Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

被引:2
|
作者
Nie, Juan [1 ,2 ]
Chen, Chanchan [1 ]
Xie, Jing [1 ]
Ding, Guicong [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] China Med Univ, Shenzhen Childrens Hosp, Shenzhen 518026, Peoples R China
[2] Sichuan Hosp Stomatol, Dept Pediat Dent, Chengdu 61000, Peoples R China
[3] China Med Univ, Shenzhen Childrens Hosp, Dept Stomatol, Yitian Rd 7019, Shenzhen 518000, Peoples R China
关键词
Dental anxiety; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Sedation; Pediatric dentistry; PROCEDURAL SEDATION; PREMEDICATION; CHILDREN; FEAR;
D O I
10.1186/s12871-023-02289-5
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
BackgroundModerate to deep sedation is required for dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. Midazolam is the most commonly used sedative, whereas intranasal dexmedetomidine is increasingly used in pediatric sedation.ObjectiveThe aim of this trial was to compare the sedative efficacy of oral midazolam alone with that of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam during dental treatment of children with dental anxiety.DesignIn total, 83 children (aged 3-12 years) scheduled to undergo dental sedation were randomized to receive oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal placebo, or oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) plus intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 mu g/kg). The primary outcome was the rate of successful sedation for dental treatment. Secondary outcomes were the onset time and adverse events during and after treatment. Data analyses involved descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests.ResultsThe rate of successful sedation was significantly higher in combination group (P = 0.007), although the sedation onset time was significantly longer in combination group (17.5 +/- 2.4 min) than in monotherapy group (15.7 +/- 1.8) (P = 0.003). No children required medical intervention or oxygen therapy for hemodynamic disturbances, and the incidences of adverse events had no significant difference between groups (P = 0.660).ConclusionCombined treatment with oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 mu g/kg) is more significantly effective for managing the behavior of non-cooperative children during dental treatment, compared to oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) alone. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100042300)Trial registrationChiCTR2100042300, Clinical trial first registration date: 17/01/2021.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Gulla, Krishna Mohan
    Sankar, Jhuma
    Jat, Kana Ram
    Kabra, Sushil Kumar
    Lodha, Rakesh
    INDIAN PEDIATRICS, 2021, 58 (02) : 117 - 122
  • [22] A randomized, clinical trial of oral midazolam plus placebo versus oral midazolam plus oral transmucosal fentanyl for sedation during laceration repair
    Klein, EJ
    Diekema, DS
    Paris, CA
    Quan, L
    Cohen, M
    Seidel, KD
    PEDIATRICS, 2002, 109 (05) : 894 - 897
  • [23] Oral chloral hydrate vs. intranasal midazolam for sedation during computerized tomography
    Razieh Fallah
    Mohammad Hosein Ataee Nakhaei
    Shekofah Behdad
    Reza Nafisi Moghaddam
    Ali Shamszadeh
    Indian Pediatrics, 2013, 50 : 233 - 235
  • [24] Oral chloral hydrate vs. intranasal midazolam for sedation during computerized tomography
    Fallah, Razieh
    Nakhaei, Mohammad Hosein Ataee
    Behdad, Shekofah
    Moghaddam, Reza Nafisi
    Shamszadeh, Ali
    INDIAN PEDIATRICS, 2013, 50 (02) : 233 - 235
  • [25] A comparison of midazolam and zolpidem as oral premedication in children, a prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial
    Hanna, Amgad H.
    Ramsingh, Davinder
    Sullivan-Lewis, Whitney
    Cano, Sarah
    Leiter, Patrick
    Wallace, Desiree
    Andrews, Gerald
    Austin, Briahnna
    Applegate, Richard L., II
    PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2018, 28 (12) : 1109 - 1115
  • [26] Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam-ketamine combination as sedative agents in pediatric dentistry: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial
    Malhotra, Parul Uppal
    Thakur, Seema
    Singhal, Parul
    Chauhan, Deepak
    Jayam, Cheranjeevi
    Sood, Ritu
    Malhotra, Yagyeshwar
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL DENTISTRY, 2016, 7 (02) : 186 - 192
  • [27] Etomidate versus midazolam for procedural sedation in pediatric outpatients: A randomized controlled trial
    Di Liddo, Lydia
    D'Angelo, Antonio
    Nguyen, Bao
    Bailey, Benoit
    Amre, Devendra
    Stanciu, Constantin
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2006, 48 (04) : 433 - 440
  • [28] Intranasal Clonidine vs. Midazolam as Premedication in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Sukanya Mitra
    Sunita Kazal
    Lakesh K. Anand
    Indian Pediatrics, 2014, 51 : 113 - 118
  • [29] Intranasal Clonidine vs. Midazolam as Premedication in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Mitra, Sukanya
    Kazal, Sunita
    Anand, Lakesh K.
    INDIAN PEDIATRICS, 2014, 51 (02) : 113 - 118
  • [30] Intramuscular Versus Buccal Midazolam for Pediatric Seizures: A Randomized Double-Blinded Trial
    Alansari, Khalid
    Barkat, Magda
    Mohamed, AbdelNasir H.
    Al Jawala, Shahaza Alali
    Othman, Shadi Ahmad
    PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGY, 2020, 109 : 28 - 34