Oral versus intranasal midazolam premedication for infants during echocardiographic study

Abstract

Movement and anxiety during echocardiographic study may reduce the reliability and affect the quality of echocardiographic images. Thus, sedation is an essential component when it is performed in infants. This randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of intranasal midazolam (INM) versus oral midazolam (OM) in infants during transthoracic echocardiography. Eighty patients between the ages of 6 mo and 3 y who presented for elective echocardiographic study were divided into 3 groups: the OM group received 0.4 mg/kg of injectable midazolam mixed with an equal volume of cherry juice, the INM group received 0.2 mg/kg as drops,and the control group was given oral cherry juice or intranasal serum physiologic. A blinded clinician assessed and scored the level of sedation and comfort during the procedure for each child, and a score for ease of administration was recorded by the nurse. The intranasal route was more acceptable to infants than the oral route (P<.001). No significant difference in the effects of sedation was observed between the OM group and the INM group (P=.583), but significant differences were observed between the sedated groups and the control group (P<.001). The procedure was significantly more comfortable in groups given OM and INM than in the control group (P<.001). Although no difference in sedation score was seen between the oral and nasal routes, INM was better accepted by infants than OM. Echocardiography was performed more reliably and comfortably in those given midazolam than in those in the control group.