Dataset Information

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Children under 6 years who need magnetic resonance imaging usually require sedation to obtain best quality images, but the optimal sedation protocol remains to be determined. In 2018, we showed a 22% interruption in image acquisition during magnetic resonance imaging when performing a propofol-based sedation using a bolus approach. As non-pharmacological premedication is often insufficient to reduce the anxiety of children related to parental separation, pharmacological premedication may be useful to facilitate the induction of anesthesia. In our institution, effective premedication is obtained oral intake of midazolam, though its administration relies on patients' compliance and could also lead to paradoxical reaction. Dexmedetomidine has a safe profile in the pediatric population and can therefore represent an interesting alternative. The primary objective of this trial is to demonstrate the superiority of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam as premedication in reducing the occurrence of any event requiring temporary or definitive interruption of the examination to allow anesthesiologist intervention in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging under propofol sedation.

Methods

In this single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, superiority trial, we planned to include 250 patients, aged 6 months to 6 years, undergoing a scheduled magnetic resonance imaging requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist. After informed consent, the patients will be randomized to receive either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication. The data will be analyzed in intention to treat, using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z, chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney U tests. A P-value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

Discussion

The MIDEX MRI study will assess the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine compared to oral midazolam to improve the quality of a propofol-based sedation prior to magnetic resonance imaging, without negative repercussion on the postoperative period.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05192629 . Registered on 14 January 2022. Protocol version 2.1.

SUBMITTER: Wabelo ON

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10422697 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial.

Wabelo Olivia Nzungu ON Schmartz Denis D Giancursio Mario M De Pooter Françoise F Caruso Giulia G Fils Jean-François JF Van der Linden Philippe P

Trials 20230811 1

<h4>Background</h4>Children under 6 years who need magnetic resonance imaging usually require sedation to obtain best quality images, but the optimal sedation protocol remains to be determined. In 2018, we showed a 22% interruption in image acquisition during magnetic resonance imaging when performing a propofol-based sedation using a bolus approach. As non-pharmacological premedication is often insufficient to reduce the anxiety of children related to parental separation, pharmacological premed ...[more]

PMID: 37568242

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation.MethodsThe total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only.ResultsBased on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam).ConclusionsFrom an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Project description:BackgroundProcedural sedation and analgesia are commonly used in the Emergency Departments. Despite this common need, there is still a lack of options for adequate and safe analgesia and sedation in children. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether intranasal dexmedetomidine could provide more effective analgesia and sedation during a procedure than intranasal esketamine.MethodsThis was a double-blind equally randomized (1:1) superiority trial of 30 children aged 1-3 years presenting to the Emergency Department with a laceration or a burn and requiring procedural sedation and analgesia. Patients were randomized to receive 2.0 mcg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine or 1.0 mg/kg intranasal esketamine. The primary outcome measure was highest pain (assessed using Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale (FLACC)) during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were sedation depth, parents' satisfaction, and physician's assessment. Comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test (continuous variables) and Fisher's test (categorical variables).ResultsAdequate analgesia and sedation were reached in 28/30 patients. The estimated sample size was not reached due to changes in treatment of minor injuries and logistical reasons. The median (IQR) of highest FLACC was 1 (0-3) with intranasal dexmedetomidine and 5 (2-6.75) with intranasal esketamine, (p-value 0.09). 85.7% of the parents with children treated with intranasal dexmedetomidine were "very satisfied" with the procedure and sedation compared to the 46.2% of those with intranasal esketamine, (p-value 0.1). No severe adverse events were reported during this trial.ConclusionsThis study was underpowered and did not show any difference between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal esketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in young children. However, the results support that intranasal dexmedetomidine could provide effective analgesia and sedation during procedures in young children aged 1-3 years with minor injuries.Trial registrationEudra-CT 2017-00057-40, April 20, 2017. https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/.

Project description:ImportancePerioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs) are the most common complication during pediatric anesthesia, and they may be affected by the administration of preoperative sedatives.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of intranasal dexmedetomidine or midazolam used for premedication on the occurrence of PRAEs.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted among children aged 0 to 12 years undergoing elective tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy from October 2020 to June 2021 at Children's Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China. Data analysis was performed from June to October 2021.InterventionsChildren were randomly assigned to 3 groups: the midazolam group received intranasal midazolam (0.1 mg/kg), and the dexmedetomidine group received intranasal dexmedetomidine (2.0 μg/kg) for premedication. The normal saline group received intranasal 0.9% saline for control.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference in the incidence of PRAEs among the 3 groups. The secondary outcomes were the frequency of the individual PRAEs, including the incidence of such events during the induction and recovery periods, postoperative emergence delirium, postoperative pain score, sedation success rate, and heart rate values.ResultsA total of 384 children (median [IQR] age, 7 [5-10] years; 227 boys [59.1%]) were enrolled and randomized; 373 data sets were available for intention-to-treat analysis (124 children in the midazolam group, 124 children in the dexmedetomidine group, and 125 children in the normal saline group). After the data were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, body mass index, obstructive sleep apnea, upper respiratory tract infection, and passive smoking, children in the midazolam group were more likely to experience PRAEs than those in the normal saline group (70 of 124 children [56.5%] vs 51 of 125 children [40.8%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.99; 95% CI, 1.18-3.35), whereas the dexmedetomidine group had a significantly lower PRAEs incidence than the normal saline group (30 of 124 children [24.2%] vs 51 of 125 children [40.8%]; aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78). Compared with the dexmedetomidine group, the midazolam group had a higher risk of PRAEs (aOR, 4.44; 95% CI, 2.54-7.76), but no other serious clinical adverse events were observed.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, intranasal midazolam used for premedication was associated with increased incidence of PRAEs, whereas premedication with intranasal dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced incidence of PRAEs. Where clinically appropriate, anesthesiologists should consider using intranasal dexmedetomidine for sedation in children undergoing tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Register Identifier: ChiCTR2000038359.

Dataset Information

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine to oral midazolam as premedication for propofol sedation in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: the MIDEX MRI trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets