Comparing Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam for Sedation of Children While Undergoing Computerized Tomography Imaging

Reza Azizkhani, Farhad Heydari, Mohammadreza Ghazavi, Maryam Riahinezhad, Mohammadreza Habibzadeh, Ali Bigdeli, Keihan Golshani, Saeid Majidinejad, Abolfazl Mohammadbeigi, Reza Azizkhani, Farhad Heydari, Mohammadreza Ghazavi, Maryam Riahinezhad, Mohammadreza Habibzadeh, Ali Bigdeli, Keihan Golshani, Saeid Majidinejad, Abolfazl Mohammadbeigi

Abstract

Background: 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.

Keywords: Computerized tomography imaging; dexmedetomidine; intranasal; midazolam.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Pediatric Neurosciences.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT 2010 flow diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percent change (decrease) in hemodynamic parameters in 0–30 min after medical administration

References

    1. FitzSimons J, Bonanno LS, Pierce S, Badeaux J. Effectiveness of preoperative intranasal dexmedetomidine, compared with oral midazolam, for the prevention of emergence delirium in the pediatric patient undergoing general anesthesia: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15:1934–51.
    1. Bhat R, Santhosh MC, Annigeri VM, Rao RP. Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine and dexmedetomidine-ketamine for premedication in pediatrics patients: a randomized double-blind study. Anesth Essays Res. 2016;10:349–55.
    1. Bonanno LS, Pierce S, Badeaux J, FitzSimons JJ. Effectiveness of preoperative intranasal dexmedetomidine compared with oral midazolam for the prevention of emergence delirium in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia: a systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14:70–9.
    1. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Eldevik OP, Rockwell DT, Wong JH, Tait AR. Sedation and general anaesthesia in children undergoing MRI and CT: adverse events and outcomes. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:743–8.
    1. Coté CJ, Wilson S. American Academy of Pediatrics; American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients before, during, and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Pediatrics. 2016;143(6):e20191000.
    1. Bellolio MF, Puls HA, Anderson JL, Gilani WI, Murad MH, Barrionuevo P, et al. Incidence of adverse events in paediatric procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011384.
    1. Ramalho CE, Bretas PMC, Schvartsman C, Reis AG. Sedation and analgesia for procedures in the pediatric emergency room. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2017;93:2–18.
    1. Sury M, Bullock I, Rabar S, Demott K Guideline Development Group. Sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in children and young people: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2010;341:c6819.
    1. Ghali AM, Mahfouz AK, Al-Bahrani M. Preanesthetic medication in children: a comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5:387–91.
    1. Yuen VM, Hui TW, Irwin MG, Yao TJ, Wong GL, Yuen MK. Optimal timing for the administration of intranasal dexmedetomidine for premedication in children. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:922–9.
    1. Fang H, Yang L, Wang X, Zhu H. Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8:11881–9.
    1. Cozzi G, Norbedo S, Barbi E. Intranasal dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation in children, a suitable alternative to chloral hydrate. Paediatr Drugs. 2017;19:107–11.
    1. Gentz R, Casamassimo P, Amini H, Claman D, Smiley M. Safety and efficacy of 3 pediatric midazolam moderate sedation regimens. Anesth Prog. 2017;64:66–72.
    1. Keles S, Kocaturk O. Comparison of oral dexmedetomidine and midazolam for premedication and emergence delirium in children after dental procedures under general anesthesia: a retrospective study. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2018;12:647–53.
    1. Reynolds J, Rogers A, Capehart S, Manyang P, Watcha MF. Retrospective comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral chloral hydrate for sedated auditory brainstem response exams. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6:166–71.
    1. Blumer S, Peretz B, Zisman G, Ratson T. Effect of sedation with midazolam and time to discharge among pediatric dental patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017;41:384–7.
    1. Khodadad A, Aflatoonian M, Jalilian R, Babaei N, Motamed F, Ebrahime Soltani A, et al. Comparison of oral midazolam with intravenous midazolam for sedation children during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Acta Med Iran. 2016;54:576–82.
    1. Tobias JD, Cravero JP. Procedural sedation for infants, children, and adolescents. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2019.
    1. Barends CR, Absalom A, van Minnen B, Vissink A, Visser A. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in procedural sedation. A systematic review of efficacy and safety. Plos One. 2017;12:e0169525.
    1. Sessler CN, Grap MJ, Ramsay MA. Evaluating and monitoring analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2008;12:S2.
    1. Berkenbosch JW, Wankum PC, Tobias JD. Prospective evaluation of dexmedetomidine for noninvasive procedural sedation in children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2005;6:435–9; quiz 440.
    1. Behrle N, Birisci E, Anderson J, Schroeder S, Dalabih A. Intranasal dexmedetomidine as a sedative for pediatric procedural sedation. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2017;22:4–8.
    1. Ghai B, Jain K, Saxena AK, Bhatia N, Sodhi KS. Comparison of oral midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication for children undergoing CT imaging: a randomized, double-blind, and controlled study. Paediatr Anaesth. 2017;27:37–44.
    1. Miller JW, Divanovic AA, Hossain MM, Mahmoud MA, Loepke AW. Dosing and efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine sedation for pediatric transthoracic echocardiography: a retrospective study. Can J Anaesth. 2016;63:834–41.
    1. Schmidt AP, Valinetti EA, Bandeira D, Bertacchi MF, Simões CM, Auler JO., Jr Effects of preanesthetic administration of midazolam, clonidine, or dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain and anxiety in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007;17:667–74.
    1. Yuen VM, Hui TW, Irwin MG, Yuen MK. A comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric anesthesia: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1715–21.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit