Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial

Ayushi Gupta, Naina Parag Dalvi, Bharati Anil Tendolkar, Ayushi Gupta, Naina Parag Dalvi, Bharati Anil Tendolkar

Abstract

Background and aims: Preprocedural preparation of children scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is challenging. This prospective, randomized trial compared intranasal midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication for children scheduled for brain MRI.

Material and methods: In total, 60 children, aged 1-8 years, scheduled for elective brain MRI, were randomly assigned to the intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg; Group D) or intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg; Group M) group. We compared hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, onset, level, sedation quality, and successful parental separation. All patients received intravenous propofol as an induction and maintenance agent for MRI.

Results: No significant differences were observed in demographic, hemodynamic, and respiratory parameters. Group D (14.3 ± 3.4 min [10-20 min]) had a longer time of sedation onset than Group M (8.7 ± 3.7 min [5-15 min]; P < 0.001). The median and mean sedation scores were lower in Group D (3 and 3.7 ± 0.8, respectively) than Group M (4 and 4.3 ± 1.2, respectively; P = 0.055). Group D (80%) had a higher percentage of children achieving satisfactory sedation at the time of induction than did Group M (53.3%; P = 0.0285). Parental separation was successful in 73.3% of patients in Group D compared with 46.7% of patients in Group M (P = 0.035).

Conclusion: Intranasal dexmedetomidine results in more successful parental separation and yields a higher sedation level at the time of induction of anesthesia than intranasal midazolam as premedication, with negligible side effects. However, its onset of action is relatively prolonged.

Keywords: Dexmedetomidine; intranasal; magnetic resonance imaging; midazolam.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of mean heart rate between the two groups
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of mean systolic blood pressure between the two groups
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of level of sedation between the groups at the time of induction
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of median sedation score between the groups

References

    1. Bisset GS, 3rd, Ball WS., Jr Preparation, sedation, and monitoring of the pediatric patient in the magnetic resonance suite. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1991;12:376–8.
    1. Sundaram AL, Mathian VM. A comparative evaluation of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for premedication in children: A double blind RCT. JIDA. 2011;6:777–81.
    1. Bergendahl H, Lönnqvist PA, Eksborg S. Clonidine: An alternative to benzodiazepines for premedication in children. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2005;18:608–13.
    1. Mason KP, Zgleszewski SE, Dearden JL, Dumont RS, Pirich MA, Stark CD, et al. Dexmedetomidine for pediatric sedation for computed tomography imaging studies. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:57–62.
    1. Mason KP, Lubisch N, Robinson F, Roskos R, Epstein MA. Intramuscular dexmedetomidine: An effective route of sedation preserves background activity for pediatric electroencephalograms. J Pediatr. 2012;161:927–32.
    1. Malinovsky JM, Populaire C, Cozian A, Lepage JY, Lejus C, Pinaud M. Premedication with midazolam in children. Effect of intranasal, rectal and oral routes on plasma midazolam concentrations. Anaesthesia. 1995;50:351–4.
    1. Kogan A, Katz J, Efrat R, Eidelman LA. Premedication with midazolam in young children: A comparison of four routes of administration. Paediatr Anaesth. 2002;12:685–9.
    1. Yuen VM, Irwin MG, Hui TW, Yuen MK, Lee LH. A double-blind, crossover assessment of the sedative and analgesic effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:374–80.
    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.
    1. Yuen VM, Hui TW, Irwin MG, Yao TJ, Chan L, Wong GL, et al. A randomised comparison of two intranasal dexmedetomidine doses for premedication in children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:1210–6.
    1. Sheta SA, Al-Sarheed MA, Abdelhalim AA. Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for premedication in children undergoing complete dental rehabilitation: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24:181–9.
    1. Mostafa MG, Morsy KM. Premedication with intranasal dexmedetomidine, midazolam and ketamine for children undergoing bone marrow biopsy and aspirate. Egypt J Anesth. 2013;29:131–5.
    1. Akin A, Bayram A, Esmaoglu A, Tosun Z, Aksu R, Altuntas R, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam for premedication of pediatric patients undergoing anesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22:871–6.
    1. Wilton NC, Leigh J, Rosen DR, Pandit UA. Preanesthetic sedation of preschool children using intranasal midazolam. Anesthesiology. 1988;69:972–5.
    1. Karl HW, Rosenberger JL, Larach MG, Ruffle JM. Transmucosal administration of midazolam for premedication of pediatric patients. Comparison of the nasal and sublingual routes. Anesthesiology. 1993;78:885–91.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться