Moderate sedation for echocardiography of preschoolers.

Preschoolers frequently require sedation for echocardiograms. This study compared various sedation drugs at the authors' institution, as well as the charges for moderate versus deep sedation. From 2001 to 2007, sedation was administered to 703 patients ages 2 to 4 years. Four drug regimens were used: chloral hydrate (CH), chloral hydrate with diphenhydramine (CH + D), chloral hydrate with hydroxyzine hydrochloride (CH + H), and midazolam. The mean onset of sedation was 37 min, and the mean duration of sedation was 47 min. The CH group fell asleep the most quickly (30 min; p < 0.001), and the CH + D patients experienced the most prolonged sedations (13%; p < 0.001). Studies were completed by 97% of the chloral hydrate group, 98% of the CH + D group, and 94% of the CH + H group compared with 66% of the midazolam group (p < 0.001). Complications (7.4%) were minor and not significant for any particular medication. The charges for moderate sedation averaged $709 compared with $3,628 for deep sedation. The findings demonstrated that chloral hydrate was the fastest-acting agent and had a high success rate with minimally prolonged sedations. The low complication rate for chloral hydrate, and the much lower cost for its use to induce moderate sedation have made chloral hydrate our preference for the echocardiographic sedation of preschoolers.

Diphenhydramine versus nonsedating antihistamines for acute allergic reactions: a literature review.

First-generation antihistamines can have adverse effects on the central nervous system and thereby complicate discharge planning from the emergency department (ED). Newer antihistamines are potentially safer, causing less sedation with similar efficacy. The aim of this study was to review the literature to better define which antihistamines are good options for the treatment of acute allergic reactions. A Medline search was conducted to identify English language articles published between January 1975 and March 2006 on antihistamines, sedation, and acute allergic reactions. Bibliographies from included studies were further investigated. We focused on sedative potential, effect on cognitive function, efficacy, onset of clinical activity, and cost of antihistamines. Diphenhydramine impairs psychomotor performance and cognitive function. Loratadine and desloratadine are nonsedating but less efficacious than cetirizine or fexofenadine. The incidence of sedation with cetirizine is less than that of first-generation antihistamines but is greater than placebo. Cetirizine has the fastest onset of action among the newer antihistamines. Fexofenadine does not impair psychomotor or cognitive skills and shows no dose-related increase in sedation but has a slower onset of action than diphenhydramine and cetirizine. Newer antihistamines cost approximately $0.52-2.39 more per dose than diphenhydramine ($0.37). Newer antihistamines provide similar efficacy as first-generation antihistamines but with less sedation. We believe this benefit outweighs the small increase in cost and that newer antihistamines should be considered in the management of acute allergic reactions. Although comparative ED-based trials are not available, newer antihistamines are an option for management of acute allergic reactions when sedation is a concern.

Acetaminophen and diphenhydramine premedication for allergic and febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions: good prophylaxis or bad practice?

Febrile nonhemolytic and allergic reactions are the most common transfusion reactions, but usually do not cause significant morbidity. In an attempt to prevent these reactions, US physicians prescribe acetaminophen or diphenhydramine premedication before more than 50% of blood component transfusions. Acetaminophen and diphenhydramine are effective therapies for fever and allergy, respectively, so their use in transfusion has some biologic rationale. However, these medications also have potential toxicity, particularly in ill patients, and in the studies performed to date, they have failed to prevent transfusion reactions. Whether the benefits of routine prophylaxis with acetaminophen and diphenhydramine outweigh their risks and cost requires reexamination, particularly in light of the low reaction rates reported at many institutions even when premedication is not prescribed.

Diphenhydramine as an adjunct to sedation for colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous benzodiazepines in combination with opiates are used to achieve moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Although effective, these agents have potential adverse effects, such as respiratory depression and hypotension. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride possesses central nervous system depressant effects that theoretically could provide a synergistic effect for sedating patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the efficacy of adding diphenhydramine hydrochloride as an adjunct to improve sedation and to reduce the amount of standard sedatives used during colonoscopy. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: The study was conducted in a university hospital with an active GI fellowship training program. PATIENTS: The study group comprised 270 patients undergoing screening/diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either 50 mg of diphenhydramine or placebo, given intravenously 3 minutes before starting conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and meperidine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome measure was anesthetic effect as assessed by the endoscopy team and by the patient; quantity of adjunctive sedatives to achieve adequate sedation. RESULTS: Of 270 patients, data were analyzed for 258 patients, with 130 patients in the diphenhydramine group and 128 patients in the placebo group. There was a 10.1% reduction in meperidine usage and 13.7% reduction in midazolam usage in favor of the diphenhydramine group. The mean evaluation scores as judged by the faculty, the fellows, and the nurses were statistically significant in favor of the diphenhydramine group. In addition, patient scores for overall sedation and pain level favored the group that received diphenhydramine. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous diphenhydramine given before initiation of standard sedation offers a significant benefit to conscious sedation for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus following caesarean section.

PURPOSE: To compare both the efficacy and cost of nalbuphine and diphenhydramine in the treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus following Caesarean section. METHODS: Eighty patients, undergoing elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, were randomized, in a prospective, double-blind trial, to receive either nalbuphine (Group NAL) or diphenhydramine (Group DIP) for the treatment of SAB morphine-induced pruritus. All patients received an intrathecal injection of 10-12 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75% and 200 micrograms preservative free morphine. Postoperative pruritus was assessed, using a visual analogue scale (VAS), for 24 hr. Pruritus treatment was administered upon patient request and by a nurse blinded to the treatment given. Patients who failed to respond to three doses of the study drug were deemed treatment failures. Patient satisfaction was assessed with a questionnaire given 24 to 48 hr after surgery. Direct drug costs were calculated based on the pharmacy provision costs as of April 1996. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled and 45 requested treatment for pruritus. Patients treated with NAL (n = 24) were more likely to achieve a VAS score of zero with treatment (83% vs 43%, P < 0.01), had a higher delta VAS following treatment (4 +/- 2 vs 2 +/- 2, P < 0.003), and experienced fewer treatment failures (4% vs 29%, P < 0.04), than those treated with DIP (n = 21). Group NAL patients were also more likely to rate their pruritus treatment as being good to excellent (96% vs 57%, P < 0.004). Direct drug costs were higher for NAL than for DIP ($6.4 +/- 3.1 vs $1.7 +/- 0.7, respectively, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Nalbuphine is more effective than diphenhydramine in relieving pruritus caused by intrathecal morphine and the cost differences are small.