-
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... Mar 2015Electrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the patient is not fully conscious during the procedure, as it can be painful and distressing. The drug used to make patients unaware of the procedure should rapidly achieve the desired level of sedation, should wear off quickly and should not cause cardiovascular or respiratory side effects.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness and adverse events associated with various anaesthetic or sedative agents used in direct current cardioversion for cardiac arrhythmia in both elective and emergency settings.We sought answers to the following specific questions.• Which drugs deliver the best outcomes for patients undergoing electrical cardioversion?• Does using a particular agent confer advantages or disadvantages?• Is additional analgesic necessary to prevent pain?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) on 27 March 2014. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and were not limited by outcomes. We also carried out searches of clinical trials registers and forward and backward citation tracking.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized studies with adult participants undergoing electrical cardioversion procedures in the elective or emergency setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author for disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies with 1250 participants that compared one drug with one or more other drugs. Of these comparisons, 19 studies compared propofol with another drug. Seven of these compared propofol with etomidate (four of which combined the drugs with remifentanil or fentanyl), five midazolam, six thiopentone and two sevoflurane. Three studies compared etomidate with thiopentone, and three etomidate with midazolam. Two studies compared thiopentone with midazolam, one thiopentone with diazepam and one midazolam with diazepam. Drug doses and the time over which the drugs were given varied between studies. Although all studies were described as randomized, limited information was provided about the methods used for selection and group allocation. A high level of performance bias was observed across studies, as study authors had not attempted to blind the anaesthetist to group allocation. Similarly, study authors had rarely provided sufficient information on whether outcome assessors had been blinded.Included studies presented outcome data for hypotension, apnoea, participant recall, success of cardioversion, minor adverse events of nausea and vomiting, pain at injection site and myoclonus, additional analgesia and participant satisfaction. We did not pool the data from different studies in view of the multiple drug comparisons, differences in definitions and reporting of outcomes, variability of endpoints and high or unclear risk of bias across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Few studies reported statistically significant results for our relevant outcomes, and most study authors concluded that both, or all, agents compared in individual studies were adequate for cardioversion procedures. It is our opinion that at present, there is no evidence to suggest that current anaesthetic practice for cardioversion should change.
Topics: Anesthetics; Apnea; Diazepam; Electric Countershock; Etomidate; Fentanyl; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Mental Recall; Methyl Ethers; Midazolam; Piperidines; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Sevoflurane; Thiopental
PubMed: 25803543
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010824.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2014Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) frequently requires sedation, anxiolysis and relief of discomfort without impairing ventilation and depressing cardiovascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) frequently requires sedation, anxiolysis and relief of discomfort without impairing ventilation and depressing cardiovascular function. The goal is to allow the patient to be responsive and co-operative. Medications such as fentanyl, remifentanil, midazolam and propofol have been reported to assist AFOI; however,these agents are associated with cardiovascular or respiratory adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine has been proposed as an alternative to facilitate AFOI.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review is to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in the management of patients with a difficult or unstable airway undergoing awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2012, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2012) through Ovid, EMBASE (1980 to May 2012) and Web of Science (1945 to May 2012); we screened the reference lists of all eligible trials and reviews to look for further trials and contacted authors of trials to ask for additional information. We searched for ongoing trials at http://www.controlledtrials.com/ and http://clinicaltrials.gov/ . We reran our search of all databases listed above on 21 November 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published and unpublished randomized controlled trials, regardless of blinding or language of publication, in participants 18 years of age or older who were scheduled for an elective AFOI because of an anticipated difficult airway. Participants received dexmedetomidine or control medications.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence internals (CIs) for outcomes with sufficient data; for other outcomes, we performed a qualitative analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which included 211 participants. The four trials compared dexmedetomidine with midazolam, fentanyl, propofol or a sodium chloride placebo, respectively. The trials showed low or unclear risk of bias primarily because information provided on allocation concealment and other potential sources of bias was inadequate. Owing to clinical heterogeneity and potential methodological heterogeneity, it was impossible to conduct a full meta-analysis. We described findings from individual studies or presented them in tabular form. Limited evidence was available for assessment of the outcomes of interest for this review. Results of the limited included trials showed that dexmedetomidine significantly reduced participants' discomfort with no significant differences in airway obstruction, low oxygen levels or treatment-emergent cardiovascular adverse events noted during AFOI compared with control groups. When the search was rerun (from May 2012 to November 2013), it was noted that four studies are awaiting assessment. We will deal with these studies when we update the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Small, limited trials provide weak evidence to support dexmedetomidine as an option for patients with an anticipated difficult airway who undergo AFOI. The findings of this review should be further corroborated by additional controlled investigations.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Dexmedetomidine; Fentanyl; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intubation, Intratracheal; Midazolam; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wakefulness
PubMed: 24442817
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009798.pub2 -
Neurotrauma Reports 2020Intravenous propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam are utilized commonly in critical care for metabolic suppression and anesthesia. The impact of propofol, fentanyl, and...
Intravenous propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam are utilized commonly in critical care for metabolic suppression and anesthesia. The impact of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam on cerebrovasculature and cerebral blood flow (CBF) is unclear in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and may carry important implications, as care is shifting to focus on cerebrovascular reactivity monitoring/directed therapies. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review of the literature on the cerebrovascular/CBF effects of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam in human patients with moderate/severe TBI and animal models with TBI. A search of MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 2020 was performed. All articles were included pertaining to the administration of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam, in which the impact on CBF/cerebral vasculature was recorded. We identified 14 studies: 8 that evaluated propofol, 5 that evaluated fentanyl, and 2 that evaluated midazolam. All studies suffered from significant limitations, including: small sample size, and heterogeneous design and measurement techniques. In general, there was no significant change seen in CBF/cerebrovascular response to administration of propofol, fentanyl, or midazolam during experiments where PCO and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were controlled. This review highlights the current knowledge gap surrounding the impact of commonly utilized sedative drugs in TBI care. This work supports the need for dedicated studies, both experimental and human-based, evaluating the impact of these drugs on CBF and cerebrovascular reactivity/response in TBI.
PubMed: 33251530
DOI: 10.1089/neur.2020.0040 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2017Sedatives are commonly used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). However, a variety of sedatives are available and their efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Sedatives are commonly used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). However, a variety of sedatives are available and their efficacy and safety have been compared in numerous trials with inconsistent results. To resolve uncertainties regarding usefulness of these sedatives, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials comparing sedatives in mechanically ventilated ICU patients were included. Graph-theoretical methods were employed for network meta-analysis. A total of 51 citations comprising 52 RCTs were included in our analysis. Dexmedetomidine showed shorter MV duration than lorazepam (mean difference (MD): 68.7; 95% CI: 18.2-119.3 hours), midazolam (MD: 10.2; 95% CI: 7.7-12.7 hours) and propofol (MD: 3.4; 95% CI: 0.9-5.9 hours). Compared with dexmedetomidine, midazolam was associated with significantly increased risk of delirium (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.17-5.19). Our study shows that dexmedetomidine has potential benefits in reducing duration of MV and lowering the risk of delirium.
Topics: Critical Care; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units; Odds Ratio; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Publication Bias; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 28322337
DOI: 10.1038/srep44979 -
Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain... Oct 2021Migraine headaches are the second leading cause of disability worldwide and are responsible for significant morbidity, reduction in the quality of life, and loss of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine headaches are the second leading cause of disability worldwide and are responsible for significant morbidity, reduction in the quality of life, and loss of productivity on a global scale. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ketamine on migraines and other primary headache disorders compared to placebo and other active interventions, such as midazolam, metoclopramide/diphenhydramine, and prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine.
METHODS
An electronic search of databases published up to February 2021, including Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, a hand search of the bibliographies of the included studies, as well as literature and systematic reviews found through the search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating ketamine in the treatment of migraine/headache disorders compared to the placebo. The authors assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines.
RESULTS
The initial search strategy yielded 398 unduplicated references, which were independently assessed by three review authors. After evaluation, this number was reduced to five RCTs (two unclear risk of bias and three high risk of bias). The total number of patients in all the studies was 193. Due to the high risk of bias, small sample size, heterogeneity of the outcomes reported, and heterogeneity of the comparison groups, the quality of the evidence was very low. One RCT reported that intranasal ketamine was superior to intranasal midazolam in improving the aura attack severity, but not duration, while another reported that intranasal ketamine was not superior to metoclopramide and diphenhydramine in reducing the headache severity. In one trial, subcutaneous ketamine was superior to saline in migraine severity reduction; however, intravenous (I.V.) ketamine was inferior to I.V. prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine in another study.
CONCLUSION
Further double-blind controlled studies are needed to assess the efficacy of ketamine in treating acute and chronic refractory migraines and other primary headaches using intranasal and subcutaneous routes. These studies should include a long-term follow-up and different ketamine dosages in diagnosed patients following international standards for diagnosing headache/migraine.
PubMed: 34703891
DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.5.413 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Apr 2015Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is increasingly used in patients at the end of life. However, consensus about medications and monitoring is lacking. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is increasingly used in patients at the end of life. However, consensus about medications and monitoring is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To assess published PST guidelines with regard to quality and recommendations on drugs and monitoring.
METHODS
We searched CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, and references of included articles until July 2014. Search terms included "palliative sedation" or "sedation" and "guideline" or "policy" or "framework." Guideline selection was based on English or German publications that included a PST guideline. Two investigators independently assessed the quality of the guidelines according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument (AGREE II) and extracted information on drug selection and monitoring.
RESULTS
Nine guidelines were eligible. Eight guidelines received high quality scores for the domain "scope and purpose" (median 69%, range 28-83%), whereas in the other domains the guidelines' quality differed considerably. The majority of guidelines suggest midazolam as drug of first choice. Recommendations on dosage and alternatives vary. The guidelines' recommendations regarding monitoring of PST show wide variation in the number and details of outcome parameters and methods of assessment.
CONCLUSION
The published guidelines on PST vary considerably regarding their quality and content on drugs and monitoring. Given the need for clear guidance regarding PST in patients at the end of life, this comparative analysis may serve as a starting point for further improvement.
Topics: Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Monitoring, Physiologic; Palliative Care; Quality Assurance, Health Care
PubMed: 25242022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.08.013 -
Brain and Behavior Aug 2023Elderly patients are prone to postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). The comparison of the effects of anesthetic adjuvant drugs on POCD in elderly patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Elderly patients are prone to postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). The comparison of the effects of anesthetic adjuvant drugs on POCD in elderly patients undergoing noncardiac surgery remains controversial.
METHODS
The final search took place on June 10, 2023. Randomized controlled trials including ketamine, ulinastatin, dexmedetomidine, parecoxib, and midazolam on the prevention and treatment of POCD in elderly undergoing noncardiac surgery were collected. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to quantitatively combine the evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 35 randomized trials were finally included in this systematic review, and the overall risk of bias is Allocation concealment. These anesthetic adjuvant drugs did not show significant differences in preventing POCD on postoperative days 1 and 7 compared with each other, but ulinastatin may be more effective in preventing POCD than dexmedetomidine [odds ratio (OR) = 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.10, 0.71)] and parecoxib [OR = 0.3, 95% CI = (0.10, 0.82 on postoperative day 3. The efficiency ranking results also find that ulinastatin and ketamine might provide better effects regarding POCD prevention.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketamine and ulinastatin might have better effects in preventing POCD in elderly patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our meta-analysis provided evidence for the use of ulinastatin and ketamine in the prevention of POCD in elderly patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Postoperative Complications; Ketamine; Dexmedetomidine; Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Anesthetics; Cognitive Dysfunction
PubMed: 37431799
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3149 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Aug 2020Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in...
BACKGROUND
Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.
RESULTS
The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.
PubMed: 32879659
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i8.241 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2023Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Despite advancements in cancer management, cancer progression remains a challenge, requiring the development of novel...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Despite advancements in cancer management, cancer progression remains a challenge, requiring the development of novel therapies. Midazolam is a commonly used adjunct to anaesthesia care for various surgeries, including cancer. Recently, there has been a growing interest in exploring the potential role of midazolam as an anticancer agent; however, the exact mechanism of this linkage is yet to be investigated thoroughly.
METHODS
Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, this systematic review presented aggregated evidence (till November 2022) of the effects of midazolam on cancer progression and survival. All primary research article types where midazolam was administered or on subjects with cancers were included. No restrictions were applied on routes of administration or the type of cancer under investigation. Narrative synthesis depicted qualitative findings, whereas frequencies and percentages presented numerical data.
RESULTS
Of 1720 citations, 19 studies were included in this review. All articles were preclinical studies conducted either (58%, 11/19) or both and (42%, 8/19). The most studied cancer was lung carcinoma (21%, 4/19). There are two main findings in this review. First, midazolam delays cancer progression (89%, 17/19). Second, midazolam reduces cancer cell survival (63%, 12/19). The two major mechanisms of these properties can be explained via inducing apoptosis (63%, 12/19) and inhibiting cancer cell proliferation (53%, 10/19). In addition, midazolam demonstrated antimetastatic properties via inhibition of cancer invasion (21%, 4/19), migration (26%, 5/19), or epithelial-mesenchymal transition (5%, 1/19). These anticancer properties of midazolam were demonstrated through different pathways when midazolam was used alone or in combination with traditional cancer chemotherapeutic agents.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review highlights that midazolam has the potential to impede cancer progression and decrease cancer cell survival. Extrapolation of these results into human cancer necessitates further investigation.
PubMed: 38213688
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_731_23