口服咪达唑仑与口服氯胺酮对1-7岁需要放射治疗的儿童镇静效果的比较

M. Ziaei, Mahjoubeh Keykha, F. Kazemi, A. Abdolrazaghnejad
{"title":"口服咪达唑仑与口服氯胺酮对1-7岁需要放射治疗的儿童镇静效果的比较","authors":"M. Ziaei, Mahjoubeh Keykha, F. Kazemi, A. Abdolrazaghnejad","doi":"10.26655/jmchemsci.2022.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sedation is one of the most important criteria for eliciting the cooperation of young patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the sedative effect of oral administration of ketamine and midazolam in children admitted to an emergency department in Zahedan. In this double-blind clinical trial, children were placed in grades one and two according to the ASA status classification system. Then, they were randomized into two groups of 50 individuals each. One group received 0.5mg/kg midazolam and the other received 5 mg/kg ketamine. The medication was administered orally in both groups. The scores of children’s sedation and separation from their parents were recorded, and the obtained data were analyzed in SPSS using Chi-square test and independent t-test. The mean heart rate of patients before the intervention in the two groups had a slight difference, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.159). But after the intervention, this mean was significantly different in the two groups (P = 0.018). The mean scores of sedations and separation from the parent were not significantly different at 10, 20, and 30 minutes after medication in the two groups before and after the intervention. The mean length of hospitalization after sedation in the two groups differed significantly (p = 0.007) in the ketamine group (28.62 minutes) and the midazolam group (34.04 minutes). In the ketamine group, the mean heart rate decreased less after the intervention and the length of hospital stay was shorter compared with the midazolam group. Also, the percentage of children who showed earlier onset of sedation (20 minutes after taking the drug) was higher [in the ketamine group]. Therefore, ketamine seems more desirable for treatment and radiographic procedures in the emergency department.","PeriodicalId":16365,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicinal and Chemical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Sedative Effect of Oral Midazolam versus Oral Ketamine on Children Aged 1-7 Years in Need of Radiologic Procedures\",\"authors\":\"M. Ziaei, Mahjoubeh Keykha, F. Kazemi, A. Abdolrazaghnejad\",\"doi\":\"10.26655/jmchemsci.2022.2.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sedation is one of the most important criteria for eliciting the cooperation of young patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the sedative effect of oral administration of ketamine and midazolam in children admitted to an emergency department in Zahedan. In this double-blind clinical trial, children were placed in grades one and two according to the ASA status classification system. Then, they were randomized into two groups of 50 individuals each. One group received 0.5mg/kg midazolam and the other received 5 mg/kg ketamine. The medication was administered orally in both groups. The scores of children’s sedation and separation from their parents were recorded, and the obtained data were analyzed in SPSS using Chi-square test and independent t-test. The mean heart rate of patients before the intervention in the two groups had a slight difference, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.159). But after the intervention, this mean was significantly different in the two groups (P = 0.018). The mean scores of sedations and separation from the parent were not significantly different at 10, 20, and 30 minutes after medication in the two groups before and after the intervention. The mean length of hospitalization after sedation in the two groups differed significantly (p = 0.007) in the ketamine group (28.62 minutes) and the midazolam group (34.04 minutes). In the ketamine group, the mean heart rate decreased less after the intervention and the length of hospital stay was shorter compared with the midazolam group. Also, the percentage of children who showed earlier onset of sedation (20 minutes after taking the drug) was higher [in the ketamine group]. Therefore, ketamine seems more desirable for treatment and radiographic procedures in the emergency department.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16365,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medicinal and Chemical Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medicinal and Chemical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26655/jmchemsci.2022.2.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicinal and Chemical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26655/jmchemsci.2022.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

镇静是诱导年轻患者合作的最重要标准之一。本研究的目的是比较口服氯胺酮和咪达唑仑对扎黑丹急诊科收治的儿童的镇静效果。在这项双盲临床试验中,根据ASA状态分类系统,儿童被分为1级和2级。然后,他们被随机分成两组,每组50人。一组给予咪达唑仑0.5mg/kg,另一组给予氯胺酮5mg/kg。两组均口服该药。记录患儿镇静评分和与父母分离评分,所得数据在SPSS软件中采用卡方检验和独立t检验进行分析。两组患者干预前的平均心率有轻微差异,差异无统计学意义(P = 0.159)。但干预后,两组间的平均值差异有统计学意义(P = 0.018)。干预前后两组患儿用药后10分钟、20分钟、30分钟镇静和与父母分离的平均评分差异无统计学意义。两组镇静后平均住院时间氯胺酮组(28.62 min)与咪达唑仑组(34.04 min)差异有统计学意义(p = 0.007)。氯胺酮组干预后平均心率下降幅度小于咪达唑仑组,住院时间短于咪达唑仑组。同时,在氯胺酮组中,表现出较早镇静(服药20分钟后)的儿童比例更高。因此,氯胺酮似乎更适合用于急诊科的治疗和放射检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Sedative Effect of Oral Midazolam versus Oral Ketamine on Children Aged 1-7 Years in Need of Radiologic Procedures
Sedation is one of the most important criteria for eliciting the cooperation of young patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the sedative effect of oral administration of ketamine and midazolam in children admitted to an emergency department in Zahedan. In this double-blind clinical trial, children were placed in grades one and two according to the ASA status classification system. Then, they were randomized into two groups of 50 individuals each. One group received 0.5mg/kg midazolam and the other received 5 mg/kg ketamine. The medication was administered orally in both groups. The scores of children’s sedation and separation from their parents were recorded, and the obtained data were analyzed in SPSS using Chi-square test and independent t-test. The mean heart rate of patients before the intervention in the two groups had a slight difference, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.159). But after the intervention, this mean was significantly different in the two groups (P = 0.018). The mean scores of sedations and separation from the parent were not significantly different at 10, 20, and 30 minutes after medication in the two groups before and after the intervention. The mean length of hospitalization after sedation in the two groups differed significantly (p = 0.007) in the ketamine group (28.62 minutes) and the midazolam group (34.04 minutes). In the ketamine group, the mean heart rate decreased less after the intervention and the length of hospital stay was shorter compared with the midazolam group. Also, the percentage of children who showed earlier onset of sedation (20 minutes after taking the drug) was higher [in the ketamine group]. Therefore, ketamine seems more desirable for treatment and radiographic procedures in the emergency department.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
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