Intranasal Midazolam versus Rectal Diazepam for the Management of Canine Status Epilepticus: A Multicenter Randomized Parallel-Group Clinical Trial.

Abstract

BackgroundIntranasal administration of benzodiazepines has shown superiority over rectal administration for terminating emergency epileptic seizures in human trials. No such clinical trials have been performed in dogs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of intranasal midazolam (IN‐MDZ), via a mucosal atomization device, as a first‐line management option for canine status epilepticus and compare it to rectal administration of diazepam (R‐DZP) for controlling status epilepticus before intravenous access is available.AnimalsClient‐owned dogs with idiopathic or structural epilepsy manifesting status epilepticus within a hospital environment were used. Dogs were randomly allocated to treatment with IN‐MDZ (n = 20) or R‐DZP (n = 15).MethodsRandomized parallel‐group clinical trial. Seizure cessation time and adverse effects were recorded. For each dog, treatment was considered successful if the seizure ceased within 5 minutes and did not recur within 10 minutes after administration. The 95% confidence interval was used to detect the true population of dogs that were successfully treated. The Fisher's 2‐tailed exact test was used to compare the 2 groups, and the results were considered statistically significant if P < .05.ResultsIN‐MDZ and R‐DZP terminated status epilepticus in 70% (14/20) and 20% (3/15) of cases, respectively (P = .0059). All dogs showed sedation and ataxia.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceIN‐MDZ is a quick, safe and effective first‐line medication for controlling status epilepticus in dogs and appears superior to R‐DZP. IN‐MDZ might be a valuable treatment option when intravenous access is not available and for treatment of status epilepticus in dogs at home.