Journals / Türk Anestezi ve Reanimasyon Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 5

Comparison of intranasal midazolam and midazolam-sufentanil for premedication in children

Çocukların premedikasyonunda intranazal midazolam ve midazolam-sufentanilin karşılaştırılması

Pages
277–282
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Children’s mood at the time of seperating from parents, response to face mask, POPS and Davis scores at postoperative 30th minute in Group M, response to venous canulation in Group M/S were significally better (p0.05).Conclusions: Midazolam-sufentanil combination used in this study was not found to be a good alternative to midazolam only.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: We aimed to compare the effect of midazolam and the combination of low dose of midazolam and sufentanil applied intranasal on sedation, hemodynamic parameters and recovery in children for premedication.Materials and Methods: 50 children scheduled for elective tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy were randomized into two groups: Group M (n=25): received midazolam 0.2 mg kg-1, Group M/S (n=25): received 0.1 mg kg-1 midazolam plus 0.75 µg kg-1 sufentanil intranasal 20 minutes before anesthesia induction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, pulse oximetry and Ramsey sedation scores were recorded before and after premedication.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Children’s mood at the time of seperating from parents, response to face mask, POPS and Davis scores at postoperative 30th minute in Group M, response to venous canulation in Group M/S were significally better (p0.05).Conclusions: Midazolam-sufentanil combination used in this study was not found to be a good alternative to midazolam only.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: We aimed to compare the effect of midazolam and the combination of low dose of midazolam and sufentanil applied intranasal on sedation, hemodynamic parameters and recovery in children for premedication.Materials and Methods: 50 children scheduled for elective tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy were randomized into two groups: Group M (n=25): received midazolam 0.2 mg kg-1, Group M/S (n=25): received 0.1 mg kg-1 midazolam plus 0.75 µg kg-1 sufentanil intranasal 20 minutes before anesthesia induction. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, pulse oximetry and Ramsey sedation scores were recorded before and after premedication. The moods of children at the time of separation from parents are recorded as silence or not. The response to venous canulation was assessed operation desk. Anesthesia induction was provided with % 8 sevoflurane in 50 % O2-50 % N2O and 10 µg kg-1 alfentanil. The response to face mask was evaluated as accept/deny. Anesthesia was maintained with % 2-3 sevoflurane in 50 % O2-50 % N2O mixture. Postoperative agitation and pain level were determined with Davis Score and POPS respectively. Results: There were no difference in hemodynamic parameters between the groups (p>0.05). Children’s mood at the time of seperating from parents, response to face mask, POPS and Davis scores at postoperative 30th minute in Group M, response to venous canulation in Group M/S were significally better (p0.05).Conclusions: Midazolam-sufentanil combination used in this study was not found to be a good alternative to midazolam only.

Özet

Amaç: Çocuklarda premedikasyonda intranazal uygulanan midazolam ve düşük doz midazolam-sufentanil kombinasyonunun sedasyon, hemodinami ve derlenme üzerine olan etkilerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlandı.Gereç ve Yöntem: Elektif tonsillektomi ve/veya adenoidektomi operasyonu planlanan 50 çocuk randomize olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Olgulara Grup M (n=25): 0,2 mg kg-1 midazolam, Grup M/S (n=25): 0,1 mg kg-1 midazolam + 0.75 µg kg-1 sufentanil premedikasyon amacıyla anestezi indüksiyonundan 20 dk. önce intranazal olarak uygulandı. Premedikasyon uygulanmadan önce ve sonra ortalama kan basıncı (OKB), kalp hızı (KH), periferik oksijen satürasyonu (SpO2) ve Ramsey sedasyon skorları değerlendirildi. Olguların ailelerinden ayrılmaları ve operasyon masasında venöz kanülasyona yanıtları değerlendirildi. Anestezi indüksiyonu % 50 O2 - % 50 N2O içinde % 8 sevofluran, 10 µg kg-1 alfentanil ile sağlandı. Yüz maskesine yanıt (kabul/ret) şeklinde değerlendirildi. Anestezi uygulaması % 50 O2 - % 50 N2O karışımı içinde % 2-3 sevofluran ile sürdürüldü. Operasyon sonrası görülen ajitasyon Davis skorlaması, ağrı seviyeleri “postoperative pain score” (POPS) skorlaması ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında hemodinamik ölçümlerde anlamlı farklılık gözlenmedi (p>0.05). Aileden ayrılma, yüz maskesine yanıt, postoperatif 30. dk.’daki POPS ve Davis skoru Grup M’de, venöz kanülasyona yanıt, Grup M/S’de daha iyi saptandı (p0.05). Sonuç: Midazolam-sufentanil kombinasyonunun, tek başına midazolam kullanılmasına iyi bir alternatif oluşturamadığı kanısına varıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇASLAN, A., YALÇIN, N., EROL, A., TAVLAN, A., TOPAL, A. (2022). Comparison of intranasal midazolam and midazolam-sufentanil for premedication in children. Türk Anestezi ve Reanimasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 5, 277–282. https://ajindex.com/articles/619999

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Henderson JM, Brodsky DA, Fisher DM, et al. Pre-induction of anesthesia in pediatric patients with nasally administered sufentanil. Anesthesiology 1988; 68:671-5
  2. Karl HW, Keifer AT, Rosenberger JL, et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of intranasal midazolam or sufentanil for preinduction of anesthesia in pediatric patients. Anesthesiology 1992; 76:209-15
  3. Zedie N, Amory DW, Wagner BK, O’Hara DA. Comparison of intranasal midazolam and sufentanil premedication in pediatric outpatients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 59:341-8
  4. Weber F, Wulf H, el Saeidi G. Premedication with nasal s-ketamine and midazolam provides good conditions for induction of anesthesia in preschool children. Can J Anaesth 2003; 50:470-5
  5. Bates BA, Schutzman SA, Fleisher GR. A comparison of intranasal sufentanil and midazolam to intramuscular meperidine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine for conscious sedation in children. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 24:646-51
  6. Saricaoglu F, Dal D, Salman AE, et al. Ketamine sedation during spinal anesthesia for arthroscopic knee surgery reduced the ischemia-reperfusion injury markers. Anesth Analg 2005; 101:904-9
  7. Stevenson MD, Bivins CM, O’Brien K, et al. Child life intervention during angiocatheter insertion in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 2005; 21:712-8
  8. Davis PJ, Todd IC, Mc.Gowan F, Latta K. Recovery charecteristics of desflurane versus halothane for maintenance of anesthesia in pediatric ambulatory patiens. Anesthesiology 1994; 80:298-302
  9. Broadman LM, Rice LJ, Hannallah RS. Oral clonidine and postoperative pain. Anesth Analg 1997; 84:229
  10. Berry FA. Midazolam as premedication: is the emperor naked or just half-dressed? Paediatr Anaesth 2007; 17:400-1
  11. Roelofse JA, Shipton EA, de la Harpe CJ, Blignaut RJ. Intranasal sufentanil/midazolam versus ketamine/midazolam for analgesia/sedation in the pediatric population prior to undergoing multiple dental extractions under general anesthesia: a prospective, double-blind, randomized comparison. Anesth Prog 2004; 5:114-21
  12. Hester NK. The preoperational child’s reaction to immunization. Nurs Res 1979; 28:250-5
  13. Arora P, Sharma S, Garg S. Permeability issues in nasal drug delivery. Drug Discov Today 2002; 15:967-75
  14. Wilton NC, Leigh J, Rosen DR, Pandit UA. Preanesthetic sedation of preschool children using intranasal midazolam. Anesthesiology 1988; 69:972-5
  15. Wermeling DP, Record KA, Kelly TH, Archer SM, Clinch T, Rudy AC. Pharmacokinetics