Comparison of Oral Midazolam and Promethazine with Oral Midazolam alone for Sedating Children during Computed Tomography
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine,
Vol. 3 No. 3 (2015),
1 August 2015
,
Page 109-113
https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v3i3.279
Abstract
Introduction: Both midazolam and promethazine are recommended to be used as sedatives in many studies but each have some side effects that limits their use. Combination therapy as an alternative method, may decreases these limitations. Therefore, this study aimed to compare midazolam with midazolam-promethazine regarding induction, maintenance, and recovery characteristics following pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia. Methods: Children under 7 years old who needed sedation for being CT scanned were included in this double-blind randomized clinical trial. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: one only received midazolam (0.5 mg/kg), while the other group received a combination of midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and promethazine (1.25 mg/kg). University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS) was used to assess sedation induction. In addition to demographic data, the child’s vital signs were evaluated before prescribing the drugs and after inducing sedation (reaching UMSS level 2). The primary outcomes in the present study were onset of action after administration and duration of the drugs’ effect. Results: 107 patients were included in the study. Mean onset of action was 55.4±20.3 minutes for midazolam and 32.5±11.1 minutes for midazolam-promethazine combination (p<0.001). But duration of effect was not different between the 2 groups (p=0.36). 8 (7.5%) patients were unresponsive to the medication, all 8 of which were in the midazolam treated group (p=0.006). Also in 18 (16.8%) cases a rescue dose was prescribed, 14 (25.9%) were in the midazolam group and 4 (7.5%) were in the midazolam-promethazine group (p=0.02). Comparing systolic (p=0.20) and diastolic (p=0.34) blood pressure, heart rate (p=0.16), respiratory rate (p=0.17) and arterial oxygen saturation level (p=0.91) showed no significant difference between the 2 groups after intervention. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, it seems that using a combination of midazolam and promethazine not only speeds up the sedation induction, but also decreases unresponsiveness to the treatment and the need for a rescue dose.- Promethazine
- midazolam
- anti-anxiety agents
- conscious sedation
How to Cite
References
Barkan S, Breitbart R, Brenner-Zada G, et al. A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of oral midazolam plus oral ketamine for sedation of children during laceration repair. Emerg Med J. 2013;31(8):649-53.
Hosseini M, Karami Z, Janzadenh A, et al. The Effect of Intrathecal Administration of Muscimol on Modulation of Neuropathic Pain Symptoms Resulting from Spinal Cord Injury; an Experimental Study. Emergency. 2014;2(4):151-7.
Alimohammadi H, Shojaee M, Samiei M, Abyari S, Vafaee A, Mirkheshti A. Nerve stimulator guided axillary block in painless reduction of distal radius fractures; a randomized clinical trial. Emergency. 2013;1(1):11-4.
Azizkhani R, Esmailian M, Golshani K. Rectal Thiopental versus Intramuscular Ketamine in Pediatric Procedural Sedation and Analgesia; a Randomized Clinical Trial. Emergency. 2014;3(1):22-6.
Khajavi M, Emami A, Etezadi F, Safari S, Sharifi A, Moharari RS. Conscious sedation and analgesia in colonoscopy: Ketamine/propofol combination has superior patient satisfaction versus fentanyl/propofol. Anesthesiol Pain Med. 2013;3(1):208-12.
Alimohammadi H, Azizi M-R, Safari S, Amini A, Kariman H, Hatamabadi HR. Axillary Nerve Block in Comparison with Intravenous Midazolam/Fentanyl for Painless Reduction of Upper Extremity Fractures. Acta Med Iranica. 2014;52(2):122-4.
Hosseini M, Karami Z, Janzadenh A, et al. The Effect of Intrathecal Administration of Muscimol on Modulation of Neuropathic Pain Symptoms Resulting from Spinal Cord Injury; an Experimental Study. Emergency. 2014;2(4):pp. 151-7.
Moreira TA, Costa PS, Costa LR, et al. Combined oral midazolam–ketamine better than midazolam alone for sedation of young children: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2013;23(3):207-15.
Maurizi P, Russo I, Rizzo D, et al. Safe lumbar puncture under analgo-sedation in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Int J Clin Oncol. 2014;19(1):173-7.
Alimohammadi H, Baratloo A, Abdalvand A, Rouhipour A, Safari S. Effects of Pain Relief on Arterial Blood O2 Saturation. Trauma mon. 2014;19(1):e14034.
Krauss BS, Krauss BA, Green SM. Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):e23.
Krauss B, Green SM. Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. Lancet. 2006;367(9512):766-80.
Lee JH, Kim K, Kim TY, et al. A Randomized Comparison of Nitrous Oxide Versus Intravenous Ketamine for Laceration Repair in Children. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012;28(12):1297-301.
Song JH. Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. J Korean Med Assoc. 2013;56(4):271-8.
Messeri A, Astuto M. Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Children. Pediatric Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain: Standardization in Clinical Practice: Springer; 2013. p. 47-59.
NasiriNezhad F, Sagen J. NMDA antagonist peptide supplementation enhances pain alleviation by adrenal medullary transplants. Cell Transplant. 2005;14(4):203-11.
VanNatta ME, Rex DK. Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(10):2209-17.
Bayardo RA, Herrera ML, Aceves L. Midazolam conscious sedation in 2-4 years old children. Rev Gaúcha Odontol. 2012;60(3):367-70.
Ghajari MF, Golpayegani MV, Bargrizan M, Ansari G, Shayeghi S. Sedative Effect of Oral Midazolam/Hydroxyzine versus Chloral Hydrate/Hydroxyzine on 2–6 Year-Old Uncooperative Dental Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Dent. 2014;11(1):93-8.
Fallah R, Nakhaei MHA, Behdad S, Moghaddam RN, Shamszadeh A. Oral chloral hydrate vs. intranasal midazolam for sedation during computerized tomography. Indian Pediatr. 2013;50(2):233-5.
D’AGOSTINO J, TERNDRUP TE. Chloral hydrate versus midazolam for sedation of children for neuroimaging: a randomized clinical trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2000;16(1):1-4.
Cook BA, Bass JW, Nomizu S, Alexander ME. Sedation of Children for Technical Procedures Current Standard of Practice. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1992;31(3):137-42.
Fallah R, Jalili S, Golestan M, Karbasi SA, Jarahzadeh M-H. Efficacy of chloral hydrate and promethazine for sedation during electroencephalography in children; a randomised clinical trial. Iran J Pediatr. 2013;23(1):27-31.
Azizkhani R, Kanani S, Sharifi A, Golshani K, Masoumi B, Ahmadi O. Oral Chloral Hydrate Compare with Rectal Thiopental in Pediatric Procedural Sedation and Analgesia; a Randomized Clinical Trial. Emergency. 2014;2(2):85-9.
Fallah R, Fadavi N, Behdad S, Tafti MF. Efficacy of Chloral Hydrate-Hydroxyzine and Chloral Hydrate-Midazolam in Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation. Iran J Child Neurol. 2014;8(2):11-7.
Cengiz M, Baysal Z, Ganidagli S. Oral sedation with midazolam and diphenhydramine compared with midazolam alone in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2006;16(6):621-6.
Jain K, Ghai B, Saxena AK, Saini D, Khandelwal N. Efficacy of two oral premedicants: midazolam or a low-dose combination of midazolam–ketamine for reducing stress during intravenous cannulation in children undergoing CT imaging. Pediatr Anesth. 2010;20(4):330-7.
Parkinson L, Hughes J, Gill A, Billingham I, Ratcliffe J, Choonara I. A randomized controlled trial of sedation in the critically ill. Paediatr Anaesth. 1997;7(5):405-10.
Crean P. Sedation and neuromuscular blockade in paediatric intensive care; practice in the United Kingdom and North America. Paediatr Anaesth. 2004;14(6):439-42.
Houpt MI, Weiss NJ, Koenigsberg S, Desjardins P. Comparison of chloral hydrate with and without promethazine in the sedation of young children. Pediatr Dent. 1985;7(1):41-6.
- Abstract Viewed: 286 times
- PDF Downloaded: 2841 times
- HTML Downloaded: 49 times
