Dataset Information

Continued midazolam versus diphenhydramine in difficult-to-sedate patients: a randomized double-blind trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Current guidelines recommend diphenhydramine in patients undergoing endoscopy who are not adequately sedated with a benzodiazepine and opioid combination. Because this practice has not been adequately assessed, we performed a randomized, double-blind trial comparing diphenhydramine with continued midazolam in such patients. METHODS:Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with moderate sedation were eligible. Sedation was measured with the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score with adequate sedation defined as 3 on a 0- to 5-point scale. Patients not adequately sedated with midazolam 5 mg and fentanyl 100 ?g were randomly assigned to diphenhydramine 25 mg versus continued midazolam 1.5 mg. Adequacy of sedation was assessed 3 minutes after each study medication dose. If MOAA/S was 4 to 5, study medication was repeated, to a maximum of 3 doses. The primary endpoint was adequate sedation. RESULTS:The planned enrollment of 200 patients (100 in each study group) was attained. Adequate sedation was achieved less often with diphenhydramine than midazolam (27% vs 65%, difference = -38%; 95% CI, -50% to -24%; P < .0001). After study medications were completed, more patients required additional medication for sedation or analgesia with diphenhydramine versus midazolam (84% vs 68%, P = .008), whereas the time to discharge from the recovery unit was similar (134 vs 129 minutes). Treatment effect was consistent across subgroups including age ?55, substance abuse, benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and psychiatric medication use. CONCLUSIONS:Endoscopists performing moderate sedation should continue midazolam rather than switching to diphenhydramine in patients who do not achieve adequate sedation with usual doses of midazolam and an opioid. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01769586.).

SUBMITTER: Sachar H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5537051 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Continued midazolam versus diphenhydramine in difficult-to-sedate patients: a randomized double-blind trial.

Sachar Hamita H Pichetshote Nipaporn N Nandigam Kavitha K Vaidya Keta K Laine Loren L

Gastrointestinal endoscopy 20170131 5

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Current guidelines recommend diphenhydramine in patients undergoing endoscopy who are not adequately sedated with a benzodiazepine and opioid combination. Because this practice has not been adequately assessed, we performed a randomized, double-blind trial comparing diphenhydramine with continued midazolam in such patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with moderate sedation were eligible. Sedation was measured with the Modified Observer's A ...[more]

PMID: 28159539

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Oxytocin is an effective drug for induction of labour, but is associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need of immediate delivery are the most common. Discontinuation of oxytocin once the active phase of labour is established could reduce the adverse effects. The objective is to investigate how the caesarean section rate is affected when oxytocin stimulation is discontinued in the active phase of labour compared to labours where oxytocin is continued. METHODS:CONDISOX is a double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted at Danish and Dutch Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The first participant was recruited on April 8 2016. Based on a clinically relevant relative reduction in caesarean section rate of 7%, an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 80%, we aim for 1200 participating women (600 in each arm). The CONDISOX trial includes women at a gestational age of 37-42 complete weeks of pregnancy, who have uterine activity stimulated with oxytocin infusion for the induction of labour. Women are randomised when the active phase of labour becomes established, to study medication containing either oxytocin (continuous group) or placebo (discontinued group) infusion. Women are stratified by birth site, indication for oxytocin stimulation (induction of labour, prelabour rupture of membranes) and parity (nulliparous, parous +/- previous caesarean section). We will compare the primary outcome, caesarean section rate, in the two groups using a chi-square test with a p-value of 0.05. If superiority is not demonstrated, we have a pre-defined post hoc non-inferiority boundary (margin, delta) at 1.09. Secondary outcomes include duration of the active phase of labour, incidence of uterine tachysystole, postpartum haemorrhage, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, Apgar score, umbilical arterial blood pH, and birth experience. DISCUSSION:The high frequency of oxytocin use and the potential risks of both maternal and fetal adverse effects of oxytocin emphasise the need to determine the optimal oxytocin regime for induction of labour. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02553226 (registered September 17, 2015). Eudra-CT number: 2015-002942-30.

Project description:Would letrozole as a primary ovulation induction agent generate better pregnancy rates than clomiphene citrate (CC) in subfertile women with anovulatory polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)?Participants receiving letrozole as a primary treatment achieved a significantly (P = 0.022) higher clinical pregnancy rate per patient (61.2%) compared to CC (43.0%).According to a recent Cochrane systematic review (2014), letrozole appears to improve live-birth (LB) and pregnancy rates in anovulatory women with PCOS, compared to CC. However, the review concluded that the quality of evidence was low due to poor reporting of study methods and possible publication bias.This double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 159 participants between April 2007 and June 2014. Subjects were randomly allocated to either CC (n = 79) or letrozole (n = 80) in a 1:1 ratio. Both drugs were encapsulated to look identical. Randomization was performed in mixed blocks and stratified by patients' BMI (<30 and 30-35 kg/m2).The trial included subfertile women diagnosed with PCOS. Treatment started with one tablet (CC 50 mg, letrozole 2.5 mg) increasing to two in non-responders and continuing until pregnancy or for up to six ovulatory cycles. Non-responders were crossed over to the other treatment after a 6-week break. Cycles were initially monitored with ultrasound follicle tracking then mid-luteal serum progesterone measurement in subsequent cycles.Amongst the 159 participants included in the intention-to-treat analysis, four women conceived before treatment and six were lost-to-follow-up. The remaining 149 participants (74 on CC and 75 on letrozole) completed at least the first treatment. Women receiving letrozole achieved a significantly (P = 0.022; absolute difference [95% confidence interval] 18% [3-33%]) higher pregnancy rate (61.%) than those on CC (43%). The median number of treatment cycles received until pregnancy was significantly (log rank P = 0.038) smaller with letrozole (4[3-5] cycles) compared to CC (6[4-7] cycles). LB rates were not statistically (P = 0.089) different between the two groups, although there was a trend towards higher rates on letrozole (48.8%) compared to CC (35.4%). After the crossover, pregnancy and LB rates on letrozole (n = 45; 28.9 and 24.4%, respectively) were not statistically (P = 0.539 and P = 0.601) different from CC (n = 31; 22.6 and 19.4%).One possible limitation of this trial may be the exclusion of PCOS women with BMI > 35 kg/m2, which would limit the applicability of the results in this subgroup of PCOS. However, this group of women are generally excluded from treatment in the majority of fertility centres, especially in Europe, due to the associated challenges and risks.The results of this trial are consistent with the recent Cochrane systematic review. However, with its robust design, the current RCT provides more valid and compelling evidence for the superiority of letrozole over CC as a primary ovulation induction agent in PCOS women with 40% increase in pregnancy rates and with a shorter time-to-pregnancy. Furthermore, the participants in this RCT are a good representation of subfertile PCOS population receiving fertility treatment in Europe and worldwide. The results are therefore globally generalizable for clinical practice.This RCT was mainly funded by the R&D Funding Scheme of Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The study also received funds from School of Medicine, University of Nottingham. The Trust R&D department was involved in the development of the protocol and the running of the trial. The trial was sponsored and monitored by the University of Nottingham. The authors have no conflicts of interest.www.Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00478504.Registration was verified on 23/05/2007.25/04/2007.

Dataset Information

Continued midazolam versus diphenhydramine in difficult-to-sedate patients: a randomized double-blind trial.

Publications

Continued midazolam versus diphenhydramine in difficult-to-sedate patients: a randomized double-blind trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets