Cargando…
Acceptability and Efficacy of Commercial Oral Preparation of Midazolam for brief Painful Procedure: A Randomized Double Blind Clinical Trial
Aim: To compare the acceptability and efficacy of orally administered commercially available midazolam syrup and injection midazolam mixed in honey for performing venepuncture. Materials and methods: This double blind randomized controlled trial enrolled 40 anxious and healthy 2 to 6 years olds. All...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4335103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25709292 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1255 |
Sumario: | Aim: To compare the acceptability and efficacy of orally administered commercially available midazolam syrup and injection midazolam mixed in honey for performing venepuncture. Materials and methods: This double blind randomized controlled trial enrolled 40 anxious and healthy 2 to 6 years olds. All subjects received either syrup midazolam or injection midazolam mixed in honey (0.5 mg/kg) per orally, prior to venepuncture as per their group assignment. Primary outcome measures in this trial was acceptability of midazolam. Secondary outcome measures included sedation depth, success of venepuncture, observer and parental satisfaction and parental perception of child's pain. Results: Although the acceptability of syrup midazolam (95%) was higher than injection midazolam (80%), there was no significant difference among two groups with respect to any primary or secondary outcome (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Syrup midazolam can serve as a suitable alternative to injection midazolam; thus, eliminating the procedural steps of mixing injection midazolam with any vehicle. How to cite this article: Srivastava B, Mittal N, Mittal P. Acceptability and Efficacy of Commercial Oral Preparation of Midazolam for brief Painful Procedure: A Randomized Double Blind Clinical Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(3):153-156. |
---|