Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Emergency Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-08-31
Majid Hajimaghsoudi, Mehdi Bagherabadi, Ehsan Zarepur, Vahid Ahmadi Hanzaei
{"title":"Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Majid Hajimaghsoudi,&nbsp;Mehdi Bagherabadi,&nbsp;Ehsan Zarepur,&nbsp;Vahid Ahmadi Hanzaei","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The quality of interventions in children is largely dependent on their control. Hence, this study compared the sedative effects of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) Midazolam in pediatric sedation induction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized clinical trial was conducted on children aged 1-6 years presenting to emergency departments of Shahid Sadoughi and Shahid Rahnemoon Hospitals, Yazd, Iran. Participants were randomly assigned to IV or SC midazolam using a jet injector and success rate, degree of sedation, and satisfaction of parents and physician were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>60 cases with the mean age of 3.15±1.43 (1-6) years were randomly assigned to the SC (30 cases) or IV (30 cases) groups (56.7% female). SC and IV groups were similar regarding the mean age (p = 0.165) and sex (p = 0.121). Depth of sedation (p=0.900), control of child (p=0.711), in-charge physician's satisfaction (p=0.467), successful sedation and need for rescue dose (p=0.519) were not different between groups. IV midazolam group had a significantly shorter recovery time (about 10 minutes; p=0.040) and SC midazolam group had a significantly higher level of parent satisfaction (p=0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings indicate no significant difference in depth of sedation, control of child, in-charge physician's satisfaction, successful sedation (reaching stage 1 of sedation or higher), and need for rescue dose of SC and IV midazolam. Parents' satisfaction was significantly greater with SC administration and IV injection had shorter recovery time.</p>","PeriodicalId":11681,"journal":{"name":"Emergency","volume":"6 1","pages":"e53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/24/d8/emerg-6-e53.PMC6289147.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The quality of interventions in children is largely dependent on their control. Hence, this study compared the sedative effects of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) Midazolam in pediatric sedation induction.

Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on children aged 1-6 years presenting to emergency departments of Shahid Sadoughi and Shahid Rahnemoon Hospitals, Yazd, Iran. Participants were randomly assigned to IV or SC midazolam using a jet injector and success rate, degree of sedation, and satisfaction of parents and physician were compared between groups.

Results: 60 cases with the mean age of 3.15±1.43 (1-6) years were randomly assigned to the SC (30 cases) or IV (30 cases) groups (56.7% female). SC and IV groups were similar regarding the mean age (p = 0.165) and sex (p = 0.121). Depth of sedation (p=0.900), control of child (p=0.711), in-charge physician's satisfaction (p=0.467), successful sedation and need for rescue dose (p=0.519) were not different between groups. IV midazolam group had a significantly shorter recovery time (about 10 minutes; p=0.040) and SC midazolam group had a significantly higher level of parent satisfaction (p=0.001).

Conclusion: The findings indicate no significant difference in depth of sedation, control of child, in-charge physician's satisfaction, successful sedation (reaching stage 1 of sedation or higher), and need for rescue dose of SC and IV midazolam. Parents' satisfaction was significantly greater with SC administration and IV injection had shorter recovery time.

静脉注射咪达唑仑与皮下注射咪达唑仑在小儿镇静中的应用随机临床试验。
儿童干预措施的质量在很大程度上取决于他们的控制。因此,本研究比较了皮下(SC)和静脉(IV)咪达唑仑在小儿镇静诱导中的镇静效果。方法:本随机临床试验对在伊朗亚兹德Shahid Sadoughi和Shahid Rahnemoon医院急诊科就诊的1-6岁儿童进行研究。参与者随机分配使用喷射注射器静脉注射或SC咪达唑仑,比较两组患者的成功率、镇静程度以及家长和医生的满意度。结果:60例患者平均年龄3.15±1.43(1-6)岁,随机分为SC组(30例)和IV组(30例),其中女性占56.7%。SC组和IV组在平均年龄(p = 0.165)和性别(p = 0.121)方面相似。镇静深度(p=0.900)、对照组(p=0.711)、主治医师满意度(p=0.467)、镇静成功及抢救剂量需求(p=0.519)组间差异无统计学意义。静脉注射咪达唑仑组恢复时间明显缩短(约10分钟;p=0.040), SC咪达唑仑组家长满意度显著高于对照组(p=0.001)。结论:两组患儿在镇静深度、患儿控制、主治医师满意度、镇静成功(达到镇静1期及以上)、SC与静脉咪达唑仑抢救剂量等方面无显著差异。SC组家长满意度显著提高,静脉注射组恢复时间短。
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
Emergency
Emergency EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: "Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine" is an international, Open Access, peer-reviewed, continuously published journal dedicated to improving the quality of care and increasing the knowledge in the field of emergency medicine by publishing high quality articles concerning emergency medicine and related disciplines. All accepted articles will be published immediately in order to increase its visibility and possibility of citation. The journal publishes articles on critical care, disaster and trauma management, environmental diseases, toxicology, pediatric emergency medicine, emergency medical services, emergency nursing, health policy and ethics, and other related topics. The journal supports the following types of articles: -Original/Research article -Systematic review/Meta-analysis -Brief report -Case-report -Letter to the editor -Photo quiz
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信