-
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva 2022To verify strategies for the prevention and treatment of abstinence syndrome in a pediatric intensive care unit.
OBJECTIVE
To verify strategies for the prevention and treatment of abstinence syndrome in a pediatric intensive care unit.
METHODS
This is a systematic review in the PubMed database®, Lilacs, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Cinahl, Cochrane Database Systematic Review and CENTRAL. A three-step search strategy was used for this review, and the protocol was approved in PROSPERO (CRD42021274670).
RESULTS
Twelve articles were included in the analysis. There was great heterogeneity among the studies included, especially regarding the therapeutic regimens used for sedation and analgesia. Midazolam doses ranged from 0.05mg/kg/hour to 0.3mg/kg/hour. Morphine also varied considerably, from 10mcg/kg/hour to 30mcg/kg/hour, between studies. Among the 12 selected studies, the most commonly used scale for the identification of withdrawal symptoms was the Sophia Observational Withdrawal Symptoms Scale. In three studies, there was a statistically significant difference in the prevention and management of the withdrawal syndrome due to the implementation of different protocols (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
There was great variation in the sedoanalgesia regimen used by the studies and the method of weaning and evaluation of withdrawal syndrome. More studies are needed to provide more robust evidence about the most appropriate treatment for the prevention and reduction of withdrawal signs and symptoms in critically ill children.
PROSPERO REGISTER
CRD 42021274670.
Topics: Child; Humans; Critical Illness; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric; Pain; Analgesia; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 36888832
DOI: 10.5935/0103-507X.20220145-pt -
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 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 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jan 2023Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common neurological system disorder in surgical patients. The choice of anesthetic can potentially reduce POCD. The authors performed this network meta-analysis to compare different anesthetic drugs in reducing the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing the different anesthetic drugs for noncardiac surgery in elderly from inception until July, 2022. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD#42020183014). A total of 34 trials involving 4314 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery in elderly were included. The incidence of POCD for each anesthetic drug was placebo (27.7%), dexmedetomidine (12.9%), ketamine (15.2%), propofol (16.8%), fentanyl (23.9%), midazolam (11.3%), sufentanil (6.3%), sevoflurane (24.0%), and desflurane (28.3%). Pairwise and network meta-analysis showed dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis also suggested dexmedetomidine was significantly reducing the incidence of POCD when compared with sevoflurane. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine ranked the first and second in reducing the incidence of POCD with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 87.4 and 81.5%. Sufentanil and dexmedetomidine had the greatest possibility to reduce the incidence of POCD for elderly people undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Sevoflurane; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Dexmedetomidine; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Sufentanil; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36799783
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000001 -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2023More than 2% of the general population experience suicidal ideas each year and a large number of them will attempt suicide. Evidence-based therapeutic options to manage... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
More than 2% of the general population experience suicidal ideas each year and a large number of them will attempt suicide. Evidence-based therapeutic options to manage suicidal crisis are currently limited.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to overview the findings on the use of ketamine and esketamine for the treatment of suicidal ideas and acts.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
PubMed, article references, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to June 30, 2022. Meta-analyses published within the last 2 years were also reviewed.
RESULTS
We identified 12 randomized controlled trials with reduction of suicidal ideation as the primary objective and 14 trials as secondary objectives. Intravenous racemic ketamine was superior to control drugs (placebo or midazolam) within the first 72 h, in spite of large placebo effects. Adverse events were minor and transient. In contrast, intranasal esketamine did not differ from placebo in large-scale studies. Limitations, clinical considerations, and opportunities for future research include the following points: large placebo effects when studying suicidal ideation reduction; small concerns about blinding quality due to dissociative effects; no studies on the risk/prevention of suicidal acts and mortality; lack of studies beyond affective disorders; no studies in adolescents and older people; lack of knowledge of long-term side effects, notably liability for abuse; no robust predictive markers; limited understanding of the mechanisms of ketamine on suicidal ideas; need for improved assessment of suicidal ideation in clinical trials; need for studies in outpatient settings, emergency room, and liaison consultation; need for research on ketamine administration; limited knowledge on the positive and negative effects of concomitant treatments.
CONCLUSION
Overall, there is compelling evidence for a favorable short-term benefit-risk balance with intravenous racemic ketamine but not intranasal esketamine. The place of ketamine will have to be defined within a multimodal care strategy for suicidal patients. Caution remains necessary for clinical use, and pharmacovigilance will be essential.
PubMed: 36776623
DOI: 10.1177/20451253231151327 -
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 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Dec 2022Neonatal stroke is the second cause of acute symptomatic neonatal seizures after hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. The aim of this systematic review is to determine which...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Neonatal stroke is the second cause of acute symptomatic neonatal seizures after hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. The aim of this systematic review is to determine which drug among those available represents the best therapeutic choice for treatment of secondary seizures due to neonatal stroke.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review searching on PubMed the keywords "Neonatal", "Stroke", "Seizures" and "Treatment". Search was limited only to English language with no time limit. Last literature search was done on May 30, 2022.
RESULTS
We selected 5 articles involving a total of 52 full-term neonates. In 96.1% the first line treatment was phenobarbital and in 3.9% was used phenobarbital associated with midazolam from the seizure onset but in all of these cases it was necessary to introduce further medications for controlling the seizures. As second line treatment was used lidocaine (response rate of 53.3%), midazolam (response rate of 15.38%) bumetanide (response rate of 100%), and fosphenytoin (no response). As third line treatment was used lidocaine (response rate of 87.5%), Midazolam (response rate of 60%), levetiracetam and clonazepam (response rate of 100%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that the use of ASMs that act throughout a gabaergic mechanism are inadequate in controlling seizures secondary to neonatal stroke in full-term newborns. Very effective seems to be lidocaine and levetiracetam with an apparent safer profile in short and long term. Bumetanide shows promising results, but they need to be confirmed by phase 3 studies.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Levetiracetam; Anticonvulsants; Bumetanide; Midazolam; Phenobarbital; Epilepsy; Lidocaine; Stroke; Infant, Newborn, Diseases
PubMed: 36533757
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v93i6.13440 -
Medicinski Glasnik : Official... Feb 2023Aim To compare the outcome of sole dexmedetomidine or with other sedative drugs in paediatric patients during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods Literature was...
Aim To compare the outcome of sole dexmedetomidine or with other sedative drugs in paediatric patients during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods Literature was obtained from PubMed and ScienceDirect from 2010-2020 using key words: sedation, paediatric, dexmedetomidine, ambulatory, MRI, ketamine, propofol, midazolam. The literature selection was based on Participant, Intervention, Comparators, Outcomes (PICO) analysis. All English full-text and peer-reviewed articles were included. The primary outcome was hemodynamic stability, respiratory compromise, and recovery time. The risk of bias analysis was assessed using Cochrane collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0). Result Of 106 studies, 17 studies were included with a total 3.430 paediatric patients undergoing MRI. Dexmedetomidine alone provides a more stable hemodynamic but longer recovery time than ketamine, propofol or midazolam. The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine provides more stable hemodynamics, especially in the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia, and does not significantly reduce airway configuration more than sole dexmedetomidine or ketamine. Intranasal dexmedetomidine is more recommended than its combination with midazolam. Combining dexmedetomidine with ketamine, propofol or midazolam provides a shorter recovery time. Conclusion A combination of dexmedetomidine with other sedatives such as ketamine, propofol and midazolam is better than sole dexmedetomidine for paediatric sedation during magnetic resonance imaging.
PubMed: 36435998
DOI: 10.17392/1532-22 -
AAS Open Research 2021Some patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported to exhibit neurological symptoms such as seizures and impaired...
Some patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported to exhibit neurological symptoms such as seizures and impaired consciousness. Our study reviews reported cases to assess the pharmacological approach to managing seizures in SARS-CoV-2 patients and associated outcomes. A systematic review of case reports on the incidence of seizures following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients that reported use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in management was performed by using the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) guidelines. Databases used included EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. Data was presented as qualitative and descriptive data. In total, 67 articles were selected for full-text assessment, of which 18 were included in the final review. Patients had a median age of 54 years, most of whom were male. Remdisivir, dexamethasone, Laninamivir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and Lopinavir-ritonavir were common agents used in the management of COVID-19. Most patients presented with either generalized tonic-clonic seizures or status epilepticus. Most patients received levetiracetam as drug choice or as part of their regimen. Other AEDs commonly prescribed included midazolam and sodium valproate. Some patients received no antiepileptic drug therapy. Most of the patients who died had more than one comorbidity. Also, most of the patients who died received COVID-19 treatment drugs. None of the patients who received midazolam as drug choice or as part of their regimen developed recurrent seizures in contrast to patients who received levetiracetam and sodium valproate as drug choice or as part of their regimen. Interestingly, none of the patients who received no AEDs suffered recurrent seizures or died. Standard guidelines for managing seizures in COVID-19 patients may be required. A limitation of this review is that it involved the use of case reports with no controls and a small number of patients.
PubMed: 36419542
DOI: 10.12688/aasopenres.13224.2 -
African Health Sciences Jun 2022Remimazolam and midazolam are used for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy, but their efficacy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Remimazolam and midazolam are used for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy, but their efficacy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of remimazolam with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of remimazolam versus midazolam on gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Three RCTs involving 528 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam was associated with higher procedure success (OR=9.78; 95% CI=1.48 to 64.71; P=0.02), lower need for rescue medication (OR=0.09; 95% CI=0.01 to 0.80; P=0.03), shorter total recall (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI=0.15 to 1.72; P=0.02) and delayed recall (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI=0.05 to 0.83; P=0.03), reduced incidence of hypotenson (OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.25 to 0.62; P<0.0001) and adverse events (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.17 to 0.79; P=0.01), but had no obvious influence on fully alert (Std. MD=-0.75; 95% CI=-1.58 to 0.08; P=0.08).
CONCLUSIONS
Remimazolam demonstrated better efficacy and safety for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to midazolam.
Topics: Humans; Benzodiazepines; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36407397
DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v22i2.44