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
  • [31] Comparison of meperidine plus midazolam and fentanyl plus midazolam in procedural sedation: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial
    Suna Soysal
    Ozgur Karcioglu
    Ahmet Demircan
    Hakan Topacoglu
    Mustafa Serinken
    Niyazi Ozucelik
    Kazim Tirpan
    Ali Gunerli
    Advances in Therapy, 2004, 21 : 312 - 321
  • [32] Comparison of meperidine plus midazolam and fentanyl plus midazolam in procedural sedation: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial
    Soysal, S
    Karcioglu, O
    Demircan, A
    Topacoglu, H
    Serinken, M
    Ozucelik, N
    Tirpan, K
    Gunerli, A
    ADVANCES IN THERAPY, 2004, 21 (05) : 312 - 321
  • [33] Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation of Critically Ill Patients A Randomized Trial
    Riker, Richard R.
    Shehabi, Yahya
    Bokesch, Paula M.
    Ceraso, Daniel
    Wisemandle, Wayne
    Koura, Firas
    Whitten, Patrick
    Margolis, Benjamin D.
    Byrne, Daniel W.
    Ely, E. Wesley
    Rocha, Marcelo G.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2009, 301 (05): : 489 - 499
  • [34] The efficacy and safety of midazolam with fentanyl versus midazolam with ketamine for bedside invasive procedural sedation in pediatric oncology patients: A randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial
    Monsereenusorn, Chalinee
    Malaithong, Wanwipha
    Lertvivatpong, Nawachai
    Photia, Apichat
    Rujkijyanont, Piya
    Traivaree, Chanchai
    PEDIATRIC HEMATOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, 2022, 39 (08) : 681 - 696
  • [35] Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs. oral midazolam for premedication in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Guangxuan
    Xin, Li
    Yin, Qingtang
    FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2023, 11
  • [36] Safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs ketamine vs midazolam combined with propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy for cancer patients: A randomized double-blinded trial
    Shehab, Nahla N.
    Elsabeeny, Walaa Y.
    Abed, Sayed M.
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2023, 39 (01): : 511 - 517
  • [37] Intravenous Ketamine plus Midazolam vs. Intravenous Ketamine for Sedation in Lumbar Puncture: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Dilli, Dilek
    Dallar, Yildiz
    Sorgui, Nihan H.
    INDIAN PEDIATRICS, 2008, 45 (11) : 899 - 904
  • [38] Efficacy of intranasal ketamine and midazolam for pediatric sedation: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial
    Khoshrang, Hossein
    Alavi, Cyrus Emir
    Rimaz, Siamak
    Mirmansouri, Ali
    Farzi, Farnoush
    Biazar, Gelareh
    Atrkarroushan, Zahra
    Khadem, Nazanin Sabet
    CASPIAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2021, 12 (04) : 539 - 543
  • [39] A comparison of midazolam, dexmedetomidine 2μg/kg and dexmedetomidine 4μg/kg as oral premedication in children, a randomized double-blinded clinical triall
    Lanin, D.
    Singh, S.
    Thakur, V
    ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA BELGICA, 2022, 73 (01) : 45 - 51
  • [40] Dexmedetomidine vs morphine and midazolam in the prevention and treatment of delirium after adult cardiac surgery; a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial
    Azeem, Tamer M. Abdel
    Yosif, Nahed E.
    Alansary, Adel M.
    Esmat, Ibrahim Mamdouh
    Mohamed, Ahmed K.
    SAUDI JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2018, 12 (02) : 190 - 197