Cargando…

Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION: The quality of interventions in children is largely dependent on their control. Hence, this study compared the sedative effects of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) Midazolam in pediatric sedation induction. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on children aged 1-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hajimaghsoudi, Majid, Bagherabadi, Mehdi, Zarepur, Ehsan, Ahmadi Hanzaei, Vahid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6289147/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30584569
_version_ 1783379931644821504
author Hajimaghsoudi, Majid
Bagherabadi, Mehdi
Zarepur, Ehsan
Ahmadi Hanzaei, Vahid
author_facet Hajimaghsoudi, Majid
Bagherabadi, Mehdi
Zarepur, Ehsan
Ahmadi Hanzaei, Vahid
author_sort Hajimaghsoudi, Majid
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The quality of interventions in children is largely dependent on their control. Hence, this study compared the sedative effects of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) Midazolam in pediatric sedation induction. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on children aged 1-6 years presenting to emergency departments of Shahid Sadoughi and Shahid Rahnemoon Hospitals, Yazd, Iran. Participants were randomly assigned to IV or SC midazolam using a jet injector and success rate, degree of sedation, and satisfaction of parents and physician were compared between groups. RESULTS: 60 cases with the mean age of 3.15±1.43 (1-6) years were randomly assigned to the SC (30 cases) or IV (30 cases) groups (56.7% female). SC and IV groups were similar regarding the mean age (p = 0.165) and sex (p = 0.121). Depth of sedation (p=0.900), control of child (p=0.711), in-charge physician’s satisfaction (p=0.467), successful sedation and need for rescue dose (p=0.519) were not different between groups. IV midazolam group had a significantly shorter recovery time (about 10 minutes; p=0.040) and SC midazolam group had a significantly higher level of parent satisfaction (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate no significant difference in depth of sedation, control of child, in-charge physician’s satisfaction, successful sedation (reaching stage 1 of sedation or higher), and need for rescue dose of SC and IV midazolam. Parents’ satisfaction was significantly greater with SC administration and IV injection had shorter recovery time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6289147
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62891472018-12-24 Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial Hajimaghsoudi, Majid Bagherabadi, Mehdi Zarepur, Ehsan Ahmadi Hanzaei, Vahid Emerg (Tehran) Original Article INTRODUCTION: The quality of interventions in children is largely dependent on their control. Hence, this study compared the sedative effects of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) Midazolam in pediatric sedation induction. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on children aged 1-6 years presenting to emergency departments of Shahid Sadoughi and Shahid Rahnemoon Hospitals, Yazd, Iran. Participants were randomly assigned to IV or SC midazolam using a jet injector and success rate, degree of sedation, and satisfaction of parents and physician were compared between groups. RESULTS: 60 cases with the mean age of 3.15±1.43 (1-6) years were randomly assigned to the SC (30 cases) or IV (30 cases) groups (56.7% female). SC and IV groups were similar regarding the mean age (p = 0.165) and sex (p = 0.121). Depth of sedation (p=0.900), control of child (p=0.711), in-charge physician’s satisfaction (p=0.467), successful sedation and need for rescue dose (p=0.519) were not different between groups. IV midazolam group had a significantly shorter recovery time (about 10 minutes; p=0.040) and SC midazolam group had a significantly higher level of parent satisfaction (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate no significant difference in depth of sedation, control of child, in-charge physician’s satisfaction, successful sedation (reaching stage 1 of sedation or higher), and need for rescue dose of SC and IV midazolam. Parents’ satisfaction was significantly greater with SC administration and IV injection had shorter recovery time. Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2018 2018-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6289147/ /pubmed/30584569 Text en © Copyright (2018) Shahid Beheshti University ofMedical Sciences This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0)(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Hajimaghsoudi, Majid
Bagherabadi, Mehdi
Zarepur, Ehsan
Ahmadi Hanzaei, Vahid
Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial
title Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial
title_short Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial
title_sort intravenous versus subcutaneous midazolam using jet-injector in pediatric sedation; a randomized clinical trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6289147/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30584569
work_keys_str_mv AT hajimaghsoudimajid intravenousversussubcutaneousmidazolamusingjetinjectorinpediatricsedationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT bagherabadimehdi intravenousversussubcutaneousmidazolamusingjetinjectorinpediatricsedationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT zarepurehsan intravenousversussubcutaneousmidazolamusingjetinjectorinpediatricsedationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT ahmadihanzaeivahid intravenousversussubcutaneousmidazolamusingjetinjectorinpediatricsedationarandomizedclinicaltrial