Midazolam For Sedation Research Articles

Comparison the Oral Premedication of Midazolam, Dexmedetomidine, and Melatonin for Children's Sedation and Ease of Separation from Parents before Anesthesia.

ABSTRACTBackground:Children’s fear of surgery and preoperative separation from parents can contribute to anxiety and distress in children undergoing surgery. The study addressed the comparable efficacy of oral premedication of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and melatonin to alleviate preoperative anxiety and easing the children’s separation from parents.Materials and Methods:A double-blinded trial enrolled three equal-sized groups of children (n = 153, aged 2–10 years) undergoing elective surgery who received oral midazolam, melatonin, and dexmedetomidine 30 min before induction. The observation sedation score, and ease of separation, acceptance of drug both preceding and following premedication administration were assessed and recorded every 5min till anesthesia induction.Results:A significant difference was observed in the mean scores of sedation before premedication and after separation from parents, as well as in the degree of the separation when comparing between the midazolam and melatonin groups and the dexmedetomidine and melatonin groups (P < 0.001). The scores were significantly lower in the melatonin group than the other two groups, whereas no significant difference was found in those between the midazolam and dexmedetomidine groups, as well as in the acceptance of anesthesia induction between the midazolam and melatonin groups (P = 0.250). The differences were significant between the midazolam and dexmedetomidine groups (P = 0.002) and melatonin and dexmedetomidine groups (P < 0.001) and anesthesia induction was effective in the dexmedetomidine group than that in the other two groups.Conclusion:Dexmedetomidine is more effective in acceptance of anesthesia induction. Furthermore, the midazolam and dexmedetomidine groups indicated better ease of separation and sedation scores than melatonin.

Outcomes and Adverse Events of Sub-Tenon's Anesthesia with the Use of a Flexible Cannula in 35,850 Refractive Lens Exchange/Cataract Procedures.

PurposeTo describe our technique of sub-Tenon’s anesthesia and report adverse events and patient comfort.SettingOptical Express, United Kingdom.DesignRetrospective case series.MethodsThe outcomes of 35,850 intraocular procedures (phacoemulsification and implantation of an intraocular lens) were retrospectively reviewed and the incidence of adverse events related to sub-Tenon’s anesthesia was calculated. On the first postoperative day, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire enquiring about their comfort during and after the procedure. The anesthetic solution consisted of a combination of Lidocaine and Hyaluronidase, which was administered into sub-Tenon’s space with a single-use sterile polyurethane 22G x 1” (0.9 x 25 mm) cannula. Mild conscious sedation (midazolam) was used during anesthetic and surgical procedure.ResultsNo significant adverse events that would affect the posterior segment of the eye or result in vision loss were recorded. Subconjunctival haemorrhage related to sub-Tenon’s anesthesia was noted in 4.3% of eyes. Five minutes after the administration of sub-Tenon’s block, 80.6% of eyes had no chemosis, 14.8% had chemosis that affected only 1 quadrant of the eye and 4.5% of eyes had chemosis affecting 2 or more quadrants of the eye. Other adverse events included 14 cases of cyst/granuloma formation in the area of sub-Tenon’s incision and 7 eyes required suturing of the conjunctival cut. Of all patients, 93.2% experienced no or only mild discomfort during or after surgical procedure.ConclusionSub-Tenon’s anesthesia with the use of a flexible cannula is a safe option for ophthalmic anesthesia. No sight-threatening adverse events occurred.

Comparing sedative effect of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation of children while undergoing computerized tomography imaging

ABSTRACTBackground:Pediatric anxiety and restlessness may create issues and difficulties in performing accurate diagnostic studies even noninvasive ones, such as radiological imaging. There are some agents that will help to get this goal. This study aimed to compare the intranasal effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MID) for sedation parameters of children undergoing computerized tomography (CT) imaging.Materials and Methods:A double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 162 eligible children who underwent CT imaging. These patients were divided into two groups including MID (n = 81) with dose of 0.3 mg.kg and DEX (n = 81) with dose of 3 μg.kg, which was consumed intranasally. The mean blood pressure (MBP), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (O2Sat) in children were recorded. Then, time of initiation, level of sedation, and duration effect of medication were measured at 0, 10, 20, and 30 min. Parents and clinician satisfaction score was asked. All data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software by t test and chi-square test.Results:Decreasing in MBP and HR was higher in DEX group than MID group (P < 0.001), whereas decrease of O2Sat in MID group was higher than DEX group (0.009). Starting time of sedation (22.72 ± 11.64 vs. 33.38 ± 10.17, P = 0.001) was lower in DEX group. Parents (P < 0.001) and physician (P < 0.001) satisfaction score was higher in DEX group than the MID group.Conclusion:Using 3 μg/kg intranasal DEX for sedation of 1–6-year-old children was a suitable method to undergo noninvasive studies such as CT imaging. Intranasal DEX is superior to MID due to higher sedation satisfactory, faster starting effect of sedation, and lower side effects and complications. Nevertheless, in children with hemodynamic instability DEX is not an appropriate choice.

The effectiveness of topical lidocaine in relieving pain related to intranasal midazolam sedation: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Intranasal midazolam (INM) is an increasingly popular agent for sedation in the emergency department and outside the hospital in physician, imaging, and dental offices, to facilitate diagnostic and minor surgical procedures and avoid the need for an operating room and general anesthesia. The use of INM has been commonly associated with a burning sensation of the nasal mucosa. Despite its significance, this subject has received little adequate research focus. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of topical lidocaine in relieving pain related to INM administration. This was a blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Sixty-three uncooperative children undergoing dental treatment, aged 4 to 11 years, were randomly assigned to one of three groups to receive the drug nasally via a precalibrated spray as per the following assignments: group A received 0.5 mg/kg midazolam, group B received lidocaine 2% prior to 0.5 mg/kg midazolam, and group C received saline 0.9% (placebo), 0.5 mg/kg. Children were asked to record the degree of pain using the Wong-Baker faces scale. Parental acceptance was also rated. Topical lidocaine prior to INM administration reduced the burning sensation in the nasal mucosa and improved the drug acceptance. The median score of pain was 8, 1, and 4 in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The differences among the three groups were statistically significant (P > .05). The children's acceptance and parents' future acceptance regarding the intranasal drug administration was significantly higher in group B. INM administration results in burning sensation in the nasal mucosa with high levels of pain. Using topical lidocaine 2% counteracted the burning sensation and achieved a higher acceptance rate and lower pain scores.

An Observational Study to Compare Propofol with Midazolam plus Fentanyl Combination for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopies at Tertiary care Hospital in Katihar, Bihar

An Observational Study to Compare Propofol with Midazolam plus Fentanyl Combination for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopies at Tertiary care Hospital in Katihar, Bihar

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam sedation for autistic children undergoing electroencephalogram: a prospective randomized trial

BackgroundDexmedetomidine procedural sedation for pediatric patients undergoing radiological imaging has proved to be effective and safe.ObjectiveWe compared the efficacy of outpatient sedation with intravenous dexmedetomidine versus intravenous midazolam in autistic children undergoing electroencephalogram.Patients and methodsForty pediatric autistic patients aged 6–11 years old undergoing electroencephalogram were studied. In the dexmedetomidine group, patients received a loading dose of IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg slowly over 10 min followed by an IV infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.7 μg/kg/h stopped when Ramsay sedation score (RSS) reached 4. In the midazolam group (n = 20), patients received induction with a loading dose of 0.05 mg/kg midazolam given over 2 min, then wait another 2 to 5 min to evaluate the sedative effect. Additional doses of IV midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) were given until we reached RSS reached 4.Sedation score, induction time, recovery time, behavioral scores, parents’ satisfaction scores, success rate, oxygen saturation, and the incidence of complications as bradycardia and attacks of agitation were recorded.ResultsDexmedetomidine was associated with shorter induction and recovery times(< 0.001) and higher percentage of oxygen saturation compared with midazolam group (P < 0.001).The dexmedetomidine group showed higher sedation and behavioral scores as well as success rate compared with midazolam. Parents’ satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group. The incidence of agitation was significantly higher in the midazolam group compared with the dexmedetomidine group (p = 0.035).ConclusionDexmedetomidine is a feasible sedation technique in autistic children undergoing outpatient electroencephalogram in terms of faster recovery and less incidence of complications.

A New Index of Coordinated Posterior and Anterior Evoked EEG to Detect Recall Under Sedation \u2013 A Pilot Study

EEG-based technologies may be limited in identifying recall under sedation (RUS). We developed a novel index, posteriorization/anteriorization (P/A) index, based on auditory evoked EEG signal and assessed whether it could differentiate between patients with or without RUS. Methods: EEG and BIS were sampled from 3 groups: 1. Patients undergoing sedation (n = 26); 2. Awake volunteers (n = 13, positive control for recall) 3. Patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA, n = 12, negative control for recall). In recovery, recall was assessed using the BRICE questionnaire. Of the 26 sedated patients, 12 experienced recall. Both The P/A index and BIS differentiated between patients with recall and no recall. However, BIS differentiation may have been sensitive to the main drug used for sedation (midazolam vs. propofol) and the P/A index did not show similar drug-based sensitivity. Furthermore, only BIS results were correlated with EMG. Conclusion: This pilot study provided support for the association between P/A index and recall after sedation. Further research is needed in integrating the index into clinical use: (1) it should be derived by an easy-to-use EEG system with a better signal-to-noise ratio; (2) its applicability to other drugs must be shown.

Sedation with midazolam worsens the diaphragm function than dexmedetomidine and propofol during mechanical ventilation in rats

BackgroundMechanical ventilation (MV) is identified as an independent contributor to diaphragmatic atrophy and contractile dysfunction. Appropriate sedation is also essential during MV, and anesthetics may have direct adverse effects on the diaphragm. However, there is a lack of research into the effects of different anesthetics on diaphragm function during MV. ObjectivesIn the present study, we aim to examine the effect of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and propofol on diaphragm function during MV. DesignAnimal study. SettingUniversity research laboratory. SubjectsMale Wistar rats. InterventionsAnimals were experienced 12 h of MV or spontaneous breathing (SB) with continuous anesthetics infusion. Diaphragm contractile properties, cross-sectional areas, microcirculation, oxidative stress, and proteolysis were examined. Measurements and main resultsDiaphragmatic specific force was markedly reduced in the midazolam group compared with the dexmedetomidine (−60.4 ± 3.01%, p < 0.001) and propofol group (−58.3 ± 2.60%, p < 0.001) after MV. MV sedated with midazolam induced more atrophy of type II fibers compared with dexmedetomidine (−21.8 ± 2.11%, p = 0.0001) and propofol (−8.2 ± 1.53%, p = 0.003). No significant differences of these indices were found in the midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and propofol groups under SB condition (all p > 0.05, respectively). Twelve hours of MV resulted in a time dependent reduction in diaphragmatic functional capillary density (PB −25.1%, p = 0.0001; MZ −21.6%, p = 0.0003; DD −15.2%, p = 0.022; PP −24.8%, p = 0.0001, respectively), which did not occur in the gastrocnemius muscle. The diaphragmatic lipid peroxidation adducts 4-HNE and HIF-1α levels were significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group and propofol group compared to midazolam group (p < 0.05, respectively). Meanwhile, the catalase and SOD levels were also relatively lower (p < 0.05, respectively) in midazolam group compared to dexmedetomidine group and propofol group. ConclusionsTwelve hours of mechanical ventilation during midazolam sedation led to a more severe diaphragm dysfunction than dexmedetomidine and propofol, possibly caused by its relative weaker antioxidant capacity.

Comparison of Two Sedation Versus Placebo Techniques During Cataract Surgery Under Local Anesthesia

Comparison of Two Sedation Versus Placebo Techniques During Cataract Surgery Under Local Anesthesia

Efficacy of oral midazolam for minimal and moderate sedation in pediatric patients: A systematic review.

One of the most widely used options for minimal/moderate sedation in pediatric patients is oral midazolam, as it presents an alternative to less well‐accepted routes of administration (eg, intravenous or intranasal) of this well‐known efficacious and well‐tolerated short‐acting benzodiazepine. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in order to identify clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of oral midazolam for sedation in pediatric patients in the context of premedication before anesthesia or during diagnostic/treatment procedures. The percentage of responders (response rate) after single administration of oral midazolam was evaluated and compared versus placebo in a subset of placebo‐controlled studies. The range of oral midazolam doses providing effective sedation in the different pediatric age subsets was analyzed in order to assess optimum dosing strategies. A total of 25 pediatric clinical studies, utilizing a variety of measures of sedation effectiveness, were selected. These studies included a total of 1472 patients (aged 4 months‐18 years) treated with midazolam (0.25‐1.5 mg/kg) and 138 patients treated with placebo. The response rates [95% confidence interval] with oral midazolam ranged from 36.7% [21.6%, 54.9%] to 97.8% [86.1%, 99.7%], while with placebo response rates ranged from 4.0% [0.6%, 23.5%] to 41.0% [29.4%, 53.6%]. When considering the 4 placebo‐controlled studies, the odds ratios [95% confidence interval] for the comparison of midazolam vs. placebo ranged from 13.4 [5.0, 36.0] to 25.9 [6.7, 100.6]. The analysis of subgroups by context of sedation showed response rates [95% confidence interval] with oral midazolam ranging from 36.7% [21.6%, 54.9%] to 97.0% [94.8%, 98.3%] for anesthetic premedication and from 56.1% [43.1%, 68.4] to 97.8% [86.1%, 99.7%] for medical procedures. The efficacy of midazolam for pediatric minimal/moderate sedation from a dose of 0.25 mg/kg and above was demonstrated. The probability of occurrence of adverse events and over‐sedation increases with increasing doses.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol for endoscopic procedures-A cost analysis.

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol accompanied by a bedside nurse anaesthetist is an alternative sedation method for endoscopic procedures compared with midazolam administered by a nurse or endoscopist. Increasing costs in health care demands an economic perspective when introducing alternative methods. We applied a hospital perspective on a cost analysis comparing different methods of sedation and the resource use that were expected to affect cost differences related to the sedation. Based on two randomised previous studies, the direct costs were determined for different sedation methods during two advanced endoscopic procedures: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and flexible bronchoscopy including endobronchial ultrasound. ERCP comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team, PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist and propofol sedation administered by a nurse anaesthetist. Bronchoscopy comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team and PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist, categorised by premedication morphine-scopolamine or glycopyrronium. Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist resulted in lower costs per patient for sedation for both ERCP (233 USD) and bronchoscopy (premedication morphine-scopolamine 267 USD, premedication glycopyrronium 269 USD) compared with midazolam (ERCP 425 USD, bronchoscopy 337 USD). Aborted procedures that needed to be repeated and prolonged hospital stays significantly increased the cost for the midazolam groups. Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist reduces the direct sedation costs for ERCP and bronchoscopy procedures compared with midazolam sedation.

Effect of propofol, midazolam and dexmedetomidine on ICU patients with sepsis and on arterial blood gas.

Effects of propofol, midazolam and dexmedetomidine on patients with sepsis in intensive care unit (ICU) and on arterial blood gas (ABG) were studied. In total 429 ICU patients with sepsis, admitted to Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University from May 2015 to January 2019, were selected as research subjects for a prospective analysis. All patients received basic treatment, such as anti-infection treatment, correction of shock and improvement of microcirculation. One hundred and fifty-two patients who were treated with propofol for sedation served as group A, 146 patients who were treated with midazolam for sedation served as group B, and 131 patients who were treated with dexmedetomidine for sedation served as group C. The three groups of patients were compared in terms of diastolic blood pressure (DBP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate (HR), arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) before and after treatment. APACHE II score was used to evaluate the sedative effects. The wake-up time of the patients, the length of ICU stay and the adverse reactions were recorded. There was no significant difference among groups A, B and C in terms of HR, SBP, DBP, PaO2, PaCO2, cTnT, CK-MB and APACHE II score before treatment, and SBP, DBP, cTnT and HR after treatment (P>0.050). After treatment, there was no significant difference between groups A and B with respect to CK-MB and APACHE II score (P>0.050). The wake-up time in group A was significantly longer than that in groups B and C (P<0.001). In conclusion, propofol, midazolam and dexmedetomidine are effective and safe in the sedative treatment of ICU patients with sepsis, but dexmedetomidine has the best effect on protecting blood pressure and cardiac functions, which is worthy of use in the clinic.

Sedation Versus Protective Stabilization for Pediatric Dental Treatment

Sedation Versus Protective Stabilization for Pediatric Dental Treatment

Comparison of intranasal midazolam, intranasal ketamine, and oral chloral hydrate for conscious sedation during paediatric echocardiography: results of a prospective randomised study.

There are several agents used for conscious sedation by various routes in children. The aim of this prospective randomised study is to compare the effectiveness of three commonly used sedatives: intranasal ketamine, intranasal midazolam, and oral chloral hydrate for children undergoing transthoracic echocardiography. Children who were referred to paediatric cardiology due to a heart murmur for transthoracic echocardiography were prospectively randomised into three groups. Seventy-three children received intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg), 72 children received intranasal ketamine (4 mg/kg), and 72 children received oral chloral hydrate (50 mg/kg) for conscious sedation. The effects of three agents were evaluated in terms of intensity, onset, and duration of sedation. Obtaining high-quality transthoracic echocardiography images (i.e. absence of artefacts) were regarded as successful sedation. Side effects due to medications were also noted. There was no statistical difference in terms of sedation success rates between three groups (95.9, 95.9, and 94.5%, respectively). The median onset of sedation in the midazolam, ketamine, and chloral hydrate was 14 minutes (range 7-65), 34 minutes (range 12-56), and 40 minutes (range 25-57), respectively (p < 0.001 for all). However, the median duration of sedation in study groups was 68 minutes (range 20-75), 55 minutes (range 25-75), and 61 minutes (range 34-78), respectively (p = 0.023, 0.712, and 0.045). Gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in the chloral hydrate group (11.7 versus 0% for midazolam and 2.8% for ketamine, respectively, p = 0.002). Results of our prospectively randomised study indicate that all three agents provide adequate sedation for successful transthoracic echocardiography. When compared the three sedatives, intranasal midazolam has a more rapid onset of sedation while intranasal ketamine has a shorter duration of sedation. Intranasal ketamine can be used safely with fewer side effects in children undergoing transthoracic echocardiography.

Sedation Versus No Sedation for Detection Rates of Precancerous Lesions and Cancer

Sedation Versus No Sedation for Detection Rates of Precancerous Lesions and Cancer

Midazolam Sedation Induces Upper Limb Coordination Deficits That Are Reversed by Flumazenil in Patients with Eloquent Area Gliomas.

Midazolam has been found to exacerbate or unmask limb motor dysfunction in patients with brain tumors. This study aimed to determine whether the exacerbated upper limb motor-sensory deficits are mediated through benzodiazepine sites by demonstrating reversibility by flumazenil in patients with gliomas in eloquent areas. This was an interventional, parallel assignment, nonrandomized trial. Study subjects were admitted in the operating room. Patients with supratentorial eloquent area gliomas and volunteers of similar age without neurologic disease were sedated with midazolam, but still responsive and cooperative. Motor and sensory functions for upper extremities were evaluated by the Nine-Hole Peg Test before and after midazolam, as well as after flumazenil reversal. Thirty-two cases were included: 15 in the glioma group and 17 in the control group. The total dose of midazolam and flumazenil were comparable between the groups. In the glioma group, the times to task completion after midazolam in the contralateral hand (P = 0.001) and ipsilateral hand (P = 0.002) were 26.5 (95% CI, 11.3 to 41.7) and 13.7 (95% CI, 5.0 to 22.4) seconds slower than baseline, respectively. After flumazenil reversal, the contralateral hand (P = 0.99) and ipsilateral hand (P = 0.187) performed 1.2 (95% CI, -3.3 to 5.8) and 1.5 (95% CI, -0.5 to 3.5) seconds slower than baseline, respectively. In the control group, the dominant (P < 0.001) and nondominant hand (P = 0.006) were 2.9 (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.3) and 1.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 2.9) seconds slower than baseline, respectively. After flumazenil, the dominant hand (P = 0.99) and nondominant hand (P = 0.019) performed 0.2 (95% CI, -0.7 to 1.0) and 1.3 (95% CI, -0.2 to 2.4) seconds faster than baseline, respectively. In patients with eloquent area gliomas, mild sedation with midazolam induced motor coordination deficits in upper limbs. This deficit was almost completely reversed by the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil, suggesting that this is a reversible abnormality linked to occupation of the receptor by midazolam.

Propofol Compared to Midazolam Sedation and to General Anesthesia for Percutaneous Microwave Ablation in Patients with Hepatic Malignancies: A Single-Center Comparative Analysis of Three Historical Cohorts

PurposeIn percutaneous ablation procedures, periprocedural pain, unrest and respiratory concerns can be detrimental to achieve a safe and efficacious ablation and impair treatment outcome. This study aimed to compare the association between anesthetic technique and local disease control in patients undergoing percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Materials and MethodsThis IRB-exempted single-center comparative, retrospective analysis of three cohorts analyzed 90 patients treated for hepatic malignancies from January 2013 until September 2018. The local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), safety and periprocedural pain perception were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses to correct for potential confounders.ResultsIn 114 procedures (22 general anesthesia; 32 midazolam; 60 propofol), 171 liver tumors (136 CRLM; 35 HCC) were treated with percutaneous MWA. Propofol and general anesthesia were superior to midazolam/fentanyl sedation regarding LTPFS (4/94 [4.3%] vs. 19/42 [45.2%] vs. 2/35 [5.7%]; P < 0.001, respectively). Local tumor progression rate was 14.6% (25/171). Eighteen tumors (72.0%) were retreated by ablation. Of them, 14 (78%) were previously treated with midazolam. Propofol versus midazolam (P < 0.001), general anesthesia versus midazolam (P = 0.016), direct postprocedural visual analog pain score above 5 (P = 0.050) and more than one tumor per procedure (P = 0.045) were predictors for LTPFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that propofol versus midazolam (HR 7.94 [95% CI 0.04–0.39; P < 0.001]) and general anesthesia versus midazolam (HR 6.33 [95% CI 0.04–0.69; P = 0.014]) were associated with LTPFS. Pain during and directly after treatment was significantly worse in patients who received midazolam sedation (P < 0.001).ConclusionsCompared to propofol and general anesthesia, midazolam/fentanyl sedation was associated with an increased periprocedural perception of pain and lower local tumor progression-free survival. To reduce the number of repeat procedures required to eradicate hepatic malignancies, general anesthesia and propofol sedation should be favored over midazolam.

Intranasal midazolam and fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia in infants in the neonatal intensive care unit.

The intranasal route is a minimally invasive method for rapidly delivering midazolam and fentanyl to provide short-term analgesia and sedation in infants. However, intranasal use of midazolam and fentanyl is not labeled for infants and safety data are sparse. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety of intranasal midazolam and intranasal fentanyl in infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). We retrospectively identified all infants receiving intranasal midazolam or fentanyl in the NICU from 2009 to 2015. We recorded indication for use and vital signs and determined the proportion of infants experiencing the following adverse events: death within 24 hours, hypotension, bradycardia, worsening respiratory status, and chest wall rigidity. Vital signs 4 hours before and after each dose were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. We identified 17 infants (gestational ages 23- 41 weeks) receiving 25 intranasal doses. None of the infants died or developed hypotension, bradycardia, or chest wall rigidity. Intranasal delivery was most commonly used for sedation during magnetic resonance imaging studies. Other indications include analgesia or sedation for retinopathy of prematurity surgery, intubation, and peripherally inserted central catheter placement. One infant receiving intranasal midazolam experienced worsening respiratory status. Vital signs before and after dosing were not significantly different. Intranasal midazolam and fentanyl use in term and preterm infants appeared safe and well-tolerated in this small cohort of infants. Larger, prospective studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of intranasal midazolam and fentanyl use in infants are warranted.

Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe.

Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded. The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events. CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Cost and Outcome Analysis.

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative treatment for aortic stenosis in patients who are at moderate to high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. The use of conscious sedation (CS) as compared with general anesthesia (GA) has shown better clinical outcomes for TAVR patients. Whether CS has any cost-benefit is still unknown. We analyze our local TAVR registry with a focus on the cost comparison between CS and GA for the TAVR population.MethodsIt is a retrospective chart review of 434 patients who received TAVR at our local center from December 2012 to April 2018. Patients who had their procedure aborted and those requiring a cardiopulmonary bypass or surgical conversion (16 patients) were excluded. The final sample size was 418. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received CS or GA. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) hours, length of stay in hospital, readmission, or death at 30 days. The secondary outcome was the cost of TAVR admission. The cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. The student's T-test and chi-square tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Adjusted logistic regression and multivariate analyses were run for primary and secondary outcomes.ResultsOf the 418 patients (age: 80.9±8.5, male: 52%) CS was given to 194 patients (46.4%) while GA was given in 224 patients(53.6%). The GA group had comparatively older age (81.8 vs. 80.0; p=0.03) and a higher average Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score (8.4 vs 5.7; p<0.001). Patients who received CS had a significantly shorter ICU stay (31.5 vs. 41.6 hours, p<0.001) and total days in the hospital (2.9 vs. 3.8 days, p=0.01). Readmission and mortality at 30 days were not different between the groups. There was no statistical difference in cost between the two groups ($72,809 vs. $71,497: p=0.656).ConclusionUsing CS compared with GA improves morbidity for TAVR patients, in the form of ICU stay and the total length of stay in hospital. We did not find a significant difference in the cost of TAVR admission between CS and GA.