Efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam for sedation in infant with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan: a randomized controlled trial

被引:3
|
作者
Wang, Xiaodong [1 ]
Ma, Lian [2 ]
Yang, Xudong [1 ]
Zhou, Yi [1 ]
Zhang, Xiang [1 ]
Han, Fang [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Dept Anesthesiol, 22 Zhongguancun South Ave, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Univ, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Natl Clin Res Ctr Oral Dis, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
Intranasal sedation; Dexmedetomidine; Midazolam; Cleft lip and palate; ORAL MIDAZOLAM; OPERATING-ROOM; CHILDREN; PREMEDICATION; MEDICATIONS;
D O I
10.1186/s12871-023-02397-2
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
BackgroundThere is a great challenge to sedation for infants with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan, because there is the younger age and no consensus on the type, dosage, and route of drug administration.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam as a sedative option for infants with cleft lip and palate under imaging procedures.MethodsInfants scheduled for cleft lip and palate repair surgery were randomly assigned to the IND group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 mu g/kg alone) and the INDM group (intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 mu g/kg combined with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of infants underwent successful computed tomography (CT) scans under intranasal sedation. The secondary outcomes included onset time and duration of sedation, recovery time, Ramsay sedation scale, hemodynamic parameters during sedation, and adverse events. Data analyses involved the unpaired t-test, the repeated-measures analysis of variance test, and the continuity correction chi 2 test.ResultsOne hundred five infants were included in the analysis. The proportion of infants underwent successful CT scans under sedation was significantly greater in the INDM group than in the IND group (47 [95.9%] vs. 45 [80.4%], p = 0.016). Additionally, the INDM group had a shorter onset time and a longer duration of sedation statistically (12 [8.5, 17] min vs. 16 [12, 20] min, p = 0.001; 80 [63.6, 92.5] min vs. 68.5 [38, 89] min, p = 0.014, respectively), and their recovery time was significantly longer (43 [30, 59.5] min vs. 31.5 [20.5, 53.5] min, p = 0.006). The difference in Ramsay sedation scale values 20 min after administration was statistically significant between the groups. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in changes in heart rate and respiratory rate.ConclusionIntranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam resulted in higher sedation success in comparison with sole dexmedetomidine. However, it has a relatively prolonged duration of sedation and recovery time.Trial registrationChiCTR2100049122, Clinical trial first registration date: 21/07/2021.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Efficacy of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam for sedation in infant with cleft lip and palate undergoing CT scan: a randomized controlled trial
    Xiaodong Wang
    Lian Ma
    Xudong Yang
    Yi Zhou
    Xiang Zhang
    Fang Han
    BMC Anesthesiology, 24
  • [2] Intranasal midazolam alone versus midazolam/ketamine combination for preoperative sedation in pediatric patients undergoing ophthalmic procedures: a randomized controlled trial
    Osama, Noha A.
    Mahmoud, Sara R.
    Salem, Abeer S.
    Tawfik, Dalia S.
    AIN SHAMS JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2022, 14 (01)
  • [3] Intranasal midazolam alone versus midazolam/ketamine combination for preoperative sedation in pediatric patients undergoing ophthalmic procedures: a randomized controlled trial
    Noha A. Osama
    Sara R. Mahmoud
    Abeer S. Salem
    Dalia S. Tawfik
    Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology, 14
  • [4] Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Krishna Mohan Gulla
    Jhuma Sankar
    Kana Ram Jat
    Sushil Kumar Kabra
    Rakesh Lodha
    Indian Pediatrics, 2021, 58 : 117 - 122
  • [5] Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Gulla, Krishna Mohan
    Sankar, Jhuma
    Jat, Kana Ram
    Kabra, Sushil Kumar
    Lodha, Rakesh
    INDIAN PEDIATRICS, 2021, 58 (02) : 117 - 122
  • [6] Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial
    Nie, Juan
    Chen, Chanchan
    Xie, Jing
    Ding, Guicong
    BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [7] Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial
    Juan Nie
    Chanchan Chen
    Jing Xie
    Guicong Ding
    BMC Anesthesiology, 23
  • [8] Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Compared to a Combination of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine with Ketamine for Sedation of Children Requiring Dental Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Sado-Filho, Joji
    Correa-Faria, Patricia
    Viana, Karolline A.
    Mendes, Fausto M.
    Mason, Keira P.
    Costa, Luciane R.
    Costa, Paulo S.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (13)
  • [9] Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam sedation for autistic children undergoing electroencephalogram: a prospective randomized trial
    Hoda Shokri
    Amr A. Kasem
    Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology, 11
  • [10] Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam sedation for autistic children undergoing electroencephalogram: a prospective randomized trial
    Shokri, Hoda
    Kasem, Amr A.
    AIN SHAMS JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2019, 11 (01)