-
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and... Apr 2024This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for complex digestive endoscopy procedures, with the goal of offering comprehensive clinical evidence.
METHODS
Following predefined inclusion criteria, five databases were systematically searched, with a focus on identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the administration of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during complex digestive endoscopy procedures. The statistical software Stata 15.1 was employed for meticulous data analysis.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs were encompassed, involving a total of 1218 patients. In comparison to the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine administration was associated with a reduced risk of respiratory depression (RR=0.25, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.56) and hypoxemia (RR=0.22, 95 %CI: 0.12-0.39). Additionally, the dexmedetomidine group exhibited lower incidence rates of choking (RR=0.27, 95 %CI: 0.16-0.47), physical movement (RR=0.16, 95 %CI: 0.09-0.27), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR=0.56,95 %CI: 0.34-0.92). Patients and endoscopists in the dexmedetomidine group reported higher levels of satisfaction (patient satisfaction: SMD=0.73, 95 %CI: 0.26-1.21; endoscopist satisfaction: SMD=0.84, 95 %CI: 0.24-1.44). The incidence of hypotension and anesthesia recovery time did not significantly differ between the two groups (hypotension: RR=1.73,95 %CI:0.94-3.20; anesthesia recovery time: SMD=0.02, 95 %Cl: 0.44-0.49). It is noteworthy that the administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of bradycardia in patients.
CONCLUSION
Compared to midazolam, dexmedetomidine exhibits a favorable safety profile for use in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy by significantly reducing the risk of respiratory depression and hypoxemia. Despite this, dexmedetomidine is associated with a higher incidence of bradycardia. These findings underscore the need for further research through larger, multi-center studies to thoroughly investigate dexmedetomidine's safety and efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Midazolam; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Dexmedetomidine; Bradycardia; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Respiratory Insufficiency; Hypoxia; Hypotension
PubMed: 38467278
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2024.102315 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the...
Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; = 0.04; I = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; = 0.03; I = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; < 0.0001; I = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; = 0.0004; I = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; < 0.00001; I = 6%). This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.
PubMed: 38034988
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1241714 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an assistant using a strict aseptic technique; it is important to monitor the infant during all the steps of the procedure. Without adequate analgesia, LP can cause considerable pain and discomfort. As newborns have increased sensitivity to pain, it is crucial to adequately manage the procedural pain of LP in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trial registries in December 2022. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing drugs used for pain management, sedation, or both, during LP. We considered the following drugs suitable for inclusion. • Topical anesthetics (e.g. eutectic mixture of local anesthetics [EMLA], lidocaine) • Opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl) • Alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine) • N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (e.g. ketamine) • Other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol) • Sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our main outcomes were successful LP on first attempt, total number of LP attempts, episodes of bradycardia, pain assessed with validated scales, episodes of desaturation, number of episodes of apnea, and number of infants with one or more episodes of apnea. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) that enrolled 206 newborns. One study included only term infants. All studies assessed topical treatment versus placebo or no intervention. The topical anesthetics were lidocaine 4%, lidocaine 1%, and EMLA. We identified no completed studies on opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, other analgesics, sedatives, or head-to-head comparisons (drug A versus drug B). Based on very low-certainty evidence from one quasi-RCT of 100 LPs in 76 infants, we are unsure if topical anesthetics (lidocaine), compared to no anesthesia, has an effect on the following outcomes. • Successful LP on first attempt (first-attempts success in 48% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 42% of LPs in the control group) • Number of attempts per LP (mean 1.9 attempts, [standard error of the mean 0.2] in the lidocaine group, and mean 2.1 attempts [standard error of the mean 2.1] in the control group) • Episodes of bradycardia (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 4% of LPs in the control group) • Episodes of desaturation (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 8% of LPs in the control group) • Occurrence of apnea (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.79; risk difference [RD] 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08). Topical anesthetics compared to placebo may reduce pain assessed with the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score (SMD -1.00 standard deviation (SD), 95% CI -1.47 to -0.53; I² = 98%; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies in this comparison reported total number of episodes of apnea. We identified three ongoing studies, which will assess the effects of EMLA, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Three studies are awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical anesthetics (lidocaine) compared to no anesthesia on successful lumbar puncture on first attempt, the number of attempts per lumbar puncture, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and occurrence of apnea. Compared to placebo, topical anesthetics (lidocaine or EMLA) may reduce pain assessed with the NFCS score. One ongoing study will assess the effects of systemic treatment.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Apnea; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Pain; Spinal Puncture
PubMed: 37767875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015594.pub2 -
JAMA Neurology May 2024Multiple continuous intravenous anesthetic drugs (CIVADs) are available for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). There is a paucity of data comparing...
IMPORTANCE
Multiple continuous intravenous anesthetic drugs (CIVADs) are available for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). There is a paucity of data comparing the different types of CIVADs used for RSE.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and compare outcome measures associated with the initial CIVAD choice in RSE in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Data sources included English and non-English articles using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science (January 1994-June 2023) as well as manual search. Study selection included peer-reviewed studies of 5 or more patients and at least 1 patient older than 12 years with status epilepticus refractory to a benzodiazepine and at least 1 standard antiseizure medication, treated with continuously infused midazolam, ketamine, propofol, pentobarbital, or thiopental. Independent extraction of articles was performed using prespecified data items. The association between outcome variables and CIVAD was examined with an analysis of variance or χ2 test where appropriate. Binary logistic regressions were used to examine the association between outcome variables and CIVAD with etiology, change in mortality over time, electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring (continuous vs intermittent), and treatment goal (seizure vs burst suppression) included as covariates. Risk of bias was addressed by listing the population and type of each study.
FINDINGS
A total of 66 studies with 1637 patients were included. Significant differences among CIVAD groups in short-term failure, hypotension, and CIVAD substitution during treatment were observed. Non-epilepsy-related RSE (vs epilepsy-related RSE) was associated with a higher rate of CIVAD substitution (60 of 120 [50.0%] vs 11 of 43 [25.6%]; odds ratio [OR], 3.11; 95% CI, 1.44-7.11; P = .006) and mortality (98 of 227 [43.2%] vs 7 of 63 [11.1%]; OR, 17.0; 95% CI, 4.71-109.35; P < .001). Seizure suppression was associated with mortality (OR, 7.72; 95% CI, 1.77-39.23; P = .005), but only a small subgroup was available for analysis (seizure suppression: 17 of 22 [77.3%] from 3 publications vs burst suppression: 25 of 98 [25.5%] from 12 publications). CIVAD choice and EEG type were not predictors of mortality. Earlier publication year was associated with mortality, although the observation was no longer statistically significant after adjusting SEs for clustering.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Epilepsy-related RSE was associated with lower mortality compared with other RSE etiologies. A trend of decreasing mortality over time was observed, which may suggest an effect of advances in neurocritical care. The overall data are heterogeneous, which limits definitive conclusions on the choice of optimal initial CIVAD in RSE treatment.
Topics: Humans; Status Epilepticus; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Anticonvulsants
PubMed: 38466294
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0108 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jul 2023The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Analysis of the efficacy of subclinical doses of esketamine in combination with propofol in non-intubated general anesthesia procedures - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room requires rapid onset of anesthesia, smoothness, quick recovery, and few postoperative complications. Traditional anesthetic regimens (propofol alone or propofol and opioids/dezocine/midazolam, etc.) have severe respiratory and circulatory depression and many systemic adverse effects. In this paper, we compare the effectiveness and safety of propofol and subclinical doses of esketamine with other traditional regimens applied to non-intubated general anesthesia through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed databases for the period from January 2000 to October 2022. We rigorously screened the literature according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, while risk assessment of the studies was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and statistical analysis of the data was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The main outcome indicators we evaluated were the various hemodynamic parameters and incidence of various adverse effects between the experimental and control groups after induction of anesthesia.
RESULTS
After a rigorous screening process, a total of 14 papers were included in the final meta-analysis. After risk bias assessment, three of the papers were judged as low risk and the others were judged as having moderate to high risk. Forest plots were drawn for a total of 16 indicators. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in HR' WMD 3.27 (0.66, 5.87), MAP' WMD 9.68 (6.13, 13.24), SBP' WMD 5.42 (2.11, 8.73), DBP' WMD 4.02 (1.15, 6.88), propofol dose' SMD -1.39 (-2.45, -0.33), hypotension' RR 0.30 (0.20, 0.45), bradycardia' RR 0.33 (0.14, 0.77), hypoxemia or apnea' RR 0.45 (0.23, 0.89), injection pain' RR 0.28 (0.13, 0.60), intraoperative choking' RR 0.62 (0.50, 0.77), intraoperative body movements' RR 0.48 (0.29, 0.81) and overall incidence of adverse reactions' RR 0.52 (0.39, 0.70).The indicators that were not statistically different were time to wake up' WMD - 0.55 (-1.29, 0.19), nausea and vomiting 0.84' RR (0.43, 1.67), headache and dizziness' RR 1.57 (0.98, 2.50) and neuropsychiatric reaction' RR 1.05 (0.28, 3.93). The funnel plot showed that the vast majority of studies fell within the funnel interval, but the symmetry was relatively poor.
CONCLUSION
In non-intubated general anesthesia, the combination of subclinical doses of esketamine and propofol did reduce circulatory and respiratory depression, injection pain, and other adverse effects, while the incidence of esketamine's own side effects such as neuropsychiatric reactions did not increase, and the combination of the two did not cause the occurrence of new and more serious adverse reactions, and the combination of the two was safe and effective.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPREO registration number: CRD 42022368966.
Topics: Humans; Propofol; Ketamine; Anesthesia, General; Pain; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37479982
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02135-8 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Mar 2024Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is an effective sedative that can prevent postoperative delirium while also examining the safety of using sedatives during the perioperative period.
METHODS
The net-meta analysis was used to compare the incidence of postoperative delirium among four sedatives: sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam. Interventions were ranked according to their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 41 RCT studies involving 6679 patients were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium than propofol (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.25-0.90), midazolam (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.17-1.00), normal saline (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.33-0.54) and sevoflurane (OR 0.39 95% CI 0.18-0.82). The saline group showed a significantly lower incidence of bradycardia compared to the group receiving dexmedetomidine (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.37-0.80). In cardiac surgery, midazolam (OR 3.34 95%CI 2.04-5.48) and normal saline (OR 2.27 95%CI 1.17-4.39) had a higher rate of postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine, while in non-cardiac surgery, normal saline (OR 1.98 95%CI 1.44-2.71) was more susceptible to postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative in preventing postoperative delirium whether in cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery. The preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium becomes more apparent with longer surgical and extubation times. However, it should be administered with caution as it was found to be associated with bradycardia.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics; Bradycardia; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol; Saline Solution; Sevoflurane; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38448835
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03783-5 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2023Peripheral regional anaesthesia is frequently used for upper extremity surgery. To prolong the duration of analgesia, adjuvants can be added to single-injection local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effect of adjuvants added to local anaesthetics for single-injection upper extremity peripheral regional anaesthesia: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
BACKGROUND
Peripheral regional anaesthesia is frequently used for upper extremity surgery. To prolong the duration of analgesia, adjuvants can be added to single-injection local anaesthetics. Despite attempts to compare several adjuvants in pairwise meta-analyses, a comprehensive comparison is still missing.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this network meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of adjuvants in upper extremity peripheral nerve blocks.
DESIGN
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with network meta-analyses.
DATA SOURCES
A literature search in Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science was performed up to March 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing different adjuvants injected perineurally in peripheral upper extremity nerve blocks were eligible. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model with physiological saline as the comparator. The primary endpoint was the ratio of means (ROM) of the duration of analgesia.
RESULTS
The review included 242 randomised controlled trials with a total of 17 391 patients. Twenty-eight adjuvants were compared in the largest networks. Most network estimations consisted of a high proportion of direct evidence. Fourteen adjuvants increased the duration of analgesia significantly by the following factors, ROM [95% confidence interval (CI)]: dexamethasone 1.95 (1.79 to 2.13), buprenorphine 1.83 (1.51 to 2.24), butorphanol 1.84 (1.41 to 2.39), potassium chloride 1.89 (1.15 to 3.11), dexmedetomidine 1.70 (1.59 to 1.81), sufentanil 1.70 (1.27 to 2.29), ketorolac 1.68 (1.24 to 2.27), midazolam 1.55 (1.24 to 1.94), tramadol 1.52 (1.32 to 1.75), nalbuphine 1.50 (1.30 to 1.72), morphine 1.43 (1.09 to 1.88), magnesium sulfate 1.42 (1.20 to 1.67), clonidine 1.36 (1.24 to 1.50) and fentanyl 1.23 (1.08 to 1.40). Inconsistency in network meta-analysis was substantial. Overall side effect rates were low with all adjuvants.
CONCLUSION
The best interventions to prolong the duration of analgesia were dexamethasone, followed by dexmedetomidine, opioids, electrolytes, ketorolac and midazolam. There are general concerns about the quality of underlying studies and the risk of publication bias.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018115722.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Ketorolac; Anesthesia, Conduction; Pain; Upper Extremity; Dexamethasone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37337656
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001860 -
Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia Y... Mar 2024This meta-analysis was done to investigate the role of intrathecal midazolam in lower limb surgeries regarding prolongation of spinal block, postoperative pain control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adding intrathecal midazolam to local anesthetics improves sensory and motor block and reduces pain score without increasing side effects in lower limb surgeries: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
This meta-analysis was done to investigate the role of intrathecal midazolam in lower limb surgeries regarding prolongation of spinal block, postoperative pain control and associated side effects. The included studies reported onset and duration of sensory and motor block, time to first request analgesia, 24h opioid consumption, postoperative pain control, and associated side effects following use of intrathecal midazolam for lower limb surgeries. This review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines and using the online databases, Medline, Science Direct, Google scholar and Cochrane library. We registered this review with the PROSPERO database (ID-CRD42022346361) in August 2022. A total of 10 randomised controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed patients receiving 1mg intrathecal midazolam showed significantly faster onset of sensory block [P=.001 (CI: -0.98, -0.31)]. Duration of sensory and motor block were also significantly prolonged in intrathecal midazolam group [P<.00001 (CI: 18.08, 39.12), P=.002 (CI: 0.45, 2). Intrathecal midazolam also increased the time to first request analgesia [P=.0003, (CI: 1.22, 4.14)]. Pain scores at 4 and 12h postoperatively were significantly lower in patients receiving intrathecal midazolam [P=.00001 (CI: -1.20, -0.47) and P=.05 (CI: -0.52, -0.01) respectively]. In conclusion, the addition of intrathecal midazolam to local anesthetics in lower limb surgeries results in early onset of sensory and motor block. It also increases the duration of sensory and motor block. The time to first request analgesia is increased. VAS pain scores at 4 and 12h postoperatively were also lower without any increased side effects.
Topics: Humans; Midazolam; Pain, Postoperative; Lower Extremity; Anesthetics, Local; Injections, Spinal; Nerve Block; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthesia, Spinal
PubMed: 38145787
DOI: 10.1016/j.redare.2023.12.006 -
BMC Anesthesiology Nov 2023Emergence agitation (EA) is a prevalent complication in children following general anesthesia. Several studies have assessed the relationship between melatonin or its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Emergence agitation (EA) is a prevalent complication in children following general anesthesia. Several studies have assessed the relationship between melatonin or its analogs and the incidence of pediatric EA, yielding conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of premedication with melatonin or its analogs on preventing EA in children after general anesthesia.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched until 25 November 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed EA in patients less than 18 years old who underwent general anesthesia. We excluded studies that did not use a specific evaluation to assess EA.
RESULTS
Nine studies (951 participants) were included in this systematic review. Melatonin significantly reduced the incidence of EA compared with placebos (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.61, P < 0.01) and midazolam (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, P < 0.01). Dexmedetomidine remarkably decreased the incidence of EA compared with melatonin (risk ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.73, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Melatonin premedication significantly decreases the incidence of EA compared with placebos and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine premedication has a stronger effect than melatonin in preventing EA. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted to reinforce and validate the conclusion on the efficacy of melatonin premedication in mitigating EA in pediatric patients.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Melatonin; Sevoflurane; Methyl Ethers; Premedication
PubMed: 38037000
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02356-x -
Neurocritical Care Apr 2024The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) administration for antiseizure treatment in adults. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) administration for antiseizure treatment in adults.
METHODS
Embase and Medline literature databases were searched. We included randomized trials and cohort studies (excluding case series) of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) examining in-MDZ administration for epilepsy, epileptic seizures, or status epilepticus published in English between 1985 and 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility based on predefined criteria. The primary outcome was the efficacy of in-MDZ administration, and the secondary outcome was its tolerability. Extracted data included study design, patient characteristics, intervention details, and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies with 929 individuals treated with in-MDZ were included. Most studies were retrospective, with their number increasing over time. Administered in-MDZ doses ranged from 2.5 to 20 mg per single dose. The mean proportion of successful seizure termination after first in-MDZ administration was 72.7% (standard deviation [SD] 18%), and the proportion of seizure recurrence or persistent seizures ranged from 61 to 75%. Most frequent adverse reactions to in-MDZ were dizziness (mean 23.5% [SD 38.6%]), confusion (one study; 17.4%), local irritation (mean 16.6% [SD 9.6%]), and sedation (mean 12.7% [SD 9.7%]).
CONCLUSIONS
Administration of in-MDZ seems promising for the treatment of prolonged epileptic seizures and seizure clusters in adults. Limited evidence suggests that intranasal administration is safe. Further research is warranted because of the heterogeneity of cohorts, the variation in dosages, and the lack of uniformity in defining successful seizure termination.
PubMed: 38580802
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-024-01971-x