Optimising the oral midazolam dose for premedication in people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder.

BACKGROUND: In people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder, oral midazolam (OM) is very effective as premedication for facilitating medical treatment. In this retrospective study, we investigated the optimal dosage of OM for premedication. METHODS: Patients with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder who were given OM as a premedication were selected from anaesthesia records. The primary outcome variable was the dose of OM (mg/kg) required to produce an adequate sedation. RESULTS: The mean OM dose required was 0.32 ± 0.10 mg/kg. The required OM dose decreased significantly as age and weight increased, and age and weight were also shown to be significantly associated with the dose of OM in the multivariate linear regression analysis. CONCLUSION: The dosage of OM to achieve adequate sedation should decrease as the patient ages. Furthermore, adequate sedation can be achieved with even lower doses of OM in obese people.

Effects of tasipimidine premedication with and without methadone and dexmedetomidine on cardiovascular variables during propofol-isoflurane anaesthesia in Beagle dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiovascular effects of oral tasipimidine on propofol-isoflurane anaesthesia with or without methadone and dexmedetomidine at equianaesthetic levels. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, placebo-controlled, blinded, experimental trial. ANIMALS: A group of seven adult Beagle dogs weighing (mean ± standard deviation) 12.4 ± 2.6 kg and a mean age of 20.6 ± 1 months. METHODS: The dogs underwent four treatments 60 minutes before induction of anaesthesia with propofol. PP: placebo orally and placebo (NaCl 0.9%) intravenously (IV); TP: tasipimidine 30 µg kg-1 orally and placebo IV; TMP: tasipimidine 30 µg kg-1 orally and methadone 0.2 mg kg-1 IV; and TMPD: tasipimidine 30 µg kg-1 orally with methadone 0.2 mg kg-1 and dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg-1 IV followed by 1 µg kg-1 hour-1. Isoflurane in oxygen was maintained for 120 minutes at 1.2 individual minimum alveolar concentration preventing motor movement. Cardiac output (CO), tissue blood flow (tbf), tissue oxygen saturation (stO2) and relative haemoglobin content were determined. Arterial and mixed venous blood gases, arterial and pulmonary artery pressures and heart rate (HR) were measured at baseline; 60 minutes after oral premedication; 5 minutes after IV premedication; 15, 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes after propofol injection; and 30 minutes after switching the vaporiser off. Data were analysed by two-way anova for repeated measures; p < 0.05. RESULTS: Tasipimidine induced a significant 20-30% reduction in HR and CO with decreases in MAP (10-15%), tbf (40%) and stO2 (43%). Blood pressure and oxygenation variables were mainly influenced by propofol-isoflurane-oxygen anaesthesia, preceded by short-lived alterations related to IV methadone and dexmedetomidine. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Tasipimidine induced mild to moderate cardiovascular depression. It can be incorporated into a common anaesthetic protocol without detrimental effects in healthy dogs, when anaesthetics are administered to effect and cardiorespiratory function is monitored.

Evaluation of the analgesic effects of diclofenac as a premedication drug in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.

Pre-emptive analgesia consists of administering drugs such as opioids and nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs. This study aims to evaluate the intraoperative antinociceptive effects of diclofenac administered alone in premedication or combined with morphine along with its potential influence on recovery of dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy. A total of 34 dogs (ASA I or II) admitted for ovariohysterectomy were randomly allocated into three groups according to the drugs given in premedication: Diclofenac (D) (n = 11), Morphine (M) (n = 13) and Diclofenac-Morphine (DM) (n = 10) groups. Induction and maintenance of anesthesia were standardized in all dogs. To assess intraoperative nociception, the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded during the surgery and at predefined time points: St (steady-state), Cut (cutaneous incision), P1 (first ovarian manipulation), P2 (second ovarian manipulation) and Cerv (cervical manipulation). The dynamic variation of HR (ΔHR) and MAP (ΔMAP) over 2 min was calculated at each time point. After extubation, early quality of recovery was assessed. Compared to St, a significant increase in HR and MAP at P1, P2 and Cerv was shown in all groups. MAP in the M group was lower at St than in the other groups. The dynamic variation of HR (ΔHR) and MAP (ΔMAP) was significantly less important at P2 and Cerv compared to P1 only in the DM group. Also, a better quality of recovery was shown in the D group compared to the M and DM groups. Diclofenac may be considered a suitable premedication drug and a part of a multimodal anesthetic approach in dogs.

The Effect of Clonidine Premedication on Hemodynamic Changes Following Tracheal Intubation and Co2 Gas Insufflation and Postoperative Shivering In Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy; a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a proper treatment for cholecystitis but the Carbon dioxide gas which is used in surgery stimulates the sympathetic system and causes hemodynamic changes and postoperative shivering in patients undergoing operations. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of clonidine on reducing hemodynamic changes during tracheal intubation and Carbon dioxide gas insufflation and postoperative shivering in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, triple-blind clinical trial was conducted on 60 patients between the 18-70 years-old age group, who were candidates of laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery. The patients randomized into two groups (30 patients received 150 µg oral clonidine) and 30 patients received 100 mg oral Vitamin C). Heart rate and mean arterial pressure of patients were recorded before anesthesia, before and after laryngoscopy, before and after Carbon dioxide gas insufflation. Data were analyzed using Chi-2, student t-test, and analysis of variance by repeated measure considering at a significant level less than 0.05. RESULTS: The findings of this study showed that both heart rate and mean arterial pressure in clonidine group after tracheal intubation and Carbon dioxide gas insufflation were lower than patients in the placebo group, but there was not any statistically significant difference between the two groups (p>0.05) and also postoperative shivering was not different in groups. There was no significant statistical difference in postoperative shivering between the two groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Using 150 µg oral clonidine as a cheap and affordable premedication in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy improves hemodynamic stability during operation.

Beneficial Effects of Low-Dose Intravenous Dexmedetomidine Premedication in Patient Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under General Anesthesia: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: Dexmedetomidine (Dex) is a potent and highly selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist. Within an appropriate dose range, Dex can effectively attenuate the surgical stress response, provide intraoperative hemodynamic stability, and improve the patient recovery quality. High-dose Dex can delay patient awakening from anesthesia and increase the incidence of bradycardia. This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effects of low-dose intravenous Dex premedication in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Material and Methods: In total, 100 patients undergoing LC were equally randomized into Group C (premedication with saline) and Group D (premedication with 0.5 µg/kg Dex). The patients were premedicated with saline or Dex, depending on the group, before anesthesia induction. Following this, anesthesia induction and endotracheal intubation was performed, and anesthesia was maintained during surgery. Following the completion of the surgery, the patients were transferred the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and stayed there until they met the PACU discharge criteria. The hemodynamic parameters, consumption of anesthetics, surgical duration, postoperative awakening time, extubation time, postoperative pain, and complications were recorded. Results: No significant differences were observed in the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) between the two groups before premedication (P>0.05). The MAP and HR immediately after endotracheal intubation and immediately after extubation were significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05 for both). The incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05), while atropine was used in neither group. Propofol and remifentanil consumption was significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05). The postoperative awakening and extubation times were significantly shorter in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05). The postoperative visual analog scale scores for pain and incidence of nausea, vomiting, and cough were significantly lower in Group D than in Group C (P<0.05 for all). Conclusion: Our data suggest that premedication with dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg) before general anesthesia induction can effectively attenuate intraoperative stress response and postoperative pain, maintain perioperative hemodynamic stability, and decrease the incidence of adverse events, which might be an effective and safe anesthetic protocol during LC worthy of further clinical application.

Steroid Premedication and Monoclonal Antibody Therapy: Should We Reconsider?

OPINION STATEMENT: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy is now considered a main component of cancer therapy in Australia. Although traditionally thought of as pure signalling inhibitors, a large proponent of these medications function through antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC). Currently, most protocols and institutional guidelines for ADCC-mediated mAbs promote the use of corticosteroids as premedication: this is implemented to reduce infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and antiemesis prophylaxis and combat concurrently administered chemotherapy-related syndromes. Concerningly, the inhibitory effects of ADCC by corticosteroids are well documented; henceforth, it is possible the current standard of care is misaligned to the literature surrounding ADCC. Subsequently, clinicians' decisions to act in contrast to this literature may be reducing the efficacy of mAbs. The literature suggests that the redundant use of corticosteroids should be cautioned against when used in conjunction with ADCC-mediated mAbs-this is due to the consequent reduction in anti-tumour activity. Owing to the fact IRRs typically occur upon initial infusion, the authors advocate for individual clinicians and institutional protocols to considering augmenting their practice to corticosteroid premedication at the first dose only, unless clinically indicated. Additionally, product information (PI) and consumer medicine information (CMI) documents distributed by Australian and international regulatory agencies should consider disclosing the risk of concurrent steroids with these medications. Moreover, the authors suggest considering alternative medications for the management of side effects.

The Effect of Using Premedication of Simethicone/Pronase With or Without Postural Change on Visualization of the Mucosa Before Endoscopy: A Prospective, Double Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the efficacy and safety of preprocedural simethicone (S) and pronase (P) for optimal mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy with sedation. The effect of postural change combined with premedication on mucosal visibility was also examined. METHODS: The study randomized 496 patients into 8 groups based on the type of premedication provided and whether a postural change occurred. The premedication in the control group was 100 mL of normal saline solution (NS). The remaining 3 intervention groups were administered 100 mL of simethicone alone (S), pronase solution alone (P), and simethicone plus pronase solution (S + P). Each group was classified into subgroups according to whether there was a postural change (PC). The mucosal visibility score (MVS), total mucosal visibility score (TVS), procedure time, water consumption for mucosal cleansing, and proportion of patients with diminutive lesions <5 mm were recorded. RESULTS: The P and S groups had a significantly better TVS than the NS group (11.86 ± 3.36 in group P vs 14.52 ± 2.57 in group NS, P < 0.001; 12.36 ± 2.93 in group S vs 14.52 ± 2.57 in group NS, P = 0.006). The TVS was better in the P group than in the S group (11.86 ± 3.36 vs 12.36 ± 2.93, P = 0.037). The MVS was significantly better in the esophagus and duodenum and worse in the upper and lower gastric body in the S group than in the P group. The P + S group had a significantly better TVS than the P and S groups (9.81 ± 2.90 in group P + S vs 11.86 ± 3.36 in group P and 12.36 ± 2.93 in group S, respectively, P < 0.001),\ and had a reduced amount of flushing water during the procedure (0 [interquartile range [IQR]: 0-33] mL in group P + S vs 40 [IQR: 0-70] mL in group P, P < 0.01; 0 [IQR: 0-33] mL in group P + S vs 50 [IQR: 20-98] mL in group S, P < 0.001). The TVS was significantly better in the P + S + PC group than in the P + S group (8.44 ± 2.10 vs 9.81 ± 2.90, P = 0.003). The MVS was significantly better in the gastric antrum, fundus, and upper and lower gastric body in the P + S + PC group than in the P + S group. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of diminutive lesions among the different groups during an endoscopic examination ( P > 0.05). DISCUSSION: The combination of preprocedural administration with simethicone and pronase achieved superior mucosal visualization compared with saline, simethicone, or pronase alone in patients receiving upper endoscopy. Postural change maneuvers performed before endoscopy further improved the mucosal visibility in most parts of the stomach when used with preprocedural simethicone and pronase.

Overview of premedication prescription and intake in an oncology day hospital: What do we need to change to improve patient management?

BACKGROUND: Premedication of cancer therapy against nausea and vomiting (NV) and hypersensitivity reaction (HS) is essential for good patient management. However, this prescription is not always optimal. Today, as a large part of cancer therapies are administered in day hospitals (DH), premedication taken on the day of the cancer treatment is injected as a 30-min infusion. OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with recommendations for premedication prescription and intake; to analyse patient attitude about switching to exclusively oral forms taken at home. METHOD: The study is conducted in the medical oncology DH of a French Hospital from 17 January to 25 February 2022. The data collection is carried out as an individual interview, associated with the distribution of two questionnaires. Data are coupled with the premedication set up on our software and the last medical report. Intakes are considered optimal when recommendations, tolerance, background, and adherence of the patient are taken into account. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included for interviews. Regarding software prescriptions, our configuration was consistent with recommendations in 100% of cases for HS and 37% for NV. Intakes were compliant in 51.4% of cases, non-compliant in 17.1% and debatable in 31.5%. Disparities between the practices of different physicians were identified. Regarding the feasibility of oral substitution, it could concern 63.5% of patients. CONCLUSION: This work makes it possible to improve the management of all patients and to make the operation of the care unit more fluid.

Impact of institutional interventions on the rate of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is associated with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Intravenous premedication regimens have been devised to decrease the incidence and severity of HSRs. At our institution oral histamine 1 receptor antagonists (H1RA) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) were adopted as standard. Standardizations were implemented for consistent premedication use in all disease states. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the incidence and severity of HSRs before and after standardization. METHODS: Patients who received paclitaxel from 20 April 2018 to 8 December 2020 having an HSR were included in analysis. An infusion was flagged for review if a rescue medication was administered after the start of the paclitaxel infusion. The incidences of all HSR prior to and post-standardization were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving paclitaxel for the first and second time was performed. RESULTS: There were 3499infusions in the pre-standardization group and 1159infusions in the post-standardization group. After review, 100 HSRs pre-standardization and 38 HSRs post-standardization were confirmed reactions. The rate of overall HSRs was 2.9% in the pre-standardization group and 3.3% in the post-standardization group (p = 0.48). HSRs, during the first and second doses of paclitaxel, occurred in 10.2% of the pre-standardization and 8.5% of the post-standardization group (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective interventional study demonstrated that same-day intravenous dexamethasone, oral H1RA, and oral H2RA are safe premedication regimens for paclitaxel. No change in the severity of reactions was seen. Overall, better adherence to premedication administration was seen post-standardization.

Comparison of the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine versus intranasal atomised ketamine as a premedication for sedation and anxiolysis in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anxiety leads to adverse clinical outcomes and long-term maladaptive behavioural changes. The role of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine and atomised ketamine as premedication to produce sedation and anxiolysis in paediatric neurosurgical patients has not been extensively studied. OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine and intranasal atomised ketamine as premedication in producing sedation and facilitating smooth induction in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery. DESIGN: A prospective randomised double-blind trial. SETTING: A tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty-four children aged 1 to 10 years undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery. METHODS: Children were randomised to receive intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine 2.5 µg kg -1 (Group D, n  = 32) and intranasal atomised ketamine 5 mg kg -1 (Group K, n  = 32) 30 min before surgery. OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was to compare the level of sedation in both groups using the University of Michigan Sedation Score (UMSS). The secondary outcomes included an assessment of the ease of parental separation, intravenous cannulation and satisfactory mask acceptance along with perioperative vitals (heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation). The incidence of emergence agitation and time to discharge were also noted. RESULTS: The degree of sedation was significantly better in Group D as compared to Group K at 20 min (UMSS, 1.55 ±â€Š0.51 versus 1.13 ±â€Š0.34, difference, -0.406; 95% CI, -0.621 to -0.191; P  = 0.0001) and 30 min (2.32 ±â€Š0.6 versus 1.94 ±â€Š0.50, difference, -0.374; 95% CI, -0.650 to -0.100; P  = 0.007). The ease of parental separation, venous cannulation and mask acceptance ( P  = 0.83, 0.418 and 0.100 respectively) were comparable in both groups. The heart rate was lower in group D at 10, 20 and 30 min post-drug administration but was clinically insignificant. The incidence of emergence agitation and time to discharge was also similar with no adverse events reported. CONCLUSION: Intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine produces greater sedation as compared to intranasal atomised ketamine with comparable ease of parental separation, venous cannulation and mask acceptance with no adverse effects.

The MAGIC trial: a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, noninferiority, randomised trial of melatonin versus midazolam in the premedication of anxious children attending for elective surgery under general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Child anxiety before general anaesthesia and surgery is common. Midazolam is a commonly used premedication to address this. Melatonin is an alternative anxiolytic, however trials evaluating its efficacy in children have delivered conflicting results. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind randomised trial was performed in 20 UK NHS Trusts. A sample size of 624 was required to declare noninferiority of melatonin. Anxious children, awaiting day case elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were randomly assigned 1:1 to midazolam or melatonin premedication (0.5 mg kg-1, maximum 20 mg) 30 min before transfer to the operating room. The primary outcome was the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale-Short Form (mYPAS-SF). Secondary outcomes included safety. Results are presented as n (%) and adjusted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely (n=110; 55 per group) because of recruitment futility. Participants had a median age of 7 (6-10) yr, and 57 (52%) were female. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale-Short Form analyses showed adjusted mean differences of 13.1 (3.7-22.4) and 12.9 (3.1-22.6), respectively, in favour of midazolam. The upper 95% confidence interval limits exceeded the predefined margin of 4.3 in both cases, whereas the lower 95% confidence interval excluded zero, indicating that melatonin was inferior to midazolam, with a difference considered to be clinically relevant. No serious adverse events were seen in either arm. CONCLUSION: Melatonin was less effective than midazolam at reducing preoperative anxiety in children, although the early termination of the trial increases the likelihood of bias. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN18296119.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine as premedication for magnetic resonance imaging examinations in dogs with neurological disorders mitigates hypotension and hypothermia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine as a premedication for preventing hypotension and hypothermia in canine patients undergoing MRI examinations. ANIMALS: Dogs undergoing MRI examinations for neurological disorders were enrolled in this study. The dogs were randomly assigned: 15 to the N-Dex group (without premedication) and 13 to the Dex group (125 µg/m2 of dexmedetomidine, intranasally, as a premedication). METHODS: During the examination, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial blood pressure were recorded every 5 minutes for the first 30 minutes. Body temperature was measured before and after the examination. Any adverse events during the procedure were documented. RESULTS: Significant changes in pulse rate during the examination were not distinguishable. Although blood pressure and body temperature decreased in both groups under anesthesia, dogs in the Dex group had a significantly smaller drop in blood pressure and body temperature and fewer hypotension events than those in the N-Dex group MRI examinations of 1 hour's duration. Two dogs in the Dex group exhibited bradycardia at 45 and 60 minutes of MRI examination, which resolved after receiving atipamezole. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results indicate that intranasal administration of 125 µg/m2 of dexmedetomidine as premedication is safe and can potentially mitigate hypothermia and hypotension in dogs with neurological disorders during MRI examinations.

Premedication strategy in cetuximab rechallenge after Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions.

INTRODUCTION: Cetuximab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is utilized in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell head and neck cancers. Due to the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, standard premedication with a histamine-1 (H-1) antagonist is recommended prior to administration, however, there is less guidance for premedication strategies to assist with rechallenge after infusion reactions. Here, we describe two cases of successful cetuximab treatment after Grade 2 reactions, in addition to risk factors and proposed premedication strategies for successful rechallenge. CASE REPORT: Two patients who experienced Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions were both successfully rechallenged with increased premedications 1-2 weeks after initial infusions. The first patient was a 56-year-old male diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab as part of a clinical trial. The second patient was a 73-year-old male diagnosed with head and neck cancer receiving cetuximab as part of standard of care concurrent with radiation. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Each patient was rechallenged with an increased premedication strategy including dexamethasone, famotidine, diphenhydramine, and acetaminophen in addition to reducing the infusion rate. Both patients either continued treatment or successfully completed therapy, without any additional infusion-related reactions. DISCUSSION: We aimed to review risk factors related to cetuximab infusion reactions and propose a premedication strategy for rechallenge postreaction. Known risk factors include male sex and the accumulation of cetuximab-specific IgE. These may be mitigated by the addition of increased premedication with dexamethasone and famotidine with concurrent reduced infusion rate.

Exclusion of Ranitidine From Premedication Regimens During Paclitaxel Treatment.

This cohort study conducted in the Netherlands uses electronic medical records to assess incidence of hypersensitivity reactions with and without H2-receptor antagonist premedication before paclitaxel administration.

The association between midazolam premedication and postoperative delirium - a retrospective cohort study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between midazolam premedication and postoperative delirium in a large retrospective cohort of patients ≥70 years. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A single tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients ≥70 years having elective non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia from 2020 to 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Midazolam premedication, defined as intravenous midazolam administration prior to induction of general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome, postoperative delirium, was a collapsed composite outcome including at least one of the following: a positive 4A's test during post-anesthesia care unit stay and/or the initial 2 postoperative days; physician or nursing records reporting new-onset confusion as captured by the CHART-DEL instrument; or a positive 3D-CAM test. The association between midazolam premedication and postoperative delirium was assessed using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounding variables. As secondary analysis, we investigated the association between midazolam premedication and a composite of other postoperative complications. Several sensitivity analyses were performed using similar regression models. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 1973 patients were analyzed (median age 75 years, 47% women, 50% ASA score ≥ 3, 32% high risk surgery). The overall incidence of postoperative delirium was 15.3% (302/1973). Midazolam premedication was administered to 782 (40%) patients (median [IQR] dose 2 [1,2] mg). After adjustment for potential confounding variables, midazolam premedication was not associated with increased odds of postoperative delirium, with adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval 0.82-1.45; P = 0.538). Midazolam premedication was also not associated with the composite of other postoperative complications. Furthermore, no association was found between midazolam premedication and postoperative delirium in any of the sensitivity analyses preformed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that low doses of midazolam can be safely used to pre-medicate elective surgical patients 70 years or older before non-cardiac surgery, without significant effect on the risk of developing postoperative delirium.

Avaliação do colírio de brimonidina 0, 2% em comparação à nafazolina 0,025% + feniramina 0,3% nas cirurgias de estrabismo / Evaluation of 0.2% brimonidine eye drops compared to 0.025% naphazoline + 0.3% pheniramine in strabismus surgery

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar o efeito do colírio de brimonidina 0,2% na redução da hiperemia e do sangramento ocular durante as cirurgias de estrabismo, em comparação com o colírio de nafazolina 0,025% + feniramina 0,3%. Métodos: Foram avaliados 14 pacientes com estrabismo e indicação de correção cirúrgica bilateral. Foi instilado antes do procedimento, de forma aleatória, um colírio em cada olho dos pacientes avaliados. A análise subjetiva da hiperemia conjuntival e do sangramento perioperatório foi realizada de forma duplo-cega, por dois cirurgiões. A avaliação objetiva do nível de hiperemia conjuntival foi realizada por análise das imagens obtidas por meio do software ImageJ®. Resultados: A análise de modelos multivariados de efeito misto indicou diferenças estatisticamente significantes entre os grupos em relação à hiperemia (avaliador 2) e ao sangramento intraoperatório (avaliadores 1 e 2), com maiores escores nos casos tratados com colírio de nafazolina + feniramina. Entretanto, não houve diferença estatística na análise objetiva realizada por meio da saturação de cores obtidas pelo programa ImageJ®. Conclusão: O colírio de brimonidina pode ser superior ao colírio de nafazolina + feniramina na redução do sangramento, levando-se em conta apenas a análise subjetiva.

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the effect of 0.2% brimonidine eye drops in reducing hyperemia and ocular bleeding during strabismus surgeries, in comparison with 0.025% naphazoline + 0.3% pheniramine eye drops. Methods: Fourteen patients with strabismus and indication for bilateral surgical correction were evaluated. Before the procedure, the eye drops were instilled randomly in each eye of the evaluated patients. The subjective analysis of conjunctival hyperemia and perioperative bleeding was performed in a double-blind manner, by 02 surgeons. The objective assessment of the level of conjunctival hyperemia was performed by analyzing the images obtained using the ImageJ® software. Results: The analysis of multivariate mixed effect models indicated statistically significant differences between the groups in relation to hyperemia (rater 2) and intraoperative bleeding (raters 1 and 2) with higher scores in cases treated with naphazoline + pheniramine eye drops. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the objective analysis of color saturation obtained by the ImageJ® program. Conclusion: Brimonidine eye drops may be superior to naphazoline + pheniramine eye drops in reducing bleeding, taking into account the subjective analysis only.

A quality improvement initiative standardizing premedication for blood product transfusions.

For children with cancer, blood product transfusions are crucial, but can be complicated by transfusion reactions. To prevent these complications, premedication is often given, although not always evidence-based. Herein, we describe a significant decrease in the use of premedication (72%-28%) at our institution after the implementation of standardized guidelines, without an increase in transfusion reactions (3.2% prior vs. 1.5% after standardization). Importantly, there were no severe transfusion reactions leading to hospitalization or death. Our results provide evidence in favor of more judicious use of premedication prior to transfusions in patients 21 years and younger being treated for cancer.

Effect of Premedication With Pronase Before Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to confirm whether premedication with pronase before endoscopy improves mucosal visualization and increases precancerous lesion and cancer lesion detection rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2018 to April 2019, out-patients scheduled for endoscopy from 13 hospitals were screened to be randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to premedication with pronase (group A) and water (group B). The primary endpoint was mucosal visibility scores, and the secondary endpoint was precancerous and cancer lesion detection rates. This trial was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the registration number was ChiCTR1800016853. RESULTS: Group A showed significantly lower mucosal visibility scores (better mucosal visibility) of esophagus, stomach, and duodenum than group B, with all P -values <0.001. The overall cancer detection rates between group A and group B were 0.83 and 1.08%, and overall detection rates of precancerous and cancer lesion were 4.4 and 4.9%, both without significant difference ( P =1.000 and 0.824). In addition, the flushing volume (milliliter) of group A (10.52±23.41) was less than group B (36.30±52.11) ( P <0.001), and the flushing frequency of group A (0.46±1.01) was fewer than group B (1.62±2.12) ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with pronase could achieve better mucosal visibility and decrease flushing frequency and volume, but may not increase lesion detection rates.

Melatonin or its analogs as premedication to prevent emergence agitation in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emergence agitation (EA) is a prevalent complication in children following general anesthesia. Several studies have assessed the relationship between melatonin or its analogs and the incidence of pediatric EA, yielding conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of premedication with melatonin or its analogs on preventing EA in children after general anesthesia. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched until 25 November 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed EA in patients less than 18 years old who underwent general anesthesia. We excluded studies that did not use a specific evaluation to assess EA. RESULTS: Nine studies (951 participants) were included in this systematic review. Melatonin significantly reduced the incidence of EA compared with placebos (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.61, P < 0.01) and midazolam (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, P < 0.01). Dexmedetomidine remarkably decreased the incidence of EA compared with melatonin (risk ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.73, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Melatonin premedication significantly decreases the incidence of EA compared with placebos and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine premedication has a stronger effect than melatonin in preventing EA. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted to reinforce and validate the conclusion on the efficacy of melatonin premedication in mitigating EA in pediatric patients.

The interest of intranasal clonidine in the prevention of perioperative children's anxiety: a prospective randomized trial.

Introduction: perioperative anxiety in children may lead to psychological and physiological side effects. Clonidine is in increasing use in the pediatric population as an anxiolytic, sedative, and analgesic because of its central alpha2-adrenergic agonist effect. Our study aimed to evaluate the effect of clonidine in the prevention of perioperative children´s anxiety. Methods: we conducted a prospective controlled randomized double-blinded clinical trial including children aged between 2 and 15 years undergoing tonsillectomy surgery. The patients were randomly allocated to receive either an intranasal dose of clonidine (4 µg/kg) (clonidine group) or an equal volume dose of saline solution (control group) 30 minutes before entering the operating room. The level of anxiety assessed using the m-YPAS score was recorded before premedication, at the time of parent-child separation, and at the time of installation in the operating room. Acceptance of premedication, degree of sedation on entering the operating room as well as agitation on awakening, and sedation on arrival post-anesthesia care unit were noted. Adverse effects were recorded during the surgical procedure and in the postoperative recovery room. Results: the number of patients analyzed was 78 with 39 patients in each group. There were no signification differences in demographic data and premedication acceptance between the two groups. Levels of anxiety before any premedication were similar in the two groups. However, the anxiety level 30 minutes after premedication and in the operating room was significantly lower in the clonidine group (p<0.001). Children who received clonidine showed better sedation on entering the operating room (p=0.002) as well as postoperatively on entering the post-anesthesia unit care (p=0.006). The hemodynamic and respiratory parameters recorded were statistically comparable. Conclusion: intranasal clonidine is an interesting premedication to prevent perioperative children´s anxiety with few side effects.