Intranasal Versus Buccal Versus Intramuscular Midazolam for the Home and Emergency Treatment of Acute Seizures in Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

BackgroundBenzodiazepines are the recommended first-line treatment of acute seizures. We wished to compare the efficacy, side effects, and satisfaction after midazolam administration by the buccal, intranasal, or intramuscular route in the treatment of acute seizures in children at homes and in emergency room (ER). MethodsA prospective, randomized, controlled trial was performed in children aged one month to 17 years with acute seizures lasting longer than five minutes. The primary end point was seizure cessation within 10 minutes of drug administration and no seizure recurrence within 30 minutes. ResultsIn the home group, 67 patients received midazolam via buccal route, 60 via intranasal route, and 69 via intramuscular route, whereas in the ER group, 37 patients received buccal, 34 received intranasal, and 34 received intramuscular midazolam. The primary end point was achieved in 94.2% and 85.3% after intramuscular midazolam in the home and ER groups, respectively. The intranasal midazolam was successful in stopping seizures in 93.3% in the home group and 88.2% in the ER group. The buccal route was effective in 91% in the home group and 78.4% in the ER group. There were no significant differences in efficacy between all groups (P = 0.763 and P = 0.509) among the home and ER groups, respectively. There were no significant cardiorespiratory events in all groups. ConclusionsIntramuscular, intranasal, and buccal doses of midazolam resolved most seizures in prehospital and emergency settings. Our results indicate that there is no statistically significant difference detected between different routes of midazolam. Intranasal route showed the highest satisfaction rate among caregivers.