A comparative study of intranasal midazolam spray and oral midazolam syrup as premedication in pediatric patients

R. Abhishek, Anish N. G. Sharma, P. Ganapathi, P. Shankaranarayana, D. Aiyappa, M. Nazim
{"title":"A comparative study of intranasal midazolam spray and oral midazolam syrup as premedication in pediatric patients","authors":"R. Abhishek, Anish N. G. Sharma, P. Ganapathi, P. Shankaranarayana, D. Aiyappa, M. Nazim","doi":"10.4103/2394-6954.180661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Preoperative preparation of children to alleviate the stress and anxiety related to surgery is an important aspect of balanced anesthesia care, it can not only affect the smoothness of induction and emergence from anesthesia but also the emotional and psychological make-up of the child, considering the pharmacological profile, midazolam is widely considered to be the ideal premedicant. The purpose of our prospective randomized observer-blinded study is to compare the effect of midazolam through oral and intranasal routes and determine the safer, more effective, and acceptable route by children. Subjects and Methods: Sixty patients aged 2–8 years, belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologist I and II undergoing various surgeries were randomized into two groups of 30 each. Group O received 0.5 mg/kg of oral midazolam syrup, and Group N received 0.2 mg/kg of midazolam intranasal spray. Hemodynamic variables, sedation scores, ease of parental separation, and mask acceptance at the time of induction were studied. Results: Onset of sedation was shorter and the sedation scores were higher in intranasal group, separation from parents and acceptance to mask were satisfactory but statistically insignificant in both the groups. There was no statistical difference in hemodynamic parameters, and no major adverse effects were seen in either group. Conclusion: Both oral and intranasal midazolam are safe and effective as sedative premedication in children.","PeriodicalId":17751,"journal":{"name":"Karnataka Anaesthesia Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Karnataka Anaesthesia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2394-6954.180661","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Preoperative preparation of children to alleviate the stress and anxiety related to surgery is an important aspect of balanced anesthesia care, it can not only affect the smoothness of induction and emergence from anesthesia but also the emotional and psychological make-up of the child, considering the pharmacological profile, midazolam is widely considered to be the ideal premedicant. The purpose of our prospective randomized observer-blinded study is to compare the effect of midazolam through oral and intranasal routes and determine the safer, more effective, and acceptable route by children. Subjects and Methods: Sixty patients aged 2–8 years, belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologist I and II undergoing various surgeries were randomized into two groups of 30 each. Group O received 0.5 mg/kg of oral midazolam syrup, and Group N received 0.2 mg/kg of midazolam intranasal spray. Hemodynamic variables, sedation scores, ease of parental separation, and mask acceptance at the time of induction were studied. Results: Onset of sedation was shorter and the sedation scores were higher in intranasal group, separation from parents and acceptance to mask were satisfactory but statistically insignificant in both the groups. There was no statistical difference in hemodynamic parameters, and no major adverse effects were seen in either group. Conclusion: Both oral and intranasal midazolam are safe and effective as sedative premedication in children.
小儿患者鼻用咪达唑仑喷雾剂与口服咪达唑仑糖浆前用药的比较研究
背景:患儿术前准备减轻手术相关压力和焦虑是均衡麻醉护理的一个重要方面,它不仅会影响麻醉诱导和苏醒的顺利进行,还会影响患儿的情绪和心理构成,考虑到其药理学特征,咪达唑仑被广泛认为是理想的前用药。本前瞻性随机观察盲法研究的目的是比较咪达唑仑口服和鼻内给药的效果,并确定儿童更安全、更有效和可接受的给药途径。对象与方法:60例年龄2-8岁,隶属于美国麻醉师学会I和II分会的接受各种手术的患者随机分为两组,每组30例。O组给予咪达唑仑糖浆0.5 mg/kg口服,N组给予咪达唑仑鼻内喷雾剂0.2 mg/kg。研究了诱导时的血流动力学变量、镇静评分、父母分离的难易程度和面罩接受度。结果:鼻内组患儿镇静起效时间较短,镇静评分较高,与父母分离、接受口罩均较满意,但两组差异均无统计学意义。两组血流动力学参数无统计学差异,两组均未见重大不良反应。结论:口服和鼻内咪达唑仑作为儿童镇静前用药安全有效。
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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信