Literature DB >> 8489062

Transmucosal administration of midazolam for premedication of pediatric patients. Comparison of the nasal and sublingual routes.

H W Karl1, J L Rosenberger, M G Larach, J M Ruffle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nasal transmucosal midazolam is effective for premedication of pediatric patients; however, 61-74% of these patients cry at nasal drug administration. Sublingual benzodiazepines, including midazolam, are effective in adults. The current blinded randomized study compared acceptance of and behavioral responses to transmucosal midazolam administered via the intranasal and sublingual routes.
METHODS: Ninety-three patients aged 0.5-10 yr were stratified by age: 30 infants and toddlers, 0.5-2 yr; 39 preschoolers, 2.1-5 yr; and 24 school age, 5.1-10 yr. They were randomized to receive 0.2 mg/kg of midazolam in the nose or under the tongue without or with additional flavoring. For the group receiving sublingual flavored midazolam, the syringe tip was dipped in candy flavor and sugar. Duration of crying and compliance with instructions for sublingual drug administration were recorded. Hemoglobin oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry and sedation score were recorded by three observers before drug administration, at 2.5-min intervals for 10 min, at separation from parents, and during induction with halothane in O2.
RESULTS: Children accepted midazolam administered via the sublingual route better than that given intranasally. In children not crying before drug administration, the frequency and duration of crying was greater following intranasal compared with sublingual administration (71% vs. 18% (P < 0.0001) and 48 +/- 56 vs. 25 +/- 49 s (P = 0.004), respectively). Lack of total compliance with instructions for sublingual administration did not alter drug effect, and there were no differences between the three study groups in maximum sedation, response to separation from parents, and behavior at induction of anesthesia; 80% displayed adequate or excellent behavior. Finally, the addition of candy flavor did not improve acceptance of or compliance with sublingual midazolam administration.
CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual administration of midazolam is as effective as, and better accepted than, intranasal midazolam as a preanesthetic sedative in children.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8489062     DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199305000-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  20 in total

1.  Intranasal midazolam for treating febrile seizures in children. Caution is advised in interpreting trial conclusions.

Authors:  T Johnson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-13

Review 2.  Sedation and analgesia in paediatric intensive care units: a guide to drug selection and use.

Authors:  J D Tobias
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  1999 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 3.022

3.  An alternative to "brutacaine": a comparison of low dose intramuscular ketamine with intranasal midazolam in children before suturing.

Authors:  R G McGlone; S Ranasinghe; S Durham
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1998-07

4.  Midazolam premedication in children: a pilot study comparing intramuscular and intranasal administration.

Authors:  Christy Lam; Richard D Udin; Stanley F Malamed; David L Good; Jane L Forrest
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  2005

5.  Comparison of ease of administration of intranasal midazolam spray and oral midazolam syrup by parents as premedication to children undergoing elective surgery.

Authors:  Milthi Manoj; M V S Satya Prakash; Srinivasan Swaminathan; Rithu Krishna Kamaladevi
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 2.078

6.  Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam is superior to intranasal midazolam for emergency paediatric procedural sedation.

Authors:  J P Acworth; D Purdie; R C Clark
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 7.  Alternative delivery systems for agents to treat acute agitation: progress to date.

Authors:  Kimberly Nordstrom; Michael H Allen
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 8.  Oral mucosal drug delivery: clinical pharmacokinetics and therapeutic applications.

Authors:  Hao Zhang; Jie Zhang; James B Streisand
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 9.  Comparative review of the adverse effects of sedatives used in children undergoing outpatient procedures.

Authors:  J D'Agostino; T E Terndrup
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  Midazolam pharmacokinetics following intravenous and buccal administration.

Authors:  R Schwagmeier; S Alincic; H W Striebel
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.