-
Tropical Medicine & International... Oct 2021Tetanus is a rare life-threatening condition often complicated by repetitive spasms, dysautonomia and neuromuscular respiratory failure contributing to high fatality...
Tetanus is a rare life-threatening condition often complicated by repetitive spasms, dysautonomia and neuromuscular respiratory failure contributing to high fatality rates in its severe form. Benzodiazepines used to treat muscle spasms pose a high risk of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, which is unaffordable and inaccessible for many. Magnesium sulfate, a cheap and widely available medication in all urban and rural health centres of LMICs for the treatment of eclampsia, can be used to control muscle spasms and dysautonomia. We thus conducted a systematic review of evidence to assess the safety and efficacy of magnesium sulfate in the treatment of tetanus. Any study published before April 15, 2021, discussing the efficacy and/or safety of MgSO4 infusion in the treatment of tetanus was systemically reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Our systematic review included data from 13 studies, three were randomised, double-blind and controlled trials. The remaining ten studies were observational; six prospective and four retrospective studies. Our review showed no mortality benefit associated with the use of magnesium sulfate. However, magnesium sulfate was found to be effective in reducing spasms along with diazepam, leading to better control of dysautonomia, reduced need for mechanical ventilation and shorter hospital stay by 3-7 days. The incidence of magnesium toxicity was very low in the studies included.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Magnesium Sulfate; Tetanus
PubMed: 34403179
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.13667 -
Epilepsy Research Jan 2024Developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy with spike-and-wave activation in sleep (D/EE-SWAS), also referred to as electrical status epilepticus during sleep (ESES)...
INTRODUCTION
Developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy with spike-and-wave activation in sleep (D/EE-SWAS), also referred to as electrical status epilepticus during sleep (ESES) or epileptic encephalopathy with continuous spike-and-wave during sleep (CSWS or EE-CSWS), is a spectrum of rare childhood epileptic encephalopathies that can lead to long-term cognitive impairment. Despite the importance of early diagnosis and intervention for D/EE-SWAS, there is a paucity of well-controlled clinical trial data to inform treatment, and no approved treatments are available. To assess correlations between diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in D/EE-SWAS, we carried out a systematic review of the literature.
METHODS
In August 2020, we conducted comprehensive database searches using search terms including "electrical status epilepticus," "ESES," "CSWS," and "Landau-Kleffner syndrome." Two or more independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for those that met the following criteria: prospective studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] or open-label trials), retrospective studies (drug evaluations or observational studies/chart reviews), and case series with ≥ 10 participants. Both interventional and non-interventional studies were included (i.e., drug intervention was not an inclusion criterion). Articles published before 2012, review articles, animal studies, and studies of surgical or dietary interventions were excluded. Standardized data extraction templates were used to capture data on study design, patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes from each of the selected publications. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) or the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for retrospective, observational studies.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies were included for full data extraction, most of which were uncontrolled and observational. Interpretation of study outcomes was limited by small study populations, variability in inclusion criteria, and inconsistency in methods of assessment and reporting of outcomes, which resulted in large heterogeneity in patients and their presenting symptoms. Despite these limitations, some patterns could be discerned. Several studies found that longer duration of ESES and younger age at onset were correlated with more severe language and cognitive deficits. In addition, several studies reported an association between improvement in cognitive outcomes and reduction in electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities and/or seizure frequency. In the 16 prospective or retrospective studies that evaluated drug treatments (e.g., antiseizure medications, corticosteroids, and high-dose diazepam), there was some improvement in EEG, seizure, and/or cognitive outcomes, although the specific outcomes and rates of improvement reported varied from study to study.
CONCLUSION
Long-term cognitive deficits remain common in D/EE-SWAS, and data gaps exist in the literature that preclude an evidence-based approach to managing this complex epilepsy indication. Early intervention with more effective medications is needed to optimize long-term outcomes. Sufficiently powered, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials with standardized methods and predefined primary and secondary outcomes are needed.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cognition Disorders; Electroencephalography; Epilepsy, Generalized; Landau-Kleffner Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 38157757
DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2023.107278 -
Cureus Apr 2023Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality with fatal outcomes if not treated well. The goal of this study was to... (Review)
Review
Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality with fatal outcomes if not treated well. The goal of this study was to compare the intramuscular and intravenous treatment of individuals with status epilepticus. A search was performed on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for articles published in the English language in peer-reviewed publications up to March 1, 2023. Studies were included if the treatment of status epileptics was compared either directly or indirectly between intramuscular and intravenous methods. In addition, relevant papers were manually screened for in the reference lists of the included studies. Non-duplicate articles were identified. Finally, five articles were included in the analysis, of which four were randomized controlled trials and one was a retrospective cohort study. The intramuscular midazolam group's time until the first seizure stopped was significantly shorter than the intravenous diazepam group's time (7.8 versus 11.2 minutes, respectively; p = 0.047). Moreover, the percentage of patients admitted was significantly lower in the intramuscular group than in the intravenous group (p = 0.01), but the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital did not differ significantly between the groups. Regarding seizure recurrence, the intramuscular group had fewer incidences of recurrent seizures. Finally, there were no appreciable differences in safety outcomes between the two treatment arms. During the analysis, different outcomes reported after the use of intramuscular and intravenous treatments in managing patients with status epilepticus were categorized. This categorization led to a clear view of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular versus intravenous treatments in managing status epilepticus patients. The information at hand indicates that intramuscular therapy is just as successful as intravenous therapy in treating people with status epilepticus. The availability, adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, cost, and whether it is included in hospital formularies are some of the factors to be taken into consideration when choosing the drug administration technique.
PubMed: 37252570
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38212 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Midazolam is recommended by health guidelines for sedation and hypnosis in children. Oral solution is a suitable dosage form for children. But there is no conclusive...
Midazolam is recommended by health guidelines for sedation and hypnosis in children. Oral solution is a suitable dosage form for children. But there is no conclusive evidence for sedative-hypnosis and antianxiety effects by midazolam oral solution in children. Relevant studies were identified through searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, International Pharmaceuticals, four Chinese electronic databases, and relevant lists. Two reviewers independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted the data. Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing midazolam oral solution with placebo or blank ( = 33), dexmedetomidine ( = 15), ketamine ( = 11), different midazolam doses ( = 10), midazolam injection ( = 8), chloral hydrate ( = 7), diazepam ( = 5), NO ( = 5), triclofos ( = 4), butorphanol ( = 2), fentanyl ( = 2), hydroxyzine ( = 1), and thiopental ( = 1) were identified. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the success rate and duration of sedation and hypnosis between midazolam oral and injectable solution ( > 0.05). The success rate of sedation and hypnosis of midazolam was higher than that of ketamine [risk ratio (RR) = 1.32, 95% CI (1.07, 1.62), = 0%, < 0.01]. No significant difference was found in the success rate of sedation and hypnosis, mask acceptance, and parental separation between midazolam oral solution and dexmedetomidine ( > 0.05), and the result of one cohort study was consistent. The results of RCTs and a prospective cohort study showed that the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADR) was 19.57% (189/966). Incidence of adverse reactions between dose groups of (0.25, 0.5] and (0.5, 1.0] mg/kg was similar [Pf (95% CI) = 0.10 (0.04, 0.24) and Pf (95% CI) = 0.09 (0.02, 0.39), respectively], higher than that of the dose group of (0, 0.25] mg/kg [Pf (95% CI) = 0.01 (0.00, 0.19)]. Available evidence suggests that midazolam oral solution is as good as midazolam injection and dexmedetomidine and is better than ketamine. Based on efficacy and safety results, an oral midazolam solution dose of 0.5-1 mg/kg is recommended for children.
PubMed: 32256348
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00225 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative versus control (placebo, usual treatment or non-pharmacological treatment) for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids and determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opioid dependence with more than 80% follow-up and using randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised allocation to sedative or control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (581 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. There were multiple comparisons of different sedatives and regimens. There were limited data available for use in sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias. Phenobarbital versus supportive care: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with phenobarbital and supportive care versus supportive care alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 7.94; 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No infant had a clinical seizure. The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and treatment from use of phenobarbital (hospitalisation: mean difference (MD) 20.80, 95% CI 13.64 to 27.96; treatment: MD 17.90, 95% CI 11.98 to 23.82; both 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus diazepam: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus diazepam (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation and treatment (hospitalisation: MD 3.89, 95% CI -1.20 to 8.98; 32 participants; treatment: MD 4.30, 95% CI -0.73 to 9.33; 31 participants; both low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 138 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and no infant had a seizure. The studies did not report mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation (MD 7.00, 95% CI -3.51 to 17.51; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 0/100 infants had an adverse event. Phenobarbital and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported no infants with treatment failure and no clinical seizures in either group (low-certainty evidence). The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be a reduction in days' hospitalisation for infants treated with phenobarbital and opioid (MD -43.50, 95% CI -59.18 to -27.82; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Clonidine and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with clonidine and dilute tincture of opium (DTO) versus DTO alone (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All five infants with treatment failure were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in seizures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three infants with seizures were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in mortality after discharge (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 131.28; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three deaths were in the clonidine and DTO group. The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be little or no difference in days' treatment (MD -4.00, 95% CI -8.33 to 0.33; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One adverse event occurred in the clonidine and DTO group. There may be little or no difference in rebound NAS after stopping treatment, although all seven cases were in the clonidine and DTO group. Clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid: there may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.25; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported one infant in the clonidine and morphine group had a seizure, and there were no infant mortalities. The studies did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid(hospitalisation: MD 7.13, 95% CI 6.38 to 7.88; treatment: MD 7.57, 95% CI 3.97 to 11.17; both 2 studies, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.40; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was oversedation only in the phenobarbital and morphine group; and hypotension, rebound hypertension and rebound NAS only in the clonidine and morphine group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital increases duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but reduces days to regain birthweight and duration of supportive care each day compared to supportive care alone. There is low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to diazepam and very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to chlorpromazine. There is low-certainty evidence of an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid compared to phenobarbital and opioid. There are insufficient data to determine the safety and incidence of adverse events for infants treated with combinations of opioids and sedatives including phenobarbital and clonidine.
Topics: Bias; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34002380
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002053.pub4 -
Acta Pharmaceutica (Zagreb, Croatia) Mar 2023The current meta-analysis searched the literature connected to different tranquilizers used to treat elderly people and assessed it in terms of dose, types of outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The current meta-analysis searched the literature connected to different tranquilizers used to treat elderly people and assessed it in terms of dose, types of outcomes and adverse effects, to determine a safe and acceptable tranquilizer and its optimal dose. A systematic literature review was undertaken for randomized controlled trials, case-control, retrospective and prospective studies on the use of tranquilizers in elderly patients, using PubMed, Ebsco, SCOPUS and Web of Science. PICOS criteria were used to select studies, and pertinent event data was collected. This meta-analysis includes 16 randomized control trials spanning the years 2000 to 2022, using the data from 2224 patients. The trials that were included used various tranquilizers such as diazepam, alprazolam, temazepam and lorazepam, and indicated high treatment efficacy and low adverse effects. With a -value of 0.853 for Egger's test and 0.13 for Begg's test, the current meta-analysis shows a minimal probability of publication bias. A recent meta-analysis supports the use of tranquilizers in older people to treat sleeplessness, epilepsy or anxiety, but only at modest doses, because large doses are harmful and produce numerous withdrawal symptoms.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Diazepam; Epilepsy; Noncommunicable Diseases; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36692463
DOI: 10.2478/acph-2023-0003 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2023Postictal agitation (PIA) after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a serious clinical problem estimated to occur in 7-36% of patients and recur in 19-54% of patients....
BACKGROUND
Postictal agitation (PIA) after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a serious clinical problem estimated to occur in 7-36% of patients and recur in 19-54% of patients. PIA has the potential to cause dangerous situations for the patient and staff members aside from the financial impact. To date, it is unclear which pharmacological interventions should be used in the management of PIA. This study aimed to systematically review the (preventative) pharmacological treatment options for PIA after ECT.
METHOD
A systematic search was done in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception until 10 November 2022. We included randomized trials with any pharmacological intervention or comparison and a predefined outcome measure on PIA. Studies that solely included patients with neurodegenerative disorders or stroke were excluded. Data quality was assessed with the RoB2 and GRADE. Meta-analysis was performed if possible. This study was registered on PROSPERO under CRD42021262323.
RESULTS
We screened 2,204 articles and included 14 studies. Dexmedetomidine was investigated in 10 studies. Alfentanil, lignocaine, esmolol, midazolam, propofol, ketamine, haloperidol, and diazepam were each studied in only one study. Meta-analysis revealed an OR of 0.45 (0.32-0.63), a moderate effect size, in favor of dexmedetomidine than placebo to prevent PIA with very low heterogeneity (I = 0%). The certainty of the evidence was moderate. The other interventions studied were all found to have low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION
For clinical practice, we believe that our results indicate that dexmedetomidine should be considered for the prevention of PIA in patients that have previously experienced PIA.
PubMed: 37151968
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1170931 -
Journal of Neurology Jul 2022Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for controlling seizures in adults with convulsive status epilepticus before, or at, arrival at hospital.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing antiepileptic drugs offered to adults as first-line treatments. Major electronic databases were searched.
RESULTS
Four RCTs (1234 adults) were included. None were conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal or intranasal midazolam. Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics were more effective than placebo and, notably, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Overall, median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 2 to 15 min. Rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments ranged from 6.4 to 10.6%. Mortality ranged from 2 to 7.6% in active treatment groups and 6.2 to 15.5% in control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous and intramuscular benzodiazepines are safe and effective in this clinical context. Further research is needed to establish the most clinically and cost-effective first-line treatment and preferable mode of administration. Head-to-head trials comparing buccal versus intranasal midazolam versus rectal diazepam would provide useful information to inform the management of the first stage of convulsive status epilepticus in adults, especially when intravenous or intramuscular access is not feasible. Approaches to improve adherence to clinical guidelines on the use of currently available benzodiazepines for the first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus should also be considered.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Diazepam; Humans; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Seizures; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 35094154
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-022-10979-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Developments in ultrasound assessment of pregnancy has resulted in the increasing diagnosis of antenatal fetal issues. Many structural fetal conditions as well as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Developments in ultrasound assessment of pregnancy has resulted in the increasing diagnosis of antenatal fetal issues. Many structural fetal conditions as well as complications associated with multiple pregnancies have the potential for in-utero treatment to improve both pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Procedures such as laser ablation for twin-twin syndrome or cord occlusion for selective fetal termination require fetal immobilisation. Immobilisation of the fetus can occur through administration of medication to the mother or directly to the fetus. This improves procedural success and reduces the ongoing risk to the pregnancy. Evidence regarding the best medication and mode of delivery helps to ensure the optimal decision is made for both the mother and the fetus.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of perioperative pharmacological interventions for fetal immobilisation during fetal surgery and invasive procedures on fetal, neonatal, and maternal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (10 May 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including published abstracts) which compared different classes of medication administered to the mother or fetus to allow in-utero procedures to be performed. We also included cluster-randomised trials but excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
One study with three trial reports met the inclusion criteria. This involved 54 women with a multiple pregnancy. The study was conducted in a tertiary European hospital maternal-fetal medicine unit and compared remifentanil to diazepam for fetal immobilisation and maternal sedation during fetoscopic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggested that remifentanil may reduce fetal movement more than diazepam for two outcomes of fetal movement, one of fetal immobilisation at 40 minutes using a visual analogue score (VAS) (where 0 = immobile and 100 = baseline mobility), and one of gross body and limb movements (score was absolute number of movements), both assessed by a sonographer evaluating a taped ultrasound sequence (mean difference (MD) -65.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -69.38 to -60.62 and MD -10.00, 95% CI -11.62 to -8.38; 1 study, 50 women). Surgeons may also report being more satisfied with the procedure when using remifentanil rather than diazepam (risk ratio (RR) 2.88, 95% CI 1.60 to 5.15; 1 study, 50 women; low-certainty evidence). However, maternal respiratory rate may decrease more during the surgical procedure with remifentanil compared with diazepam (MD -6.00, 95% CI -8.29 to -3.71; 1 study, 50 women; low-certainty evidence). Maternal sedation may also be worse with remifentanil compared with diazepam (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.65; 1 study, 50 women; low-certainty evidence) measured using an observer assessment of alertness/sedation (where a score of < 4 equates to profound sedation and > 4 equates to insufficient sedation). Perinatal mortality and time taken to perform the procedure were not reported in the trial. We prespecified 20 outcomes and planned to use GRADE for 6 of them, all other outcomes were not able to be reported against for the purpose of meta-analysis due to data not being provided or unable to be interpreted. We assessed the included study at low risk of selection bias (appropriate random sequence generation and allocation concealment), performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel), detection bias (outcome assessors were blinded), attrition bias (incomplete outcome data minimal), and reporting bias. Our GRADE assessment for certainty of the evidence indicates that there is low certainty of the evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were only able to include one study with a small number of women, from a single centre, a European tertiary hospital. This study was published in 2005 with an abstract of this trial published in 2004. This study evaluated two intravenous medications administered to the mother - remifentanil and diazepam. This study reported our prespecified primary outcome but only evaluated several of our secondary outcomes, which limited further assessment. Low-certainty evidence suggested that remifentanil may be better at reducing fetal movements and surgeons were more satisfied with the procedure. However, maternal sedation and depression of breathing may be worse with remifentanil. Further high-quality RCTs assessing both fetal and maternal medications are required to evaluate their efficacy for fetal immobilisation as well as safety for both mother and fetus.
Topics: Diazepam; Female; Fetus; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Perinatal Mortality; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Remifentanil
PubMed: 35553414
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011068.pub2 -
BMJ Open Jan 2021It can be challenging to manage patients who are anxious during dental procedures. There is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in...
OBJECTIVES
It can be challenging to manage patients who are anxious during dental procedures. There is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in adults. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in patients undergoing dental procedures.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) compared the oral use of benzodiazepines and other medications with a placebo or other oral agents in adult patients. A search of the Cochrane (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via Ovid) databases was conducted, without any restrictions on language or date of publication. The primary outcomes included the adverse effects and anxiety level. The secondary outcomes included sedation, satisfaction with the treatment, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation. Reviewers, independently and in pairs, assessed each citation for eligibility, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis of the data was provided.
RESULTS
A number of RCTs (n=327 patients) assessed the use of benzodiazepines (n=9) and herbal medicines (n=3). We found good satisfaction with treatment after the use of midazolam 7.5 mg or clonidine 150 µg and reduced anxiety with alprazolam (0.5 and 0.75 mg). Midazolam 15 mg promoted greater anxiety reduction than L. 260 mg, while 100 mg and 500 mg were more effective than a placebo. More patients reported adverse effects with midazolam 15 mg. Diazepam 15 mg and 100 mg promoted less change in the heart rate and blood pressure than a placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the limitations of the findings due to the quality of the included studies and the different comparisons made between interventions, further RCTs are required to confirm the effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in dentistry.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017057142.
Topics: Adult; Alprazolam; Anesthesia; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam; Humans; Midazolam
PubMed: 33495257
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043363