与父母的分离得分。评估由一名不知道预用药方法的麻醉师完成。结果:两组患者的平均年龄、性别、身高、体重差异无统计学意义。在N组中,11/30(36%)的患者有不同类型的鼻腔刺激。两组在第10分钟检查的镇静评分值均显著高于初始值。其他值无统计学意义。N组与O组患儿20分钟与父母分离平均评分比较,差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。结论:在我们的研究中,2 ~ 6岁儿童用药前给药0.25 mg/kg鼻用和0.5 mg/kg口服咪达唑仑是有效的方法,两种给药方式在镇静作用和与父母分离方面无显著差异。由于鼻给药患者出现鼻腔刺激,口服咪达唑仑被认为是更可取的方法。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT07021755。
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
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 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
小红书