Comparison of intranasal versus intravenous midazolam for management of status epilepticus in dogs: A multi‐center randomized parallel group clinical study

BACKGROUND: The intranasal (IN) route for rapid drug administration in patients with brain disorders, including status epilepticus, has been investigated. Status epilepticus is an emergency, and the IN route offers a valuable alternative to other routes, especially when these fail. OBJECTIVES: To compare IN versus IV midazolam (MDZ) at the same dosage (0.2 mg/kg) for controlling status epilepticus in dogs. ANIMALS: Client‐owned dogs (n = 44) with idiopathic epilepsy, structural epilepsy, or epilepsy of unknown origin manifesting as status epilepticus. METHODS: Randomized parallel group clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated to the IN‐MDZ (n = 21) or IV‐MDZ (n = 23) group. Number of successfully treated cases (defined as seizure cessation within 5 minutes and lasting for ≥10 minutes), seizure cessation time, and adverse effects were recorded. Comparisons were performed using the Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests with statistical significance set at α < .05. RESULTS: IN‐MDZ and IV‐MDZ successfully stopped status epilepticus in 76% and 61% of cases, respectively (P = .34). The median seizure cessation time was 33 and 64 seconds for IN‐MDZ and IV‐MDZ, respectively (P = .63). When the time to place an IV catheter was taken into account, IN‐MDZ (100 seconds) was superior (P = .04) to IV‐MDZ (270 seconds). Sedation and ataxia were seen in 88% and 79% of the dogs treated with IN‐MDZ and IV‐MDZ, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Both routes are quick, safe, and effective for controlling status epilepticus. However, the IN route demonstrated superiority when the time needed to place an IV catheter was taken into account.