Cargando…

Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Preprocedural preparation of children scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is challenging. This prospective, randomized trial compared intranasal midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication for children scheduled for brain MRI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gupta, Ayushi, Dalvi, Naina Parag, Tendolkar, Bharati Anil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28781452
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_204_16
_version_ 1783251841198325760
author Gupta, Ayushi
Dalvi, Naina Parag
Tendolkar, Bharati Anil
author_facet Gupta, Ayushi
Dalvi, Naina Parag
Tendolkar, Bharati Anil
author_sort Gupta, Ayushi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Preprocedural preparation of children scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is challenging. This prospective, randomized trial compared intranasal midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication for children scheduled for brain MRI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 60 children, aged 1–8 years, scheduled for elective brain MRI, were randomly assigned to the intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg; Group D) or intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg; Group M) group. We compared hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, onset, level, sedation quality, and successful parental separation. All patients received intravenous propofol as an induction and maintenance agent for MRI. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in demographic, hemodynamic, and respiratory parameters. Group D (14.3 ± 3.4 min [10–20 min]) had a longer time of sedation onset than Group M (8.7 ± 3.7 min [5–15 min]; P < 0.001). The median and mean sedation scores were lower in Group D (3 and 3.7 ± 0.8, respectively) than Group M (4 and 4.3 ± 1.2, respectively; P = 0.055). Group D (80%) had a higher percentage of children achieving satisfactory sedation at the time of induction than did Group M (53.3%; P = 0.0285). Parental separation was successful in 73.3% of patients in Group D compared with 46.7% of patients in Group M (P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Intranasal dexmedetomidine results in more successful parental separation and yields a higher sedation level at the time of induction of anesthesia than intranasal midazolam as premedication, with negligible side effects. However, its onset of action is relatively prolonged.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5520599
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55205992017-08-04 Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial Gupta, Ayushi Dalvi, Naina Parag Tendolkar, Bharati Anil J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol Original Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Preprocedural preparation of children scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is challenging. This prospective, randomized trial compared intranasal midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication for children scheduled for brain MRI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 60 children, aged 1–8 years, scheduled for elective brain MRI, were randomly assigned to the intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg; Group D) or intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg; Group M) group. We compared hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, onset, level, sedation quality, and successful parental separation. All patients received intravenous propofol as an induction and maintenance agent for MRI. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in demographic, hemodynamic, and respiratory parameters. Group D (14.3 ± 3.4 min [10–20 min]) had a longer time of sedation onset than Group M (8.7 ± 3.7 min [5–15 min]; P < 0.001). The median and mean sedation scores were lower in Group D (3 and 3.7 ± 0.8, respectively) than Group M (4 and 4.3 ± 1.2, respectively; P = 0.055). Group D (80%) had a higher percentage of children achieving satisfactory sedation at the time of induction than did Group M (53.3%; P = 0.0285). Parental separation was successful in 73.3% of patients in Group D compared with 46.7% of patients in Group M (P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Intranasal dexmedetomidine results in more successful parental separation and yields a higher sedation level at the time of induction of anesthesia than intranasal midazolam as premedication, with negligible side effects. However, its onset of action is relatively prolonged. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5520599/ /pubmed/28781452 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_204_16 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gupta, Ayushi
Dalvi, Naina Parag
Tendolkar, Bharati Anil
Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial
title Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial
title_full Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial
title_fullStr Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial
title_short Comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: A prospective randomized double blind trial
title_sort comparison between intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam as premedication for brain magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: a prospective randomized double blind trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28781452
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_204_16
work_keys_str_mv AT guptaayushi comparisonbetweenintranasaldexmedetomidineandintranasalmidazolamaspremedicationforbrainmagneticresonanceimaginginpediatricpatientsaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindtrial
AT dalvinainaparag comparisonbetweenintranasaldexmedetomidineandintranasalmidazolamaspremedicationforbrainmagneticresonanceimaginginpediatricpatientsaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindtrial
AT tendolkarbharatianil comparisonbetweenintranasaldexmedetomidineandintranasalmidazolamaspremedicationforbrainmagneticresonanceimaginginpediatricpatientsaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindtrial