-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Mechanical ventilation is a potentially painful and discomforting intervention that is widely used in neonatal intensive care. Newborn infants demonstrate increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mechanical ventilation is a potentially painful and discomforting intervention that is widely used in neonatal intensive care. Newborn infants demonstrate increased sensitivity to pain, which may affect clinical and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The use of drugs that reduce pain might be important in improving survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of opioid analgesics for neonates (term or preterm) receiving mechanical ventilation compared to placebo or no drug, other opioids, or other analgesics or sedatives.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 29 September 2020); Embase (1980 to 29 September 2020); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 29 September 2020). 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 randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing opioids to placebo or no drug, to other opioids, or to other analgesics or sedatives in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. We excluded cross-over trials. We included term (≥ 37 weeks' gestational age) and preterm (< 37 weeks' gestational age) newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. We included any duration of drug treatment and any dosage given continuously or as bolus; we excluded studies that gave opioids to ventilated infants for procedures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For each of the included trials, we independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, types of opioids) using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies (enrolling 2023 infants) published between 1992 and 2019. Fifteen studies (1632 infants) compared the use of morphine or fentanyl versus placebo or no intervention. Four studies included both term and preterm infants, and one study only term infants; all other studies included only preterm infants, with five studies including only very preterm infants. We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) Scale in the first 12 hours after infusion (MD -5.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.88 to -4.59; 50 participants, 2 studies) and between 12 and 48 hours after infusion (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.61; 963 participants, 3 studies) because of limitations in study design, high heterogeneity (inconsistency), and imprecision of estimates (very low-certainty evidence - GRADE). The use of morphine or fentanyl probably has little or no effect in reducing duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.23 days, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.83; 1259 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence because of unclear risk of bias in most studies) and neonatal mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; 1189 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence because of imprecision of estimates). We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.29; 78 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence because of serious imprecision of the estimates and indirectness). Limited data were available for the other comparisons (i.e. two studies (54 infants) on morphine versus midazolam, three (222 infants) on morphine versus fentanyl, and one each on morphine versus diamorphine (88 infants), morphine versus remifentanil (20 infants), fentanyl versus sufentanil (20 infants), and fentanyl versus remifentanil (24 infants)). For these comparisons, no meta-analysis was conducted because outcomes were reported by one study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on pain and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months; the use of morphine or fentanyl probably has little or no effect in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation and neonatal mortality. Data on the other comparisons planned in this review (opioids versus analgesics; opioids versus other opioids) are extremely limited and do not allow any conclusions. In the absence of firm evidence to support a routine policy, opioids should be used selectively - based on clinical judgement and evaluation of pain indicators - although pain measurement in newborns has limitations.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bias; Child Development; Fentanyl; Heroin; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Midazolam; Morphine; Pain, Procedural; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Respiration, Artificial; Sufentanil
PubMed: 33729556
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013732.pub2 -
International Journal of Clinical... 2022To assess and compare the effectiveness of midazolam vs midazolam and ketamine combination in the management of young uncooperative pediatric patients.
Comparative Evaluation of Ease of Dental Treatment and Clinical Efficiency of Midazolam vs Midazolam and Ketamine Combination for Sedation in Young Uncooperative Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review.
AIM
To assess and compare the effectiveness of midazolam vs midazolam and ketamine combination in the management of young uncooperative pediatric patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research question was developed by using population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design framework. The literature search was performed using three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS
Out of 98 preliminary records, five studies were selected for analysis. Three hundred forty-six uncooperative children were randomized through the five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a mean age of 5.8 years. Midazolam with ketamine was the most successful combination for delivering rapid and sufficient analgosedation in uncooperative children. The clinical efficiency of midazolam and ketamine combination had an overall success rate of 84% when compared to ketamine and midazolam alone. 50% of children in the midazolam and ketamine group demonstrated calm behavior, compared to 37% in the midazolam group. 44% of the children experienced modest intra and/or postoperative adverse effects that did not necessitate any special treatment.
CONCLUSION
Midazolam and ketamine combination is more efficient than midazolam alone with respect to ease of treatment and clinical efficiency.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
Rathi GV, Padawe D, Takate V, Comparative Evaluation of Ease of Dental Treatment and Clinical Efficiency of Midazolam vs Midazolam and Ketamine Combination for Sedation in Young Uncooperative Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(6):680-686.
PubMed: 36866134
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2456 -
Cureus Jun 2022We aim to discuss the efficacy and adverse effects of using ketamine in agitated patients in the emergency department (ED) compared with the combination therapy of... (Review)
Review
A Comparative Analysis Between Ketamine Versus Combination of Midazolam and Haloperidol for Rapid Safe Control of Agitated Patients in Emergency Department: A Systematic Review.
We aim to discuss the efficacy and adverse effects of using ketamine in agitated patients in the emergency department (ED) compared with the combination therapy of haloperidol with benzodiazepine. This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search from PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was conducted from their inception to 30 April 2022. We included agitated patients in ED who were given infusion with ketamine only. Our comparative group was patients infused with combined therapy of haloperidol and benzodiazepine. We did not include letters, case reports, abstracts, conference papers, appraisals, reviews, and studies where full text was unavailable. We did not put any language restrictions. Three studies were selected in our manuscript (one cohort and two randomized controlled trials). All three studies showed that ketamine was used to achieve sedation in less time than the other group. However, two studies reported significantly more adverse effects in ketamine-infused groups. We concluded that ketamine use is superior when its primary focus is to sedate the patient as quickly as possible, but it carries some side effects that should be considered. However, we still need more studies assessing the efficacy of ketamine in agitated patients presenting in the ED.
PubMed: 35891834
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.26162 -
Cureus Mar 2022Remimazolam is made by combining midazolam and remifentanil as an alternative to conventional sedatives. To evaluate the efficacy of remimazolam for sedation in... (Review)
Review
Efficacy of Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I to IV Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Remimazolam is made by combining midazolam and remifentanil as an alternative to conventional sedatives. To evaluate the efficacy of remimazolam for sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam and midazolam. A search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrial.gov from inception till December 26, 2021, for RCTs that investigated the efficacy of remimazolam during the above-mentioned procedure. There was no restriction of language. A quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. The data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was completed. The systemic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline statement. Three randomized controlled trials involving 539 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam during colonoscopy, remimazolam results in reduced need for top-up doses (RR= 3.45, 95% CI=1.07 to 11.14; P=0.04, I=84%). The need for rescue medication was reduced with remimazolam as compared to midazolam (RR=2.42, 95%CI=1.04 to 5.61; P=0.04, I=96%). There was no significant difference observed between the two drugs on completion of colonoscopy and the overall procedural sedation, but the sensitivity analysis favored remimazolam over midazolam for procedural sedation (RR=4.08, 95%CI=2.35 to 7.09; P<0.00001, I=39%). This analysis demonstrates the advantages of remimazolam over other agents and sets a platform for relevant future studies.
PubMed: 35399486
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.22881 -
European Review For Medical and... Apr 2021Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common complication after surgery. The incidence of POD and delirium risk factors after liver transplantation (LT) have not been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common complication after surgery. The incidence of POD and delirium risk factors after liver transplantation (LT) have not been systematically summarized.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched up to September 15, 2019. All relevant studies that addressed the incidence and risk factors for POD after LT were included and summarized.
RESULTS
Twenty articles with 3417 patients with LT were included. The pooled overall incidence for POD after LT was 0.16 (95% CI 0.12-0.22). The overall incidence (0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.35) in Asians was higher than in Caucasians (0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.19). Encephalopathy (OR 4.16, 95% CI 2.59-6.68, p<0.01), alcoholic liver disease (OR 2.25, 95% CI1.46-3.47, p<0.01), MELD score, midazolam use, duration of ICU stay (day), and duration of hospital stay (day) were significantly associated with POD. POD was a mortality risk factor according to the pooled results of ICU mortality (OR 5.06, 95% CI 1.42-17.99), in-hospital mortality (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.86-8.84), and one-year mortality (OR 4.21, 95% CI 1.94-9.12).
CONCLUSIONS
POD is common after LT and leads to a worse outcome. Several risk factors were consistently associated with POD after LT. The risk factors identified by this study may benefit the prevention and diagnosis of POD. This study is the first to summarize the occurrence of POD after LT.
Topics: Delirium; Humans; Liver Transplantation; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33928610
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202104_25733 -
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 -
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 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Aug 2021In order to increase the sample size and improve the test efficiency from a statistical perspective, we conducted a combined analysis of multiple results from similar... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In order to increase the sample size and improve the test efficiency from a statistical perspective, we conducted a combined analysis of multiple results from similar studies. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the sedative effect of dexmedetomidine on patients after cardiac surgery, so as to provide theoretical basis and help for clinical treatment of cardiac diseases.
METHODS
The Boolean logic search method was employed to search online databases for publications, with "dexmedetomidine", "cardiac surgery", "competitive antagonist", and "analgesic sedation" used as keywords. In addition, the literature was screened for comparative studies on the use of midazolam and propofol as controls. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) of Cochrane Collaborative Network was used to evaluate the pathological control studies in Meta-analysis, and the star rating system (out of 9 stars) was used to measure the results from the subjects, cases and groups. Finally, a meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager software (Cochrane).
RESULTS
Thirteen references containing mostly low-risk biases (medium-high quality) were included in this study. The meta-analysis showed no statistically obvious heterogeneity in the mechanical ventilation time (MVT) between patients in the control group (group A) or patients in the experimental group (group B) (Chi2=74.71; I2=92%; P<0.00001), showing no statistical significance (Z=1.57; P=0.12). Heterogeneity was found as a complication in both groups (Chi2=14.82; I2=60%; P=0.02), but fewer complications were observed in group B (Z=2.06, P=0.04). The sedative effect displayed by patients from the 2 groups during the induction of anesthesia was statistically heterogeneous (Chi2=6.45; I2=38%; P=0.17), but the sedative effect in group B was shown to be greater (Z=3.31, P=0.0009).
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine can significantly reduce the mechanical ventilation time and the incidence of complications in patients after cardiac surgery, and has a high safety and good sedative effect on patients.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol
PubMed: 34488382
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1850 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Nov 2022An ever-growing body of evidence supports the impact of cytokine modulation on the patient's phenotypic drug response. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze... (Review)
Review
The Cytokine Release Syndrome and/or the Proinflammatory Cytokines as Underlying Mechanisms of Downregulation of Drug Metabolism and Drug Transport: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Victim Drugs of this Drug-Disease Interaction Under Different Clinical Conditions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
An ever-growing body of evidence supports the impact of cytokine modulation on the patient's phenotypic drug response. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the clinical studies that assessed the pharmacokinetics of victim drugs of this drug-disease interaction in the presence of different scenarios of cytokine modulation in comparison with baseline conditions.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review by searching the PubMed-MEDLINE database from inception until February 2022 to retrieve prospective and/or retrospective observational studies, population pharmacokinetic studies, phase I studies, and/or case series/reports that investigated the impact of cytokine modulation on the pharmacokinetic behavior of victim drugs. Only studies providing quantitative pharmacokinetic data of victim drugs by comparing normal status versus clinical conditions with documented cytokine modulation or by assessing the influence of anti-inflammatory biological agents on metabolism and/or transport of victim drugs were included.
RESULTS
Overall, 26 studies were included. Rheumatoid arthritis (6/26; 23.1%) and sepsis (5/26; 19.2%) were the two most frequently investigated pro-inflammatory clinical scenarios. The victim drug most frequently assessed was midazolam (14/26; 53.8%; as a probe for cytochrome P450 [CYP] 3A4). Cytokine modulation showed a moderate inhibitory effect on CYP3A4-mediated metabolism (area under the concentration-time curve increase and/or clearance decrease between 1.98-fold and 2.59-fold) and a weak-to-moderate inhibitory effect on CYP1A2, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19-mediated metabolism (in the area under the concentration-time curve increase or clearance decrease between 1.29-fold and 1.97-fold). Anti-interleukin-6 agents showed remarkable activity in counteracting downregulation of CYP3A4-mediated activity (increase in the area under the concentration-time curve between 1.75-fold and 2.56-fold).
CONCLUSIONS
Cytokine modulation may cause moderate or weak-to-moderate downregulation of metabolism/transport of victim drugs, and this may theoretically have relevant clinical consequences.
Topics: Humans; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Cytokines; Down-Regulation; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Drug Interactions
PubMed: 36059001
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-022-01173-8 -
Paediatric Anaesthesia Nov 2019One of the most widely used options for minimal/moderate sedation in pediatric patients is oral midazolam, as it presents an alternative to less well-accepted routes of...
One of the most widely used options for minimal/moderate sedation in pediatric patients is oral midazolam, as it presents an alternative to less well-accepted routes of administration (eg, intravenous or intranasal) of this well-known efficacious and well-tolerated short-acting benzodiazepine. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in order to identify clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of oral midazolam for sedation in pediatric patients in the context of premedication before anesthesia or during diagnostic/treatment procedures. The percentage of responders (response rate) after single administration of oral midazolam was evaluated and compared versus placebo in a subset of placebo-controlled studies. The range of oral midazolam doses providing effective sedation in the different pediatric age subsets was analyzed in order to assess optimum dosing strategies. A total of 25 pediatric clinical studies, utilizing a variety of measures of sedation effectiveness, were selected. These studies included a total of 1472 patients (aged 4 months-18 years) treated with midazolam (0.25-1.5 mg/kg) and 138 patients treated with placebo. The response rates [95% confidence interval] with oral midazolam ranged from 36.7% [21.6%, 54.9%] to 97.8% [86.1%, 99.7%], while with placebo response rates ranged from 4.0% [0.6%, 23.5%] to 41.0% [29.4%, 53.6%]. When considering the 4 placebo-controlled studies, the odds ratios [95% confidence interval] for the comparison of midazolam vs. placebo ranged from 13.4 [5.0, 36.0] to 25.9 [6.7, 100.6]. The analysis of subgroups by context of sedation showed response rates [95% confidence interval] with oral midazolam ranging from 36.7% [21.6%, 54.9%] to 97.0% [94.8%, 98.3%] for anesthetic premedication and from 56.1% [43.1%, 68.4] to 97.8% [86.1%, 99.7%] for medical procedures. The efficacy of midazolam for pediatric minimal/moderate sedation from a dose of 0.25 mg/kg and above was demonstrated. The probability of occurrence of adverse events and over-sedation increases with increasing doses.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Conscious Sedation; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31538393
DOI: 10.1111/pan.13747