- Visibility 81 Views
- Downloads 41 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI 10.18231/j.ijca.2019.069
-
CrossMark
- Citation
Comparative study of intravenous and oral midazolam in pediatric CT scans for non CNS pathology
- Author Details:
-
Jitin George
-
Anupama M K *
Introduction: There has been a dramatic increase in the use of computed tomography (CT) scan to diagnose conditions and to monitor treatment in the pediatric setting. Infants and children require sedation during procedure to maintain a motionless state to ensure high quality imaging.
The target sedation depth required depends on imaging procedure and individual patient characteristics. CT scans with modern multislice scanners do rapid image acquisition and procedure may require minimal sedation. But some children need to be asleep to tolerate the study scan. Procedures may be rescheduled and repeated if the movement is excessive which leads to additional radiation burden which leads to increasing the cost of the procedure and patient stress. Careful planning of sedation is important in such scenarios.1
Many drug regimens have been recommended to achieve satisfactory sedation for such painless procedure. Most of these medications can be administered through various routes and selecting the drug varies on the procedure, level of pain, optimum depth of sedation required and the patient’s condition.2 Midazolam has been widely used as a sedative in children for a long time.3
This study compares the effect of intravenous and oral Midazolam in paediatric age group with respect to degree of sedation levels achieved, and the need for a rescue dose for non CNS Computed Tomography scans.
Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, oral Midazolam verses IV Midazolam was studied for sedation in paediatric patients of 2 to 6 years of age for non CNS CT scan. 0.5mg/kg of oral Midazolam and 0.01mg/kg of IV Midazolam was used. 1mg/kg Propofol used as the rescue drug and 0.5mg/kg subsequently till the desired sedation score was achieved.
70 patients were divided into 2 groups of 35in each group. 1: Group A received oral 0.5 mg/kg body weight Midazolam 20 minutes prior to the scan (a maximum dose of 10 mg); 2: Group B received IV 0.01mg/kg body weight Midazolam 5 minutes prior to scan.
Statistical Analysis: Calculation of sample size using the Open Epi software considering ? error 5% and β error 20% was 66 (Kelsey). The statistical analysis done by SPSS-20, unpaired ‘t’ test and Chi-Square test.
Results: In oral midazolam group:
At the end of 20 minutes 54% achieved the desired sedation score. At the beginning of scan i.e. at 25 minutes from the drug administration, 60% achieved desired sedation score.
40% required the rescue drug. There was no incidence of haemodynamic or respiratory disturbances after giving the rescue drug.
In IV Midazolam group: At the end of 5 minutes (sedation end point) 8.5% achieved required sedation level. At the beginning of scan i.e 5 minutes later 11.4% of the study population achieved sedation level. 88.6% required the rescue drug with multiple subsequent doses.
There was no incidence of haemodynamic or respiratory disturbances after giving the rescue drug.
Conclusion: 1: As compared to IV route, Midazolam by oral route in the dose of 0.5mg/kg was effective in achieving desired sedation level with slower onset time but lesser incidence of rescue drug requirement; 2: The recovery with oral Midazolam was comparatively of longer duration than with IV Midazolam; 3: The incidence of haemodynamic and respiratory disturbances such as desaturation was not observed in either the groups.
Keywords: Paediatric sedation, Midazolam, Computed tomography (CT) scan.
References
- Krauss B, Green SM. Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. Lancet 2006;367(9512):766–80.
- Lee JH, Kim K, Kim TY. A randomized comparison of nitrous oxide versus intravenous ketamine for laceration repair in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 2012;28(12):1297-301.
- Wilson K, Girdler N, Welbury R. A comparison of oral midazolam and nitrous oxide sedation for dental extractions in children. Anaesth 2006;61(12):1138–44.
- Cravero JP, Blike GT. Review of paediatric sedation. A HU A 2004;99:1355–64.
- American Academy of Pediatrics; American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Coté CJ, Wilson S.; Work Group on Sedation Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update. Pediatr 2006;118: 2587–
- Sanborn PA, Michna E, Zurakowski D, Burrows PE, Fontaine PJ, Connor L, et al. Adverse cardiovascular and respiratory events during sedation of paediatric patients for imaging examinations. Radiol 2005;237:288–94.
- Pressdee D, May L, Eastman E, Grier D. The use of play therapy in the preparation of children undergoing MR imaging. Clin Radiol 1997;52:945–7.
- American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: Application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters. Anesthesiol 2011;114:495–511.
- Dawson R, FintelNv, Nairn S. Sedation assessment using the Ramsay scale: Rachel Dawson and colleagues review the reliability of tools for assessing sedation and how these differ from methods of measuring consciousness. Emerg Nurse 2010;18(3):18–20.
- Kain ZN, Mayes LC, O'Connor TZ, Cicchetti DV. Preoperative anxiety in children. Predictors and outcomes. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996;150:1238–45.
- Krauss BS, Krauss BA, Green SM. Procedural sedation and analgesia in children. Engl J Med 2014;370(15). Jitin George et al. Comparative study of intravenous and oral midazolam in pediatric…. Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia, July-September, 2019;6(3):359-365 365
- Moro-Sutherland DM, Algren JT, Louis PT, Kozinetz CA, Shook JE. Comparison of Intravenous Midazolam with Pentobarbital for Sedation for Head Computed Tomography Imaging. 2000. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7(12):1370-5.
- Singh R, Kumar N, Vajifdar H. Midazolam as a sole sedative for computed tomography imaging in pediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth 2009;19(9):899-904.
- Deshmukh PV, Kulkarni SS, Parchandekar MK, Sikchi SP. Comparison of preanesthetic sedation in pediatric patients with oral and intranasal midazolam. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2016;32(3):353-8.
- Gupta A, Pandey M, Chaudhary L, Jain A, Pemde H. Oral midazolam versus oral triclofos for sedation of children for computed tomography scan - a randomized clinical trial. J Soc Anaesthesiol Nepal 2015;2(2).
- Norousalitehrani MH, Kaviani N, Nazari S, Shahtusi M. Intravenous conscious sedation in uncooperative children undergoing dental procedures: a comparative evaluation of midazolam/ propofol and ketamine/ propofol. Indian J Sci Res 2014;5(2):161-7.
- Barzegari H, Zohrevandi B, Masoumi K, Forouzan A, Darian AA, Khosravi S. Comparison of Oral Midazolam and Promethazine with Oral Midazolam alone for Sedating Children during Computed Tomography. Emerg (Tehran) 2015;3(3):109–13.
- Khodadad A, Aflatoonian M, Jalilian R, Babaei Nn, Motamed F, Soltani AE, et al. Comparison of Oral Midazolam with Intravenous Midazolam for sedation of children during Upper Gastrointestinal endoscopy. Acta Medica Iranica, 2016;54(9).
- Barzegari H, Masoumi K, Motamed H, Zohrevandi B, Zeynadini Meymand S. Comparing Two Different Doses of Intravenous Midazolam in Pediatric Sedation and Analgesia. Emerg (Tehran) 2016;4(4):192-5.
- Majidinejad S, Taherian K, Esmailian M, Khazaei M, Samaie V. Oral Midazolam-Ketamine versus Midazolam alone for Procedural Sedation of Children Undergoing Computed Tomography. Emerg (Tehran) 2015 Spring2 3(2):64-9.
- Trevor S, Upadya M, Sinha C, Kaur M. A comparison of midazolam and clonidine as an oral premedication in paediatric patients. Saudi J Anaesth 2012;6(1):8-11.
- Salem K, Kamranzadeh S, Kousha M, Shaeghi S, Gorgi FA. Two Oral Midazolam Preparations in Pediatric Dental Patients: A Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial. Int J Pediatr 2015(2015):Article ID 349795
How to Cite This Article
Vancouver
George J, K AM. Comparative study of intravenous and oral midazolam in pediatric CT scans for non CNS pathology [Internet]. Indian J Clin Anaesth. 2019 [cited 2025 Oct 17];6(3):359-365. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijca.2019.069
APA
George, J., K, A. M. (2019). Comparative study of intravenous and oral midazolam in pediatric CT scans for non CNS pathology. Indian J Clin Anaesth, 6(3), 359-365. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijca.2019.069
MLA
George, Jitin, K, Anupama M. "Comparative study of intravenous and oral midazolam in pediatric CT scans for non CNS pathology." Indian J Clin Anaesth, vol. 6, no. 3, 2019, pp. 359-365. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijca.2019.069
Chicago
George, J., K, A. M.. "Comparative study of intravenous and oral midazolam in pediatric CT scans for non CNS pathology." Indian J Clin Anaesth 6, no. 3 (2019): 359-365. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijca.2019.069