Midazolam For Sedation Research Articles

P1381Improved outcome in ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients with structural heart disease under general anaesthetic

Abstract Background Catheter ablation is an important adjunct to device implantation for secondary prevention of ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, several factors may influence the success of ablations in terms of long-term freedom from VT recurrence. A thus far little examined factor is the use of general anaesthetic (GA) versus conscious sedation during the procedure, which has been shown to improve outcomes in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Methods Patients with structural heart disease VT undergoing ablations from January 2015 to March 2019 were retrospectively followed up at a single centre. End points were recurrent VT or device therapy (shock or anti-tachycardia pacing) at one year. Hazard ratios (HR) were generated using a multivariate Cox-regression proportional hazards model including variables of age at ablation, sex, amiodarone use at time of ablation, scar age, left ventricular ejection fraction, use of GA, and diagnosis of: diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HTN), renal impairment or AF. Results 79 patients (74 male, mean age 68.2+/- 10.3 years) were included. A substrate-based strategy of late potential ablation was employed. 69 had ischaemic and 10 had non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Mean scar age was 13.8 +/- 9.8 years; EF was 40-50% in 27 patients, 30-40% in 26 and < 30% in 26. 37 patients had implantable cardioverter defibrillators and 30 had cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) defibrillator devices, 1 had a CRT- pacemaker device and 4 had dual chamber pacemakers. Comorbidities were: DM (16), HTN (31), renal impairment (13), AF (31). 62 patients (79.5%) were on amiodarone at the time of ablation. Mean procedure duration was 234.8 +/- 44.5 min and mean radiofrequency energy application time was 2247 +/- 862 s. 61 were first procedures and 18 were repeat procedures. One patient suffered a complication of groin haematoma. 62 patients (78.5%) underwent VT ablation under GA and 17 (21.5%) under sedation of midazolam and fentanyl. Patient characteristics did not differ between groups. Significant factors which increased freedom from VT recurrence or device therapy were HTN (88.9% vs 59.4%, HR 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.007-0.75, p= 0.028), amiodarone treatment (50.0% vs 76.3%, HR 0.036, 95% CI: 0.003-0.404, p = 0.036) and ablation under GA rather than sedation (50.0% vs 75.0%, HR 0.055, 95% CI: 0.006-0.495, p = 0.01) (Fig 1). Conclusions In patients with structural heart disease undergoing VT ablation, outcomes are improved with the use of GA over conscious sedation. Abstract Figure 1

Su1056 PROPOFOL VERSUS MIDAZOLAM SEDATION FOR ELECTIVE ENDOSCOPY IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. Electronic searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, Latin-American, and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases, as well as the gray literature searches, were performed. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing midazolam and propofol sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis were included. The primary outcomes of interest were procedure time, recovery time, time to discharge, and adverse events, including bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager. The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the Propofol group and 294 in the Midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. The procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (Mean Difference (MD) 0.25 (95%CI -0.64 - 1.13), p-value <0.59). The recovery time was significantly less in the propofol group as compared to the midazolam group (MD -8.19 (95%CI -10.59 - -5.79), p-value < 0.00001) (Figure 1). Similarly, the time to discharge was significantly less in the propofol group (MD -12.98 (95%CI -18.46 - -6.50), p-value <0.00001) (Figure 2). Adverse events were similar in both the groups (Risk Difference (RD) 0.02 (95%CI 0 - 0.04), p-value 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for each individual adverse event (bradycardia RD 0.03 (95%CI -0.01 - 0.07), p-value 0.16; hypotension RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.01 - 0.07), p-value 0.17 and hypoxemia RD 0.00 (95%CI -0.04 - 0.04), p-value 0.93). The risk of bias was low for five studies, while two studies showed some concerns, and one study was high risk. The quality of evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events and low for discharge time. This systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam. However, there is no difference in adverse events.

Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Variation in Practice and Outcomes

ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to examine variation in the use of conscious sedation (CS) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) across hospitals and over time and to evaluate outcomes of CS compared with general anesthesia (GA) using instrumental variable analysis, a quasi-experimental method to control for unmeasured confounding. BackgroundDespite increasing use of CS for TAVR, contemporary data on utilization patterns are lacking, and existing studies evaluating the impact of sedation choice on outcomes may suffer from unmeasured confounding. MethodsAmong 120,080 patients in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry who underwent transfemoral TAVR between January 2016 and March 2019, the relationship between anesthesia choice and TAVR outcomes was evaluated using hospital proportional use of CS as an instrumental variable. ResultsOver the study period, the proportion of TAVR performed using CS increased from 33% to 64%, and CS was used in a median of 0% and 91% of cases in the lowest and highest quartiles of hospital CS use, respectively. On the basis of instrumental variable analysis, CS was associated with decreases in in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.2%; p = 0.010) and 30-day mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.5%; p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (adjusted difference: 0.8 days; p < 0.001), and more frequent discharge to home (adjusted risk difference: 2.8%; p < 0.001) compared with GA. The magnitude of benefit for most endpoints was less than in a traditional propensity score–based approach, however. ConclusionsIn contemporary U.S. practice, the use of CS for TAVR continues to increase, although there remains wide variation across hospitals. The use of CS for TAVR is associated with improved outcomes (including reduced mortality) compared with GA, although the magnitude of benefit appears to be less than in previous studies.

Clinical investigation on the analogy between the ketofol (Amalgamation of Ketamine and Propofol) and ketamine and midazolam for procedural sedation – A single blinded study

Decades of research for an ideal sedative agent that could provide both sedation and analgesia with minimal side effects to the patients has failed to find one. Research was then shifted to finding combination of drugs which could suffice the ideal sedative agent. Of these Ketofol showed promising results.Aim of this study is to “Assess the efficacy and safety of propofol and ketamine amalgamation (ketofol) and comparing the superiority over ketamine and midazolam combination for procedural sedation”. In this prospective randomized single blind study, 50 patients between 15 to 60 years of both males and females, ASA Grade I and Grade II were allocated into two groups. Patients in group 1 received ketofol and group 2 patients received ketamine and midazolam. The comparison between the two groups was done using Two-Sample T-Test, With the help of SPSS version 15.0 Statistical calculator, sample size calculated = 5 to 17, and actual power calculated with this sample size was 0.990 to 0.997 which shows significance of the study.: The study showed statistically significant (p &amp;#60;0.005) difference in HR, DBP, SBP, MBP and recovery time between two groups. Group 1 patients showed stabilized parameters and rapid recovery time than group 2 patients Ketofol is safe and efficient sedative combination which can be utilized in emergency department, daycare and OT settings with comfort, ease and without any complications. It is close to ideal sedative agent.

Continuous intravenous versus intermittent bolus midazolam with remifentanil during arteriovenous fistula placement with monitored anesthesia care in chronic renal failure patients: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: There is limited data on the use of intravenous continuous infusion (CI) versus intravenous intermittent bolus (IB) doses of midazolam for conscious sedation in patients with chronic renal failure. Unexpected adverse events can occur in chronic renal failure patients undergoing short procedures.OBJECTIVE: Investigate and compare the sedoanalgesic and adverse effects of intravenous continuous infusion (CI) use of midazolam with intravenous intermittent bolus (IB) doses of midazolam while using intravenous remifentanil as a rescue medication, and assess patient and surgeon satisfaction.DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled study.SETTINGS: Two tertiary care hospitals.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Study included patients aged 43-81 years with a diagnosis of chronic renal failure who were referred for an arteriovenous fistula procedure with modified anesthesia care between August 2012 and April 2016. The patients were randomized to intravenous CI or IB doses of midazolam. IB doses of remifentanil were used as a rescue medication.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were amounts of midazolam and remifentanil medications during the operation, the amount of remifentanil as a rescue medication, and the satisfaction of patient and surgeon.SAMPLE SIZE: 116 assessed for eligibility; 99 randomized to CI (n=50) or IB doses (n=49 of midazolam).RESULTS: The total dose of midazolam by CI was greater than with midazolam by IB (P=.002). The total dose of remifentanil was higher with IB doses of midazolam in comparison to CI of midazolam (P=.001). The groups were similar in sedation and pain control, duration of procedure, recovery time, patient satisfaction and adverse events; surgeon satisfaction was greater with CI versus IB (P=.035).CONCLUSION: Intravenous CI midazolam during MAC provides better surgeon satisfaction then IB midazolam and can be used safely for arteriovenous fistula procedures.LIMITATIONS: Two different surgeon groups.CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

Efficacy of Sedation by Midazolam in Association With Meperidine or Fentanyl and Role of Patient Distress During Elective Colonoscopy.

Meperidine and fentanyl are opioids currently used in addition to midazolam for sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy in Italy. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of patients' psychological state before elective colonoscopy on the efficacy of the sedation regimens. Eighty outpatients who underwent an elective colonoscopy were included in our study. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire was self-administered to evaluate basal anxiety and depression state. The rate of baseline discomfort was evaluated by a standard 100-mm visual analog scale. Sedation was obtained alternatively with a midazolam-meperidine or midazolam-fentanyl combination. There were no statistically significant differences between the fentanyl and meperidine groups on body mass index, age, and gender composition. Patients in the meperidine group reported less pain during colonoscopy than patients in the fentanyl group. There were statistically significant positive correlations in the meperidine group with the distress, anxiety, and depression. Our study has pointed out greater effectiveness of the midazolam plus meperidine regimen, equal recovery times, and no significant differences in the duration of the endoscopic examinations. The evaluation of patients' psychological status seems to predict the efficacy of sedation when the nociceptive component of pain is well controlled.

Comparison between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Postoperative Analgesia and Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Comparison between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Postoperative Analgesia and Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate in Comparison with Propofol or Midazolam as Sedative for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Background/AimsIn this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of etomidate with those of propofol or midazolam for the maintenance of sedation during endoscopy. MethodsThe study enrolled patients who underwent sedative endoscopy in our hospital and divided them into three groups. Patients in each group were administered midazolam as induction therapy and were subsequently administered either midazolam (M + M group), propofol (M + P group), or etomidate (M + E group) as maintenance medication. The primary outcome was overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events. ResultsIn total, 105 patients who underwent sedative endoscopic examination were enrolled. The outcomes related to the procedure and sedation were not significantly different among the groups. Overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events were observed in 9 patients (25.7%) in the M + M group, 8 patients (23.5%) in the M + P group, and 10 patients (27.8%) in the M + E group. The logistic regression analysis revealed that etomidate use was not an independent risk factor for overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events. ConclusionsThe outcomes following the use of etomidate for maintenance after induction with midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were not inferior to those following midazolam or propofol use from the perspectives of safety and efficacy.

English

English

Moderate Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Transbronchial Biopsy in an Academic Training Center

Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a widely used procedure for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. Several studies have shown the diagnostic utility of EBUS-TBNA effectiveness for decreasing the need for invasive mediastinal sampling. The current recommendation is that most patients with lung cancer should undergo mediastinal staging with EBUS-TBNA. EBUS-TBNA can be safely performed under general anesthesia or moderate sedation, and, according to previous studies, the choice of anesthesia on the effect of outcomes has been variable. We investigated differences between EBUS-TBNA performed with general anesthesia and moderate sedation in a training program in which trainees performed EBUS-TBNA. This retrospective study evaluated 121 patients undergoing fellow-driven EBUS-TBNA under the supervision of an interventional pulmonary trained faculty member. We found no difference between general anesthesia and moderate sedation in terms of diagnostic yield, procedural time, or complication rates. We did, however, find an overall higher number of total lymph nodes sampled in the general anesthesia group, as well as a higher number of hilar lymph nodes sampled. We conclude that EBUS-TBNA can be performed safely and with good diagnostic ability with either general anesthesia or moderate sedation in a fellowship-driven program without affecting overall outcomes. This is beneficial, as it can reduce overall cost and the ability to do the procedure without the need of an anesthesiologist.

Characteristics of Intravenous Midazolam Sedation with Nitrous Oxide in Pediatric Dental Treatment

Midazolam is a short-acting benzodiazepine that is widely used in pediatric dental sedation. However, its clinical effectiveness as an intravenous sedative agent in children has not been widely documented. A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous midazolam and nitrous oxide inhalation sedation in pediatric dental treatment.&lt;br/&gt;The subjects were 115 patients (118 cases) who received dental treatment under intravenous midazolam and nitrous oxide inhalation sedation. Demographic factors, general health status, sedation time, midazolam and nitrous oxide dosage, and success rate of sedation were evaluated from electronic medical records.&lt;br/&gt;Behavioral management was the main reason of choosing sedation. Mean duration of sedation was 56.7 minutes for surgical treatment, and 74.4 minutes for restorative treatment. The initial dosage of intravenous midazolam was 0.051 ± 0.019 mg/kg. In 34 cases (28.8%), additional midazolam of 0.036 ± 0.057 mg/kg was delivered during the treatment. The concentration of nitrous oxide was maintained between 40% and 50%. The success rate of sedation was 99% (n = 117). In 1 case, laryngospasm occurred and the patient was reversed with benzodiazepine antagonist, flumazenil.&lt;br/&gt;Intravenous midazolam sedation with nitrous oxide was shown to be clinically effective for the dental treatment in children, if administered by trained personnel and patients are carefully selected in accordance with guidelines.

Down Syndrome Reduces the Sedative Effect of Midazolam in Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgical Patients

Down syndrome (DS) is frequently comorbid with congenital heart disease and has recently been shown to reduce the sedative effect of benzodiazepine (BDZ)-class anesthesia but this effect in a clinical setting has not been studied. Therefore, this study compared midazolam sedation after heart surgery in DS and normal children. We retrospectively reviewed patient records in our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of pediatric cardiovascular operations between March 2015 and March 2018. We selected five days of continuous post-operative data just after termination of muscle relaxants. Midazolam sedation was estimated by Bayesian inference for generalized linear mixed models. We enrolled 104 patients (average age 26 weeks) of which 16 (15%) had DS. DS patients had a high probability of receiving a higher midazolam dosage and dexmedetomidine dosage over the study period (probability = 0.99, probability = 0.97) while depth of sedation was not different in DS patients (probability = 0.35). Multi regression modeling included severity scores and demographic data showed DS decreases midazolam sedation compared with controls (posterior OR = 1.32, 95% CrI = 1.01–1.75). In conclusion, midazolam dosages should be carefully adjusted as DS significantly decreases midazolam sedative effect in pediatric heart surgery patients.

The effect of dexmedetomidine and midazolam on combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

BackgroundIntravenous dexmedetomidine has been reported to potentiate the anesthetic effect of local anesthetics and improve the quality of postoperative analgesia when used as an adjuvant in neuraxial block. We compared the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation on combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anesthesia.MethodsThis study included 50 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. CSE anesthesia was given using 10 mg bupivacaine for all patients. After checking the maximum sensory and motor levels, the patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 25 each to receive intravenous continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine (Group D) or midazolam (Group M) for sedation during surgery. Regression block level, hemodynamic changes, and sedation score were compared between the groups when the patients entered the postanesthetic care unit (PACU). For patient-controlled epidural analgesia, 0.2% levobupivacaine with 650 µg of fentanyl (150 ml in total) was infused at a rate of 1 ml/h, in addition to a 3-ml bolus dose with a 30-min lockout time. The visual analogue scale scores, additional analgesic demand, patient satisfaction, and adverse events between the two groups were also compared postoperatively.ResultsA significant difference was observed in relation to the sensory block level in the PACU (Group D: 6.3 ± 2.1; Group M: 3.2 ± 1.9) (P = 0.002). The motor block level and other outcomes showed no significant intergroup differences.ConclusionsIntravenous injection of dexmedetomidine, rather than midazolam, for procedural sedation is associated with prolonged sensory block, with comparable incidences of adverse events during CSE anesthesia.

Efficiency, Safety, and Quality of Life After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Performed With Moderate Sedation Versus General Anesthesia

There is growing interest in "minimalist" transcatheter aortic valve implantation (M-TAVI), performed with conscious sedation instead of general anesthesia (GA-TAVI). We assessed the impact of M-TAVI on procedural efficiency, long-term safety, and quality of life (QoL) in 477 patients with severe aortic stenosis (82 years, women 50%, STS 5.0), who underwent M-TAVI (n = 278) or GA-TAVI (n = 199). M-TAVI patients were less likely to have NYHA Class ≥3, valve-in-valve TAVI, and receive self-expanding valves. M-TAVI was completed without conversion to GA in 269 (97%) patients. M-TAVI was more efficient that GA-TAVI including shorter lengths of stay (2 vs 3 days, p <0.0001), higher likelihood of being discharged home (87% vs 72%, p <0.0001), less use of blood transfusions (10% vs 22%, p = 0.0008), inotropes (13% vs 32%, p <0.0001), contrast volume (50 vs 90 ml, p <0.0001), fluoroscopy time (20 vs 24 minute, p <0.0001), and need for >1 valves (0.4 vs 5.5%, p = 0.0004). At 1-month, death/stroke (M-TAVI vs GA-TAVI 4.0 vs 6.5%) and a "safety composite" end point (death, stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, new dialysis, major vascular complication, major or life-threatening bleeding, and new pacemaker: 17.6% vs 21.1%) were similar (p = NS for both). At a median follow-up of 365 days, survival curves showed similar incidence of death/stroke as well as the safety composite end point between the groups. QoL scores were similar at baseline and 1-month after TAVI. In multivariable analyses, M-TAVI showed significant improvements in all parameters of procedural efficiency. In conclusion, M-TAVI is more efficient than GA-TAVI, with similar safety at 1-month and long-term, and similar QoL scores at 1 month.

AJP Editors Select Best of Journal’s 2019 Studies

<i>AJP</i> Editors Select Best of Journal’s 2019 Studies

The Effect of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine Sedation on Block Characteristic Following Spinal Bupivacaine: A Randomized Comparative Study.

Background:Dexmedetomidine is widely used as an adjunct to general as well as regional anesthesia.Aims:This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the synergistic effect of single intravenous (i.v.) bolus dose of dexmedetomidine with midazolam on spinal block duration, analgesia, and sedation in patients undergoing infra-umbilical surgeries.Settings and Design:Prospective, randomized, comparative, and double-blinded study.Materials and Methods:One hundred patients between 18 and 60 years of age of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II posted for elective infra-umbilical surgery under subarachnoid block were randomly divided into two groups (Group D and Group M). Patients of Group D received i.v. dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg.kg−1 and of Group M received i.v. midazolam 0.05 mg.kg−1 as premedication 5 min before spinal anesthesia over 10 min. Vital parameters, Ramsay sedation score, level of sensory and motor block, recovery time for sensory blockade, postoperative numerical rating scale, time of requirement of the first dose of postoperative rescue analgesic, and duration of analgesia were recorded and analyzed.Statistical Analysis:Chi-square test, t-test, and analysis of variance test were applied to analyze data using SPSS package for Windows.Results and Conclusion:Premedication with single i.v. dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration and increased the maximum upper level of only sensory component of spinal anesthesia (6.42 ± 3.21 vs. 4.8 ± 1.21 thoracic segments higher than with midazolam sedation). This property can be beneficial in preventing undesirable prolongation of motor block and facilitating early ambulation in shorter duration of infra-umbilical surgeries. In addition, dexmedetomidine slowed the regression of sensory block and increased the time of the first request of analgesic.

Comparison of intranasal midazolam versus intranasal ketamine for preoperative anesthetic sedation in pediatric patients

Introduction: During induction of anesthesia anxiety of children may be reduced more effectively by sedative medication than parental presence. Keeping in view, the necessity of reducing preoperative anxiety and postoperative psychological problem in pediatric patients, this study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal midazolam versus intranasal ketamine for preanesthetic sedation in pediatric patients. Methods: Ninety patients scheduled for the surgery lasting between 30 min and 120 min under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups: Group A patients received intranasal midazolam 0.2 mg/kg as premedication (5 mg/mL ampoule), whereas Group B patients received intranasal ketamine 5 mg/kg as premedication (50 mg/mL vial). The primary outcome measures were the comparison of degree of sedation of intranasal midazolam versus intranasal ketamine for preanesthetic sedation in pediatric patients by accessing parental separation, acceptance of face mask, venipuncture score, and postoperative sedation, whereas the secondary outcome measures were the comparison of side effects. The comparison of quantitative and qualitative variables between the groups was done using the unpaired student's “t”-test and Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively. Results: The percentage of patients in the ketamine group with parental separation score more than 2 was significantly higher as compared to the midazolam group. Acceptance of face mask, response to venipuncture, postoperative sedation, and postoperative side effects were comparable between the two groups. Both groups have minimal side effects. Conclusions: Both midazolam and ketamine nasally are an effective pediatric premedication for sedation with minimal side effects. Parental separation was better in the ketamine group as compared to the midazolam group.

Intranasal midazolam sedation as an effective sedation route in pediatric patients for radiologic imaging in the emergency ward: A single-blind randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES:Prevention and reduction of pain, anxiety, and fear during medical procedures is one of the most important factors that should be considered in pediatric emergencies. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of oral versus intranasal midazolam in sedation during radiologic imaging in the largest province of Iran, Kerman.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Eighty children were enrolled in this single-blind clinical trial based on convenience sampling and were divided into two groups receiving 0.5 mg/kg midazolam in oral route administration and 0.2 mg/kg midazolam in intranasal route administration. Finally, 75 patients remained for evaluating medication acceptability, sedation level, onset time of sedation, additional sedative dose, adverse effects of sedation, and provider satisfaction.RESULTS:Children in the intranasal group accepted medication more easily (89.8% vs. 36.9%; P ≤ 0.001), while these children received a lower sedation dose, but the sedation level in both methods was similar (P = 0.72). Our findings showed that children in the intranasal sedation group had a faster onset of sedation compared to the oral group (17.94 ± 8.99 vs. 34.50 ± 11.45; P ≤ 0.001). The frequency of midazolam side effects had no difference between the groups (29.7% vs. 15.8%; P = 0.15).CONCLUSION:Intranasal midazolam with a lower sedation dose induces a faster onset and better acceptance. Intranasal midazolam can be used as an effective sedative method for pediatric patients, especially in emergency wards.

Assessment of Wakefulness by Measuring Eye Movements after Injection of Flumazenil during Intravenous Sedation with Midazolam

Objectives: Over-sedation and lingering sedation have been reported as problems associated with intravenous sedation (IVS). Saccadic eye movements can be used as parameters for the objective and quantitative evaluation of sedative effects. Study design: Measurement of saccadic eye movements using a wearable Talk Eye Lite® (TEL) tracking device is useful for evaluating recovery following IVS. However, the assessment of awakening by measuring saccadic eye movements in subjects treated with flumazenil following midazolam sedation has not yet been reported. In the present study, the effect of flumazenil on eye movements was assessed during the recovery process. Results: A relatively long period of time was required for the recovery of saccadic eye movements even following the injection of physiological saline. Conversely, the recovery of saccadic eye movements occurred immediately following the injection of flumazenil. Saccadic eye movement parameters reflected the recovery from induced sedation with midazolam even in cases where flumazenil was utilized. The saccadic peak velocity was delayed again 50 min after the injection of flumazenil during IVS. Conclusion: These results suggest the usefulness of measuring saccadic eye movements using TEL for assessing the recovery of equilibrium following IVS, even in patients treated with flumazenil.

Prospective Observational Cohort Study on Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in Mechanically Ventilated Children

Introduction: Though target sedation was achieved with Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine, Dexmedetomidine has demonstrated the lesser complications and shorter duration of stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Most of the studies are reported from high income countries. The studies on Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine use in mechanically ventilated children are scanty in low-middle income regions. Aim: To compare the efficacy of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine for sedation in mechanically ventilated children. Materials and Methods: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted in academic hospital Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) from March 2015 to June 2016. Children aged less than 13 years mechanically ventilated for more than 24-hour and received sedative with either infusion of Midazolam or Dexmedetomidine without loading dose were involved. Patients with unstable haemodynamic throughout PICU stay and expired within 24-hour and incomplete medical data were excluded. Intermittent Fentanyl/Morphine was used as when needed as per treating team decisions. Sedation assessment was performed with Ramsey sedation scale (RSS, target=3-4 out of 6), Tracheal suctioning score and PICU sedation score. The primary outcome was “percentage of time with target sedation” till extubation. The secondary outcome was the cumulative dose of sedation used, the need for rescue sedation and the rate of complications, organ dysfunction {by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and Paediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD) score} and the length of stay in ventilation, PICU and mortality. Results: A total of 115 patients (Midazolam-group, n=63 and Dexmedetomidine-group, n=52) were enrolled. The median age was 12 months (IQR 8-30). Mean (±SD) PRISM-III score was 11.3±7.2. About 54.8% were ventilated for respiratory pathology, followed by CNS pathology (25.2%) and sepsis (10.4%). Mean (±SD) percentage of the duration of proper sedation was not significantly different in Midazolam-group (83.4±15.6) and Dexmedetomidine-group (81.4±17) (p=0.510). The cumulative dose (microgram per kg) requirement was higher in Midazolam-group {median (IQR) 12.2 (9.8-17.1) vs. 9.6 (5-15.3); p=0.019)}.No difference was note in need for “rescue dose of sedation” per patient {median (IQR) 1 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-2)}, rate of complications (bradycardia 9.5% vs. 1.9%; hypotension 9.5% vs. 5.8%). No difference was noted in organ dysfunction score {mean difference, 95% CI; SOFA score: -0.2 (-1.6 to 1.33); p=0.808 and PeLOD score: 1.3 (-1.5 to 4.1); p=0.364}, duration of ventilation (median, IQR 2.7 (2-3.3) vs. 2.0 (1.5-3.1) days and mortality (20.6% vs. 21.2%). PICU stay was significantly lower in Midazolam-group (median, IQR 3 days, 1-5 vs. 5 days, 4-6; p=&lt;0.001). Conclusion:Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine were associated with similar target sedation with a comparable rate of complications in mechanically ventilated children. However, Midazolam required a higher cumulative dose to achieve target sedation.