-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Newborn infants affected by hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) undergo therapeutic hypothermia. As this treatment seems to be associated with pain, and intensive and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants affected by hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) undergo therapeutic hypothermia. As this treatment seems to be associated with pain, and intensive and invasive care is needed, pharmacological interventions are often used. Moreover, painful procedures in the newborn period can affect pain responses later in life, impair brain development, and possibly have a long-term negative impact on neurodevelopment and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management in newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. Primary outcomes were analgesia and sedation, and all-cause mortality to discharge.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the trial register ISRCTN in August 2021. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs and cluster-randomized trials comparing drugs used for the management of pain or sedation, or both, during therapeutic hypothermia: any opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl), alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine), N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist (e.g. ketamine), other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol), and sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) versus another drug, placebo, no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions. Primary outcomes were analgesia and sedation, and all-cause mortality to discharge.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. We planned to assess the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomization, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We planned to evaluate treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any completed studies for inclusion. Amongst the four excluded studies, topiramate and atropine were used in two and one trial, respectively; one study used dexmedetomidine and was initially reported in 2019 to be a randomized trial. However, it was an observational study (correction in 2021). We identified one ongoing study comparing dexmedetomidine to morphine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no studies that met our inclusion criteria and hence there is no evidence to recommend or refute the use of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management in newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Clonidine; Hypothermia, Induced; Pain; Morphine Derivatives; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36354070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015023.pub2 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jan 2023Sedation techniques and drugs are increasingly used in children undergoing imaging procedures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an overview of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sedation techniques and drugs are increasingly used in children undergoing imaging procedures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an overview of literature concerning sedation of children aged 0-8 yr for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures using needle-free pharmacological techniques.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies on the use of needle-free pharmacological sedation techniques for MRI procedures in children aged 0-8 yr. Studies using i.v. or i.m. medication or advanced airway devices were excluded. We performed a meta-analysis on sedation success rate. Secondary outcomes were onset time, duration, recovery, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven studies were included, with 22 380 participants. The pooled success rate for oral chloral hydrate was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.96); for oral chloral hydrate and intranasal dexmedetomidine 95% (95% CI: 0.92-0.97); for rectal, oral, or intranasal midazolam 36% (95% CI: 0.14-0.65); for oral pentobarbital 99% (95% CI: 0.90-1.00); for rectal thiopental 92% (95% CI: 0.85-0.96); for oral melatonin 75% (95% CI: 0.54-0.89); for intranasal dexmedetomidine 62% (95% CI: 0.38-0.82); for intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam 94% (95% CI: 0.78-0.99); and for inhaled sevoflurane 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
We found a large variation in medication, dosage, and route of administration for needle-free sedation. Success rates for sedation techniques varied between 36% and 98%.
Topics: Child; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Administration, Oral; Chloral Hydrate; Administration, Intranasal; Conscious Sedation
PubMed: 36283870
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.09.007 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2021Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. This is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2016, which aimed to determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure in adults and children.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to May 2020 together with reference checking to identify additional studies. We imposed no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials of midazolam in comparison with placebo or other medications used for sedation were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study.
RESULTS
Eight new trials were included in this update, which resulted in changed conclusions for the intravenous midazolam versus placebo, oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate and oral midazolam versus placebo comparisons. Effect estimates for all outcomes within the intravenous midazolam versus placebo (7 trials; 633 adults and 32 children) are uncertain due to concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Midazolam resulted in a higher level of sedation than placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.69 to 1.41; 1 study; 100 adults). There was no difference in anxiety (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.99; I = 75%; 2 studies; 123 adults). Risk of difficulty performing procedures was lower in the midazolam group (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; I = 45%; 3 studies; 191 adults and 32 children). There was no difference in discomfort (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.04; I = 0%; 2 studies; 190 adults). Five trials with 336 children were included in the oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate comparison. Midazolam was less likely to result in moderate sedation (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82; I = 64%; 2 studies, 228 participants). This effect estimate is highly uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. There was no difference in ratings of anxiety (SMD - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.75 to 0.23; I = 0%; 2 studies; 68 participants). Midazolam increased risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; I = 0%; 4 studies, 268 participants). This effect estimate is uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias. There were four trials with 359 adults and 77 children included in the oral midazolam versus placebo comparison. Midazolam reduced ratings of anxiety (SMD - 1.01; 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.16; I = 92%; 4 studies; 436 participants). It is unclear if midazolam has an effect on difficulty performing procedures. Meta-analysis was not performed because there was only one incomplete procedure in the midazolam group in one of the trials. Midazolam reduced pain in one study with 99 adults (MD - 2; 95% CI - 2.5 to - 1.6; moderate quality). The effect estimate is uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
The additional evidence arising from inclusion of new studies in this updated review has not produced sufficient high-quality evidence to determine whether midazolam produces more effective sedation than other medications or placebo in any specific population included in this review. For adults, there was low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam did not reduce the risk of anxiety or discomfort/pain in comparison to placebo, but the sedation level was higher. By combining results from adults and children, there was low-quality evidence of a large reduction in the risk of procedures being difficult to perform with midazolam in comparison to placebo. The effect estimates for this comparison are uncertain because there was concern about risk of bias and imprecision. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less-effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures. Ratings of anxiety were not different between oral midazolam and chloral hydrate. The extent to which giving oral midazolam to adults or children decreases anxiety during procedures compared with placebo is uncertain due to concerns about risk of bias and imprecision. There was moderate-quality evidence from one study that oral midazolam reduced the severity of discomfort/pain for adults during a brief diagnostic procedure in comparison with placebo.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Anxiety; Child; Chloral Hydrate; Humans; Midazolam
PubMed: 33673878
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01617-5 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation. The authors...
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation. The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses. Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), = 30%, <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), = 0%, < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), = 0%, = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol. Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.
PubMed: 34381792
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.655042 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jun 2024Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.
METHODS
The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I = 30%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38907338
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02570-1 -
Cureus Aug 2022Children are particularly terrified of having dental treatment. They are physically resistant, frail, and unwilling to cooperate. This severe distress during the... (Review)
Review
Children are particularly terrified of having dental treatment. They are physically resistant, frail, and unwilling to cooperate. This severe distress during the pre-operative phase could cause the dentist to have issues with behavior control. Additionally, it may make pediatric dental treatments less effective. In order to reduce anxiety and control behavior in children receiving dental care, sedation is a pharmacological management technique that supports the provision of effective and high-quality dental services. The aim is to compare and evaluate the efficacy of sedative agents like dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric dental practice. A thorough review of the literature was conducted using electronic databases like "MEDLINE, PubMed, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, www.clinicaltrials.gov, conference proceedings abstracts, a bibliography of pertinent references, and manual searches of journals, conferences, and books". There were no restrictions on the language or the date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials were included which compared dexmedetomidine and midazolam in children up to 16 years of age subjected to dental treatment. Information on procedures, participants, interventions, outcome measures, and results were independently extracted by three review writers (TS, SL, and RO). Trial authors were contacted for papers that were confusing or lacking information. The risk of bias was evaluated for each study. We adhered to the Cochrane statistical recommendations. Three trials totaling 229 participants were included. All three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias, with none of them having a high or unclear risk. Meta-analysis was done for the available data for the primary outcomes like sedation level and recovery time. We searched for randomized controlled trials up to Jan 31, 2020. Participants are randomly assigned to an intervention or control group in randomized controlled trial research. While patients in the control group often get a placebo therapy or procedure, those in the interventional group receive the treatment being studied. We found three studies eligible to include in the review. One study evaluated 73 individuals who received general anesthesia for dental treatment. There were 72 and 84 individuals in the second and third investigations, respectively. All the participants of the three studies were divided randomly into two groups and were subjected to dexmedetomidine and midazolam as sedative agents. We gave the evidence an "extremely low certainty" rating. Because there are just three short trials with unusual parameters for comparison, the results are questionable. Overall, the results do not allow us to draw any firm conclusions. Three randomized controlled trials included in this systematic review reported data with varying conclusions; hence we recommend more randomized controlled trials to be conducted on this subject matter.
PubMed: 36176880
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28452 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2023Up to 60% of pediatric surgical patients develop high levels of preoperative anxiety. This study compared the effects of oral combinations of midazolam and ketamine with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Up to 60% of pediatric surgical patients develop high levels of preoperative anxiety. This study compared the effects of oral combinations of midazolam and ketamine with oral midazolam alone for pediatric preanesthetic medication.
METHODS
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42020172920. A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing oral combinations of midazolam and ketamine with midazolam alone as preanesthetic medication in elective surgical pediatric patients. Meta-analyses included the following outcomes: anxiety and sedation levels, child...s behavior during separation from parents, face mask acceptance, and venipuncture. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were included. The following effects (RR (95% CI)) were observed for combinations of ketamine and midazolam relative midazolam alone: anxiolysis (1.2 (0.94...1.52); p.ß=.ß0.15; I2.ß=.ß80%; GRADE.ß=.ßvery low); satisfactory sedation (1.2 ( 1.10...1.31); p.ß<.ß0.001; I2.ß=.ß71%; GRADE.ß=.ßvery low); behavior during parental separation (1.2 (1.06...1.36); p.ß=.ß0.003; I2.ß=.ß88%; GRADE.ß=.ßvery low); facial mask acceptance (1.13 (1.04...1.24); p.ß=.ß0.007; I2.ß=.ß49%; GRADE.ß=.ßvery low); behavior during venipuncture (1.32 (1.11...1.57); p.ß=.ß0.002; I2.ß=.ß66%; GRADE.ß=.ßvery low).
CONCLUSIONS
While similar probabilities of obtaining anxiolysis were found, adequate sedation, calm behavior during child...s separation from parents, low levels of fear during face mask adaptation, and cooperative behavior during peripheral venous cannulation were more likely with midazolam-ketamine combinations.
Topics: Child; Humans; Midazolam; Ketamine; Preanesthetic Medication; Anxiety; Anesthesia; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 34411631
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.07.026 -
Cureus Jan 2023Midazolam nasal spray (MDZ-NS) is a new emerging rescue medication that suppresses epileptic seizures. Until now, few studies, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic... (Review)
Review
Midazolam nasal spray (MDZ-NS) is a new emerging rescue medication that suppresses epileptic seizures. Until now, few studies, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles, and clinical trials have shown that midazolam nasal spray could become an effective and promising alternative to conventional routes (intravenous {IV}/rectal). Therefore, we thought of conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of midazolam (MDZ) to assess its potential outcomes. The analysis was also evaluated based on the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of midazolam nasal spray. A systematic literature search was carried out through various databases to identify studies of accounted outcomes of midazolam nasal spray (MDZ-NS). Randomized and other studies of patients (12 years or older) with seizure clusters (SCs) were included. A total of three full-text articles were considered for systematic review and meta-analysis as per the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The 5 mg MDZ-NS was observed to be equally safe as a placebo, and the risk ratio (RR) was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-1.53). After the administration of MDZ-NS, either the patients remained seizure-free for six hours or more or the seizure was terminated within 10 minutes and had no recurrence between 10 minutes and six hours. The risk ratio (RR) obtained was 1.54 (95% CI: 1.25-1.91). The result was statistically significant as a higher success rate was observed with the use of 5 mg midazolam nasal spray compared to placebo (p < 0.0001). Heterogeneity was not observed in the results of the included studies (inconsistency index {I}: 0%). The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that 5 mg midazolam nasal spray was efficacious in treating patients with seizure clusters and is well-tolerated. Also, its use is relatively safe.
PubMed: 36843713
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.34064 -
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology Mar 2023the role of benzodiazepines in relieving dyspnea in patients with cancer has not yet been established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
the role of benzodiazepines in relieving dyspnea in patients with cancer has not yet been established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of benzodiazepines alone or in combination with opioids for dyspnea in patients with cancer.
METHODS
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Ichushi-Web were searched for articles published from database inception to 23 September 2019. Studies of benzodiazepines alone or in combination with opioids for dyspnea were included. The primary outcome measure was the relief of dyspnea. The secondary outcome measures were anxiety, somnolence and severe adverse events.
RESULTS
of 505 publications initially identified, two trials and one trial were included in the meta-analysis of midazolam alone and in combination with morphine, respectively. With regard to the relief of dyspnea, midazolam alone showed no significant difference compared with morphine alone, with a relative risk of 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.47-1.89). Meanwhile, midazolam plus morphine was significantly more effective than morphine alone, with a relative risk of 1.33 (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.75). For anxiety relief, a meta-analysis could not be performed because of insufficient data. The incidence of somnolence and severe adverse events was not significantly different between the experimental and control groups for either midazolam alone or in combination with morphine.
CONCLUSIONS
benzodiazepines alone do not significantly improve dyspnea compared with opioids alone, but a combination of benzodiazepines and opioids may be more effective. Evidence from randomized controlled trials focusing on patients with cancer has not been generated in recent years. Further appropriately designed randomized controlled trials are required.
Topics: Humans; Benzodiazepines; Midazolam; Sleepiness; Dyspnea; Neoplasms; Morphine; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 36636762
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyac206 -
Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 2021The aim of this study was to systematically identify and evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of intranasal midazolam sedation compared with midazolam... (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this study was to systematically identify and evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of intranasal midazolam sedation compared with midazolam administered through other routes in the sedation and behavior management of children during dental treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The search was done using electronic databases such as PubMed Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS, ScienceDirect, and SIGLE. All studies comparing the sedative effect and behavior management effectiveness of intranasal midazolam with midazolam administered through other routes in children were included.
RESULTS
Electronic database search identified 163 articles, out of which 143 were excluded after reading titles and removing duplication. The remaining 20 studies were evaluated in detail. A final of 13 studies were included based on the inclusion criteria. Among the 13 studies included in the present review, a high risk of bias was noted in all the 13 articles. There was no adequate blinding of personnel and participants in the study, allocation concealment was improper and presence of inadequate blinding of the outcome assessment. . Statistically, no significant difference was observed between intranasal midazolam and other midazolam routes on behavior and sedation level in the studies included in this review.
CONCLUSION
Limited studies are available pertaining to the sedative and behavioral effects of intranasal midazolam, and thus, this review recommends need for more research evaluating the sedative effect of intranasal midazolam in comparison with midazolam administered through other routes in the behavior management of children during dental treatment.
PubMed: 34220149
DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_470_20