Dataset Information

A randomized clinical trial comparing oral, aerosolized intranasal, and aerosolized buccal midazolam.

ABSTRACT: We determine whether aerosolized intranasal or buccal midazolam reduces the distress of pediatric laceration repair compared with oral midazolam.Children aged 0.5 to 7 years and needing nonparenteral sedation for laceration repair were randomized to receive oral, aerosolized intranasal, or aerosolized buccal midazolam. Patient distress was rated by blinded review of videotapes, using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Score. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, sedation adequacy, sedation onset, satisfaction, and adverse events.For the 169 subjects (median age 3.1 years) evaluated for the primary outcome, we found significantly less distress in the buccal midazolam group compared with the oral route group (P=.04; difference -2; 95% confidence interval -4 to 0) and a corresponding nonsignificant trend for the intranasal route (P=.08; difference -1; 95% confidence interval -3 to 1). Secondary outcomes (177 subjects) favored the intranasal group, including a greater proportion of patients with an optimal activity score (74%), a greater proportion of parents wanting this sedation in the future, and faster sedation onset. Intranasal was the route least tolerated at administration. Adverse events were similar between groups.When comparing the administration of midazolam by 3 routes to facilitate pediatric laceration repair, we observed slightly less distress in the aerosolized buccal group. The intranasal route demonstrated a greater proportion of patients with optimal activity scores, greater proportions of parents wanting similar sedation in the future, and faster onset but was also the most poorly tolerated at administration. Aerosolized buccal or intranasal midazolam represents an effective and useful alternative to oral midazolam for sedation for laceration repair.

SUBMITTER: Klein EJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3183391 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized clinical trial comparing oral, aerosolized intranasal, and aerosolized buccal midazolam.

Klein Eileen J EJ Brown Julie C JC Kobayashi Ana A Osincup Daniel D Seidel Kristy K

Annals of emergency medicine 20111001 4

<h4>Study objective</h4>We determine whether aerosolized intranasal or buccal midazolam reduces the distress of pediatric laceration repair compared with oral midazolam.<h4>Methods</h4>Children aged 0.5 to 7 years and needing nonparenteral sedation for laceration repair were randomized to receive oral, aerosolized intranasal, or aerosolized buccal midazolam. Patient distress was rated by blinded review of videotapes, using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Score. Secondary outcomes ...[more]

PMID: 21689865

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:The optimal sedative regime that provides the greatest comfort and the lowest risk for procedural sedation in young children remains to be determined. The aim of this randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-design trial was to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal ketamine and midazolam as the main component of the behavioral guidance approach for preschoolers during dental treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Children under seven years of age, with caries and non-cooperative behavior, were randomized into three groups: (KMIN) intranasal ketamine and midazolam; (KMO) oral ketamine and midazolam; or (MO) oral midazolam. The dental sedation appointments were videotaped, and the videos were analyzed using the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS) to determine the success of the sedation in each group. Intra- and postoperative adverse events were recorded. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests (P < 0.05, IBM SPSS). RESULTS:Participants were 84 children (28 per group; 43 boys), with a mean age of 3.1 years (SD 1.2). Children's baseline and the dental sedation session characteristics were balanced among groups. The success of the treatment as assessed by the dichotomous variable 'quiet behavior for at least 60% of the session length' was: KMIN 50.0% (n = 14; OR 2.10, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.30), KMO 46.4% (n = 13; OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.40), MO 32.1% (n = 9) (P = 0.360). Adverse events were minor, occurred in 37 of 84 children (44.0%), and did not differ among groups (P = 0.462). CONCLUSION:All three regimens provided moderate dental sedation with minor adverse events, with marked variability in the behavior of children during dental treatment. The potential benefit of the ketamine-midazolam combination should be further investigated in studies with larger samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02447289. Registered on 11 May 2015, named "Midazolam and Ketamine Effect Administered Through the Nose for Sedation of Children for Dental Treatment (NASO)."

Project description:BackgroundChildren 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.MethodsIn 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.DiscussionThe 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 registrationClinicalTrial.gov NCT05192629 . Registered on 14 January 2022. Protocol version 2.1.

Project description:ObjectivePain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration can be decreased by administering lidocaine before intranasal midazolam (preadministered lidocaine) or combining lidocaine with midazolam in a single solution (coadministered lidocaine). We hypothesized coadministered lidocaine is non-inferior to preadministered lidocaine for decreasing pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration.MethodsRandomized, outcome assessor-blinded, noninferiority trial. Children aged 6 months to 7 years undergoing laceration repair received intranasal midazolam with preadministered or coadministered lidocaine. Pain and distress were evaluated with the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-Revised (OSBD-R) (primary outcome; non-inferiority margin 1.8 units) and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scales and cry duration (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included adverse events, clinician and caregiver satisfaction, and pain and distress associated with intranasal lidocaine administration.ResultsFifty-one patients were analyzed. Mean OSBD-R scores associated with intranasal midazolam administration were 6.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5, 7.8) and 7 (95% CI 5.2, 8.9) units for preadministered and coadministered lidocaine, respectively. The difference of 0.6 (95% CI -1.7, 2.8) units represented an inconclusive non-inferiority determination. CHEOPS and FLACC scores and cry duration were similar between groups. OSBD-R, CHEOPS, and FLACC scores and cry duration associated with intranasal lidocaine administration were 3.8, 9.9, and 6 units, and 56 seconds, respectively. Clinicians considered coadministered lidocaine easier to administer.ConclusionPain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration were similar when using coadministered or preadministered lidocaine, but our non-inferiority determination was inconclusive. Administration of intranasal lidocaine by itself was associated with a measurable degree of pain and distress.Keywords: intranasal, midazolam, anxiolysis, sedation, emergency department, emergency medicine, pain, distress, pediatric, lidocaine, laceration.

Project description:BackgroundUncooperative children may need to receive dental treatment under sedation, which is indicated when nonpharmacological behavior guidance is unsuccessful. There are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different sedative protocols for dental procedures; however, the evidence for superiority of one form over another is weak. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of intranasally administered ketamine plus midazolam for the dental treatment of children.MethodsWe have designed a three-armed, parallel RCT to assess intranasal sedation using ketamine/midazolam in terms of the following measures: efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Two- to 6-year-old healthy children, referred for dental treatment in a dental sedation center in Brazil due to uncooperative behavior and requiring restorative dental procedures, will be recruited. Each child will be randomly assigned to one of the three groups: A - Intranasal administration of ketamine (4.0 mg/kg, maximum 100 mg) and midazolam (0.2 mg/kg, maximum 5.0 mg); B - Oral administration of ketamine (4.0 mg/kg, maximum 100 mg) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, maximum 20 mg); and C - Oral administration of midazolam (1.0 mg/kg, maximum 20 mg). The primary outcome is the child's behavior assessed through an observational scale using digital videos of the restorative dental treatment under sedation. The secondary outcomes are as follows: acceptance of sedative administration; memory of intraoperative events; the child's stress; adverse events; the child's pain during the procedure; the parent's, dentists', and child's perceptions of sedation; and economic analysis. Measures will be taken at baseline and drug administration and during and after the dental procedure. The necessary sample size was estimated to be 84 children after a blinded interim analysis of the first 30 cases.DiscussionThis study will provide data that can substantially add to science and pediatric dentistry as it examines the effect of sedative regimes from different perspectives (outcomes).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02447289 . Registered on 11 May 2015, named "Midazolam and Ketamine Effect Administered Through the Nose for Sedation of Children for Dental Treatment (NASO)."

Project description:ImportanceApproximately one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to available antidepressants.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy, safety, and dose-response of intranasal esketamine hydrochloride in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 2, double-blind, doubly randomized, delayed-start, placebo-controlled study was conducted in multiple outpatient referral centers from January 28, 2014, to September 25, 2015. The study consisted of 4 phases: (1) screening, (2) double-blind treatment (days 1-15), composed of two 1-week periods, (3) optional open-label treatment (days 15-74), and (4) posttreatment follow-up (8 weeks). One hundred twenty-six adults with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of MDD and history of inadequate response to 2 or more antidepressants (ie, TRD) were screened, 67 were randomized, and 60 completed both double-blind periods. Intent-to-treat analysis was used in evaluation of the findings.InterventionsIn period 1, participants were randomized (3:1:1:1) to placebo (n = 33), esketamine 28 mg (n = 11), 56 mg (n = 11), or 84 mg (n = 12) twice weekly. In period 2, 28 placebo-treated participants with moderate-to-severe symptoms were rerandomized (1:1:1:1) to 1 of the 4 treatment arms; those with mild symptoms continued receiving placebo. Participants continued their existing antidepressant treatment during the study. During the open-label phase, dosing frequency was reduced from twice weekly to weekly, and then to every 2 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to day 8 (each period) in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score.ResultsSixty-seven participants (38 women, mean [SD] age, 44.7 [10.0] years) were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. Change (least squares mean [SE] difference vs placebo) in MADRS total score (both periods combined) in all 3 esketamine groups was superior to placebo (esketamine 28 mg: -4.2 [2.09], P = .02; 56 mg: -6.3 [2.07], P = .001; 84 mg: -9.0 [2.13], P < .001), with a significant ascending dose-response relationship (P < .001). Improvement in depressive symptoms appeared to be sustained (-7.2 [1.84]) despite reduced dosing frequency in the open-label phase. Three of 56 (5%) esketamine-treated participants during the double-blind phase vs none receiving placebo and 1 of 57 participants (2%) during the open-label phase had adverse events that led to study discontinuation (1 event each of syncope, headache, dissociative syndrome, and ectopic pregnancy).Conclusions and relevanceIn this first clinical study to date of intranasal esketamine for TRD, antidepressant effect was rapid in onset and dose related. Response appeared to persist for more than 2 months with a lower dosing frequency. Results support further investigation in larger trials.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01998958.

Dataset Information

A randomized clinical trial comparing oral, aerosolized intranasal, and aerosolized buccal midazolam.

Publications

A randomized clinical trial comparing oral, aerosolized intranasal, and aerosolized buccal midazolam.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets