Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.329
Filtrar
Más filtros

Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol ; 35(1): 162-170, 2024 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38009545

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) represents a novel, nonthermal energy modality that can be applied for single-shot pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF). Comparative data with regard to deep sedation to established single-shot modalities such as cryoballoon (CB) ablation are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare a deep sedation protocol in patients receiving PVI with either PFA or CB. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive AF patients undergoing PVI with a pentaspline PFA catheter were compared to a retrospective CB-PVI cohort of the same timeframe. Study endpoints were the requirements of analgesics, cardiorespiratory stability, and sedation-associated complications. RESULTS: A total of 100 PVI patients were included (PFA n = 50, CB n = 50, mean age 66 ± 10.6, 61% male patients, 65% paroxysmal AF). Requirement of propofol, midazolam, and sufentanyl was significantly higher in the PFA group compared to CB [propofol 0.14 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.11 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min in CB (p = .001); midazolam 0.00086 ± 0.0004 mg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.0006295 ± 0.0003 mg/kg/min in CB (p = .002) and sufentanyl 0.0013 ± 0.0007 µg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.0008 ± 0.0004 µg/kg/min in CB (p < .0001)]. Sedation-associated complications did not differ between both groups (PFA n = 1/50 mild aspiration pneumonia, CB n = 0/50, p > .99). Nonsedation-associated complications (PFA: n = 2/50, 4%, CB: n = 1/50, 2%, p > .99) and procedure times (PFA 75 ± 31, CB 84 ± 32 min, p = .18) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PFA is associated with higher sedation and especially analgesia requirements. However, the safety of deep sedation does not differ to CB ablation.


Asunto(s)
Analgesia , Fibrilación Atrial , Criocirugía , Propofol , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Femenino , Fibrilación Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilación Atrial/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios Prospectivos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Criocirugía/efectos adversos , Criocirugía/métodos
2.
PLoS Biol ; 19(4): e3001146, 2021 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33793545

RESUMEN

General anesthesia is characterized by reversible loss of consciousness accompanied by transient amnesia. Yet, long-term memory impairment is an undesirable side effect. How different types of general anesthetics (GAs) affect the hippocampus, a brain region central to memory formation and consolidation, is poorly understood. Using extracellular recordings, chronic 2-photon imaging, and behavioral analysis, we monitor the effects of isoflurane (Iso), medetomidine/midazolam/fentanyl (MMF), and ketamine/xylazine (Keta/Xyl) on network activity and structural spine dynamics in the hippocampal CA1 area of adult mice. GAs robustly reduced spiking activity, decorrelated cellular ensembles, albeit with distinct activity signatures, and altered spine dynamics. CA1 network activity under all 3 anesthetics was different to natural sleep. Iso anesthesia most closely resembled unperturbed activity during wakefulness and sleep, and network alterations recovered more readily than with Keta/Xyl and MMF. Correspondingly, memory consolidation was impaired after exposure to Keta/Xyl and MMF, but not Iso. Thus, different anesthetics distinctly alter hippocampal network dynamics, synaptic connectivity, and memory consolidation, with implications for GA strategy appraisal in animal research and clinical settings.


Asunto(s)
Anestésicos/efectos adversos , Hipocampo/efectos de los fármacos , Consolidación de la Memoria/efectos de los fármacos , Columna Vertebral/efectos de los fármacos , Anestesia/efectos adversos , Anestésicos/farmacología , Animales , Fenómenos Electrofisiológicos/efectos de los fármacos , Femenino , Fentanilo/efectos adversos , Fentanilo/farmacología , Hipocampo/citología , Hipocampo/fisiología , Isoflurano/efectos adversos , Isoflurano/farmacología , Ketamina/efectos adversos , Ketamina/farmacología , Masculino , Medetomidina/efectos adversos , Medetomidina/farmacología , Trastornos de la Memoria/inducido químicamente , Trastornos de la Memoria/patología , Ratones , Ratones Endogámicos C57BL , Ratones Transgénicos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Midazolam/farmacología , Red Nerviosa/efectos de los fármacos , Red Nerviosa/fisiología , Columna Vertebral/fisiología , Xilazina/efectos adversos , Xilazina/farmacología
3.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 90(6): 1471-1479, 2024 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38482541

RESUMEN

AIM: Knowledge of risk factors may provide strategies to reduce the high burden of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We aimed to compare the risk of delirium after deep sedation with propofol versus midazolam in ICU patients. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, ICU patients who were in an unarousable state for ≥24 h due to continuous sedation with propofol and/or midazolam were included. Patients admitted ≤24 h, those with an acute neurological disorder and those receiving palliative sedation were excluded. ICU patients were assessed daily for delirium during the 7 days following an unarousable state due to continuous sedation. RESULTS: Among 950 included patients, 605 (64%) subjects were delirious during the 7 days after awaking. The proportion of subsequent delirium was higher after midazolam sedation (152/207 [73%] patients) and after both propofol and midazolam sedation (257/377 [68%] patients), compared to propofol sedation only (196/366 [54%] patients). Midazolam sedation (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio [adj. cause-specific HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.66) and propofol and midazolam sedation (adj. cause-specific HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06-1.56) were associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium compared to propofol sedation only. CONCLUSION: This study among sedated ICU patients suggests that, compared to propofol sedation, midazolam sedation is associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium. This risk seems more apparent in patients with high cumulative midazolam intravenous doses. Our findings underpin the recommendations of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (rehabilitation/mobilization), and Sleep (disruption) guidelines to use propofol over benzodiazepines for sedation in ICU patients.


Asunto(s)
Sedación Profunda , Delirio , Hipnóticos y Sedantes , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Midazolam , Propofol , Humanos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Midazolam/administración & dosificación , Propofol/efectos adversos , Propofol/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Femenino , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/efectos adversos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/administración & dosificación , Estudios Prospectivos , Anciano , Factores de Riesgo , Delirio/inducido químicamente , Delirio/prevención & control , Delirio/epidemiología , Sedación Profunda/efectos adversos , Sedación Profunda/métodos , Adulto
4.
J Surg Res ; 298: 209-213, 2024 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38626718

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Periprocedural anxiety is common in pediatric patients and is characterized by tension, anxiety, irritability, and autonomic activation. Periprocedural anxiety increases during certain events including admission to the preoperative area, separation from caregivers, induction of anesthesia, and IV placement. A study of children aged 2-12 showed that perioperative anxiety in children may be influenced by high parental anxiety and low sociability of the child. While these are nonmodifiable variables in the perioperative setting, there are numerous ways to ameliorate both parental and patient anxiety including the use of certified child life specialists (CCLSs) to aid in child comfort. In this study, our objective was to evaluate the integration of CCLS in our perioperative setting on the rate of benzodiazepine use. METHODS: We used a prospectively maintained database to identify patients undergoing outpatient elective surgical and radiologic procedures from July 2022 to September 2023 and January 2023 to September 2023 respectively. CCLSs were used to work with appropriately aged children in order to decrease the use of benzodiazepines and reduce possible adverse events associated with their use. RESULTS: A total of 2175 pediatric patients were seen by CCLS in same day surgery from July 2022 to September 2023. During this period, midazolam use decreased by an average of 11.4% (range 6.2%-19.3%). An even greater effect was seen in the radiologic group with 73% reduction. No adverse events were reported during this period. CONCLUSIONS: CCLSs working with age-appropriate patients in the periprocedural setting is a useful adjunct in easing anxiety in pediatric patients, reducing the need for periprocedural benzodiazepine administration and the risk of exposure to unintended side effects.


Asunto(s)
Ansiedad , Benzodiazepinas , Humanos , Proyectos Piloto , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Masculino , Benzodiazepinas/administración & dosificación , Benzodiazepinas/efectos adversos , Ansiedad/prevención & control , Ansiedad/etiología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos/efectos adversos , Midazolam/administración & dosificación , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos
5.
BMC Gastroenterol ; 24(1): 124, 2024 Apr 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38566038

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Proper sedation of patients, particularly elderly individuals, who are more susceptible to sedation-related complications, is of significant importance in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing ERCP, compared to a group of middle-aged patients. METHODS: The medical records of 610 patients with common bile duct stones who underwent elective ERCP under deep sedation with a three-drug regimen, including midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol at Shandong Provincial Third Hospital from January 2023 to September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups: middle-aged (50-64 years, n = 202), elderly (65-79 years, n = 216), and very elderly (≥ 80 years, n = 192). Intraoperative vital signs and complications were compared among these groups. RESULTS: The three groups showed no significant difference in terms of intraoperative variation of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.291), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.737), heart rate (P = 0.107), peripheral oxygen saturation (P = 0.188), bispectral index (P = 0.158), and the occurrence of sedation-related adverse events including hypotension (P = 0.170) and hypoxemia (P = 0.423). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a low-dose three-drug regimen consisting of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol seems safe and effective for deep sedation of elderly and very elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, further studies are required to verify these findings and clarify the benefits and risks of this method.


Asunto(s)
Sedación Profunda , Propofol , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Humanos , Propofol/efectos adversos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Alfentanilo/efectos adversos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/efectos adversos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/métodos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/efectos adversos , Sedación Profunda/efectos adversos , Sedación Profunda/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sedación Consciente/efectos adversos , Sedación Consciente/métodos
6.
Br J Anaesth ; 132(3): 491-506, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38185564

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.


Asunto(s)
Analgesia , Ketamina , Propofol , Adulto , Niño , Humanos , Propofol/efectos adversos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Ketamina/efectos adversos , Metaanálisis en Red , Dolor/tratamiento farmacológico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Sedación Consciente/efectos adversos , Sedación Consciente/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
7.
BMC Pulm Med ; 24(1): 301, 2024 Jun 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38926768

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Sedation during flexible bronchoscopy (FB) should maintain an adequate respiratory drive, ensure maximum comfort for the patient, and warrant that the objectives of the procedure are achieved. Nevertheless, the optimal sedation method for FB has yet to be established. This study aimed to compare the standard recommended combination of midazolam-fentanyl (MF) with that of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) for patient sedation during FB. METHODS: Patients subjected to FB were randomly assigned to a DK (n = 25) and an MF group (n = 25). The primary outcome was the rate of critical desaturation events (arterial oxygen saturation < 80% with nasal oxygen supply 2 L/min). Secondary outcomes included sedation depth, hemodynamic complications, adverse events, and patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction. RESULTS: The incidence rates of critical desaturation events were similar between the two groups (DK: 12% vs. MF: 28%, p = 0.289). DK achieved deeper maximum sedation levels (higher Ramsay - lower Riker scale; p < 0.001) and was associated with longer recovery times (p < 0.001). Both groups had comparable rates of hemodynamic and other complications. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups, but bronchoscopist satisfaction was higher with the DK combination (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: DK demonstrated a good safety profile in patients subjected to FB and achieved more profound sedation and better bronchoscopist satisfaction than the standard MF combination without increasing the rate of adverse events.


Asunto(s)
Broncoscopía , Dexmedetomidina , Fentanilo , Hipnóticos y Sedantes , Ketamina , Midazolam , Satisfacción del Paciente , Humanos , Dexmedetomidina/administración & dosificación , Dexmedetomidina/efectos adversos , Broncoscopía/métodos , Fentanilo/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Midazolam/administración & dosificación , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Ketamina/administración & dosificación , Ketamina/efectos adversos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/administración & dosificación , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/efectos adversos , Método Simple Ciego , Anciano , Adulto , Sedación Consciente/métodos
8.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 118(38)2021 09 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34526402

RESUMEN

Linkage between early-life exposure to anesthesia and subsequent learning disabilities is of great concern to children and their families. Here we show that early-life exposure to midazolam (MDZ), a widely used drug in pediatric anesthesia, persistently alters chromatin accessibility and the expression of quiescence-associated genes in neural stem cells (NSCs) in the mouse hippocampus. The alterations led to a sustained restriction of NSC proliferation toward adulthood, resulting in a reduction of neurogenesis that was associated with the impairment of hippocampal-dependent memory functions. Moreover, we found that voluntary exercise restored hippocampal neurogenesis, normalized the MDZ-perturbed transcriptome, and ameliorated cognitive ability in MDZ-exposed mice. Our findings thus explain how pediatric anesthesia provokes long-term adverse effects on brain function and provide a possible therapeutic strategy for countering them.


Asunto(s)
Cromatina/efectos de los fármacos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Neurogénesis/efectos de los fármacos , Animales , Diferenciación Celular/efectos de los fármacos , Proliferación Celular/efectos de los fármacos , Células Cultivadas , Cromatina/metabolismo , Cognición/efectos de los fármacos , Cognición/fisiología , Femenino , Hipocampo/efectos de los fármacos , Hipocampo/metabolismo , Masculino , Memoria , Ratones , Ratones Endogámicos C57BL , Midazolam/farmacología , Modelos Animales , Células-Madre Neurales/metabolismo , Neurogénesis/fisiología
9.
Br J Psychiatry ; 223(6): 533-541, 2023 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38108319

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prior trials suggest that intravenous racemic ketamine is a highly effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but phase 3 trials of racemic ketamine are needed. AIMS: To assess the acute efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of subcutaneous racemic ketamine in participants with TRD. Trial registration: ACTRN12616001096448 at www.anzctr.org.au. METHOD: This phase 3, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled multicentre trial was conducted at seven mood disorders centres in Australia and New Zealand. Participants received twice-weekly subcutaneous racemic ketamine or midazolam for 4 weeks. Initially, the trial tested fixed-dose ketamine 0.5 mg/kg versus midazolam 0.025 mg/kg (cohort 1). Dosing was revised, after a Data Safety Monitoring Board recommendation, to flexible-dose ketamine 0.5-0.9 mg/kg or midazolam 0.025-0.045 mg/kg, with response-guided dosing increments (cohort 2). The primary outcome was remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale for Depression score ≤10) at the end of week 4. RESULTS: The final analysis (those who received at least one treatment) comprised 68 in cohort 1 (fixed-dose), 106 in cohort 2 (flexible-dose). Ketamine was more efficacious than midazolam in cohort 2 (remission rate 19.6% v. 2.0%; OR = 12.1, 95% CI 2.1-69.2, P = 0.005), but not different in cohort 1 (remission rate 6.3% v. 8.8%; OR = 1.3, 95% CI 0.2-8.2, P = 0.76). Ketamine was well tolerated. Acute adverse effects (psychotomimetic, blood pressure increases) resolved within 2 h. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately dosed subcutaneous racemic ketamine was efficacious and safe in treating TRD over a 4-week treatment period. The subcutaneous route is practical and feasible.


Asunto(s)
Trastorno Depresivo Resistente al Tratamiento , Ketamina , Humanos , Ketamina/efectos adversos , Depresión , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Australia , Trastorno Depresivo Resistente al Tratamiento/tratamiento farmacológico
10.
Pediatr Res ; 94(6): 2054-2061, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37507474

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To assess the sedative failure rate over different dose combinations of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for procedural sedation. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. Four groups were established according to the initial dose of sedatives. The primary outcome was the sedative failure rate for different doses of the two-drug combination. The risk factors associated with sedation failure were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2165 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, 394 children were classified as sedation failure after the initial dose of a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. Although the initial doses of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam administered to patients varied widely, no significant differences were detected in the sedation outcomes among the groups. Multivariate analysis showed that sedation history, a history of sedation failure, and echocardiography were independent risk factors for sedation failure after an initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam. In contrast, patients undergoing lung function and MRI were more likely to be successfully sedated. CONCLUSION: A combination of low-dose intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam provides adequate sedation efficacy without any increase in side effects, especially for patients undergoing MRI or lung function examination. IMPACT: This is an original article about the risk factors of sedation failure with an initial dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for procedure sedation. For patients undergoing echocardiogram, it is better to choose other sedatives, while a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam is a good option for patients undergoing MRI or lung function. The selection of sedative drugs should be personalized according to different procedures.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia , Dexmedetomidina , Niño , Humanos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Dexmedetomidina/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/efectos adversos
11.
J Vasc Interv Radiol ; 34(3): 370-377, 2023 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36473614

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To determine whether hepatic hilar nerve block techniques reduce analgesic and sedation requirements during percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation of hepatic tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort analysis was performed of 177 patients (median age, 67 years; range, 33-86 years) who underwent percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation of liver tumors. All patients were treated utilizing local anesthetic and moderate sedation between November 2018 and November 2021 at a tertiary level hospital, with or without the administration of a hepatic hilar nerve block. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between the administration of the hilar nerve block and fentanyl and midazolam dosages. RESULTS: A total of 114 (64%) patients received a hilar nerve block in addition to procedural sedation, and 63 (36%) patients received procedural sedation alone. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic and tumor characteristics between the cohorts. The procedure duration was longer in the hilar block cohort than in the unblocked cohort (median, 95 vs 82 minutes; P = .0012). The technical success rate (98% in both the cohorts, P = .93) and adverse event rate (11% vs 3%, P = .14) were not significantly different between the cohorts. After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, ablation modality, and procedure and ablation durations, hilar nerve blocks were associated with lower fentanyl (-18.4%, P = .0045) and midazolam (-22.7%, P = .0007) dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic hilar nerve blocks significantly decrease the fentanyl and midazolam requirements during thermal ablation of hepatic tumors, without a significant change in the technical success or adverse event rates.


Asunto(s)
Analgesia , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Bloqueo Nervioso , Humanos , Anciano , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Dolor/etiología , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirugía , Analgesia/efectos adversos , Analgesia/métodos , Fentanilo/efectos adversos
12.
Jpn J Clin Oncol ; 53(4): 327-334, 2023 Mar 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36636762

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: the role of benzodiazepines in relieving dyspnea in patients with cancer has not yet been established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of benzodiazepines alone or in combination with opioids for dyspnea in patients with cancer. METHODS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Ichushi-Web were searched for articles published from database inception to 23 September 2019. Studies of benzodiazepines alone or in combination with opioids for dyspnea were included. The primary outcome measure was the relief of dyspnea. The secondary outcome measures were anxiety, somnolence and severe adverse events. RESULTS: of 505 publications initially identified, two trials and one trial were included in the meta-analysis of midazolam alone and in combination with morphine, respectively. With regard to the relief of dyspnea, midazolam alone showed no significant difference compared with morphine alone, with a relative risk of 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.47-1.89). Meanwhile, midazolam plus morphine was significantly more effective than morphine alone, with a relative risk of 1.33 (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.75). For anxiety relief, a meta-analysis could not be performed because of insufficient data. The incidence of somnolence and severe adverse events was not significantly different between the experimental and control groups for either midazolam alone or in combination with morphine. CONCLUSIONS: benzodiazepines alone do not significantly improve dyspnea compared with opioids alone, but a combination of benzodiazepines and opioids may be more effective. Evidence from randomized controlled trials focusing on patients with cancer has not been generated in recent years. Further appropriately designed randomized controlled trials are required.


Asunto(s)
Benzodiazepinas , Neoplasias , Humanos , Benzodiazepinas/uso terapéutico , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Somnolencia , Disnea/tratamiento farmacológico , Disnea/etiología , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Morfina/efectos adversos , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos
13.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD012706, 2023 08 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37565681

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Germinal matrix hemorrhage and intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH) may contribute to neonatal morbidity and mortality and result in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. Appropriate pain and sedation management in ventilated preterm infants may decrease the risk of GMH-IVH; however, it might be associated with harms. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the effects and safety of pharmacological interventions related to pain and sedation management in order to prevent GMH-IVH in ventilated preterm infants. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library August 2022 for reviews on pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management to prevent GMH-IVH in ventilated preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation). We included Cochrane Reviews assessing the following interventions administered within the first week of life: benzodiazepines, paracetamol, opioids, ibuprofen, anesthetics, barbiturates, and antiadrenergics. Primary outcomes were any GMH-IVH (aGMH-IVH), severe IVH (sIVH), all-cause neonatal death (ACND), and major neurodevelopmental disability (MND). We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven Cochrane Reviews and one Cochrane Review protocol. The reviews on clonidine and paracetamol did not include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) matching our inclusion criteria. We included 40 RCTs (3791 infants) from reviews on paracetamol for patent ductus arteriosus (3), midazolam (3), phenobarbital (9), opioids (20), and ibuprofen (5). The quality of the included reviews was high. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to very low, because of serious imprecision and study limitations. Germinal matrix hemorrhage-intraventricular hemorrhage (any grade) Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on aGMH-IVH (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 2.07; 2 RCTs, 82 infants; very low-certainty evidence); midazolam may result in little to no difference in the incidence of aGMH-IVH (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.24; 3 RCTs, 122 infants; low-certainty evidence); the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on aGMH-IVH (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 9 RCTs, 732 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids may result in little to no difference in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 7 RCTs, 469 infants; low-certainty evidence); ibuprofen likely results in little to no difference in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; 4 RCTs, 759 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to ibuprofen, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on aGMH-IVH (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.34; 1 RCT, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, morphine may result in a reduction in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87; 1 RCT, 46 infants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to diamorphine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on aGMH-IVH (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.07; 1 RCT, 88 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade 3 to 4) Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of paracetamol on sIVH (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.43 to 7.49; 2 RCTs, 82 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and of phenobarbital (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25; 9 RCTs, 732 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids may result in little to no difference in sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 6 RCTs, 1299 infants; low-certainty evidence); ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.26; 4 RCTs, 747 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies on midazolam reported this outcome. Compared to ibuprofen, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on sIVH (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 60.21; 1 RCT, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.43; 1 RCT, 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to fentanyl, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 163 infants; very low-certainty evidence). All-cause neonatal death Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on ACND (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.72; 3 RCTs, 203 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids likely result in little to no difference in ACND (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; 5 RCTs, 1189 infants; moderate-certainty evidence); the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen on ACND (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.64; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on ACND (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.16; 1 RCT, 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to diamorphine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on ACND (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 88 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Major neurodevelopmental disability Compared to placebo, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on MND at 18 to 24 months (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.29; 1 RCT, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and at five to six years (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.56; 1 RCT, 95 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies on other drugs reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the reported studies had an impact on aGMH-IVH, sIVH, ACND, or MND. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Large RCTs of rigorous methodology are needed to achieve an optimal information size to assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management for the prevention of GMH-IVH and mortality in preterm infants. Studies might compare interventions against either placebo or other drugs. Reporting of the outcome data should include the assessment of GMH-IVH and long-term neurodevelopment.


Asunto(s)
Ibuprofeno , Muerte Perinatal , Recién Nacido , Femenino , Humanos , Ibuprofeno/uso terapéutico , Acetaminofén/uso terapéutico , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Respiración Artificial/efectos adversos , Heroína , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Recien Nacido Prematuro , Dolor/tratamiento farmacológico , Hemorragia Cerebral/inducido químicamente , Hemorragia Cerebral/prevención & control , Fenobarbital/uso terapéutico
14.
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 61(3): 122-128, 2023 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36633372

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adverse effects and particularly the anesthetic effect of low-dose etomidate combined with oxycodone and midazolam in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We herein report a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. It included patients with liver cirrhosis (age, 18 - 65 years; BMI, 18 - 25 kg/m2) who were treated with endoscopic injection sclerotherapy, and the patients were randomly assigned to the propofol group or the etomidate group. The incidence of respiratory depression was the primary outcome measure. The occurrence of various adverse effects and endoscopist satisfaction score were the secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: In this study, we enrolled a total of 96 patients. The incidence of respiratory depression in the propofol group was 19%, while that in the etomidate group was only 4% (9/47 vs. 2/49; p = 0.026). Regarding the secondary outcome measures, the incidence of hypoxia in the propofol group was 15%, while that in the etomidate group was only 2% (7/47 vs. 1/49; p = 0.029). Injection-site pain occurred in 0% and 23% of the patients in the etomidate group and propofol group, respectively (p < 0.001). Endoscopist satisfaction scores were classified as "poor", "fair", "good", and "very good". The scores were 17% higher (46/49 vs. 36/47; p = 0.026) for the "very good" level and 15% lower (3/49 vs. 10/47; p = 0.038) for the "good" level in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. CONCLUSION: Low-dose etomidate combined with oxycodone and midazolam for endoscopic injection sclerotherapy could reduce the incidence of hypoxia without increasing the incidence of complications.


Asunto(s)
Etomidato , Propofol , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Humanos , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Etomidato/efectos adversos , Propofol/efectos adversos , Oxicodona/efectos adversos , Escleroterapia/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/inducido químicamente , Hipoxia/inducido químicamente , Hipoxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoxia/epidemiología , Anestésicos Intravenosos/efectos adversos
15.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 23(1): 341, 2023 10 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37817075

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Moderate to deep sedation is required for dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. Midazolam is the most commonly used sedative, whereas intranasal dexmedetomidine is increasingly used in pediatric sedation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to compare the sedative efficacy of oral midazolam alone with that of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam during dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. DESIGN: In total, 83 children (aged 3-12 years) scheduled to undergo dental sedation were randomized to receive oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal placebo, or oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) plus intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg). The primary outcome was the rate of successful sedation for dental treatment. Secondary outcomes were the onset time and adverse events during and after treatment. Data analyses involved descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: The rate of successful sedation was significantly higher in combination group (P = 0.007), although the sedation onset time was significantly longer in combination group (17.5 ± 2.4 min) than in monotherapy group (15.7 ± 1.8) (P = 0.003). No children required medical intervention or oxygen therapy for hemodynamic disturbances, and the incidences of adverse events had no significant difference between groups (P = 0.660). CONCLUSION: Combined treatment with oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) is more significantly effective for managing the behavior of non-cooperative children during dental treatment, compared to oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) alone. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100042300) TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2100042300, Clinical trial first registration date: 17/01/2021.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia , Dexmedetomidina , Niño , Humanos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Dexmedetomidina/efectos adversos , Pacientes Ambulatorios , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/efectos adversos , Administración Intranasal
16.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ; 37(12): 2546-2551, 2023 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37730454

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the intraoperative administration of midazolam and the incidence of postoperative delirium in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: The Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 years and older who underwent cardiovascular surgery (excluding transcatheter surgeries, multiple surgeries per admission, and preoperative delirium) between April 1, 2015, and October 31, 2019. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients who received midazolam (midazolam group) were compared with those who did not receive midazolam (no midazolam group). The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, mortality, and duration of intensive care unit stay and hospitalization. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression based on the covariates. The outcomes were compared using stabilized inverse probability of treatment-weighting analyses. Among the 16,185 patients analyzed, 10,633 (65.7%) received midazolam. No significant differences were observed in the incidences of postoperative delirium (odds ratio [OR] 0.95; 95% CI 0.87-1.03; p = 0.21) and hospital mortality (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76-1.11; p = 0.39) between the groups; however, the midazolam group had slightly longer durations of intensive care unit stay (3.5 [3.5-3.6] v 3.3 [3.3-3.4] days, p < 0.001) and hospitalization (31.5 [31.1-31.9] v 29.4 [28.8-29.9] days, p < 0.001), and slightly lower incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99; p = 0.03). The sensitivity analyses supported these results. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative administration of midazolam may not induce postoperative delirium in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia en Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos , Delirio del Despertar , Humanos , Delirio del Despertar/epidemiología , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Incidencia , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios/inducido químicamente , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/inducido químicamente , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología
17.
Neurocrit Care ; 38(1): 16-25, 2023 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35896768

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Sedation and analgesia are recommended during targeted temperature management (TTM) after cardiac arrest, but there are few data to provide guidance on dosing to bedside clinicians. We evaluated differences in patient-level sedation and analgesia dosing in an international multicenter TTM trial to better characterize current practice and clinically important outcomes. METHODS: A total 950 patients in the international TTM trial were randomly assigned to a TTM of 33 °C or 36 °C after resuscitation from cardiac arrest in 36 intensive care units. We recorded cumulative doses of sedative and analgesic drugs at 12, 24, and 48 h and normalized to midazolam and fentanyl equivalents. We compared number of medications used, dosing, and titration among centers by using multivariable models, including common severity of illness factors. We also compared dosing with time to awakening, incidence of clinical seizures, and survival. RESULTS: A total of 614 patients at 18 centers were analyzed. Propofol (70%) and fentanyl (51%) were most frequently used. The average dosages of midazolam and fentanyl equivalents were 0.13 (0.07, 0.22) mg/kg/h and 1.16 (0.49, 1.81) µg/kg/h, respectively. There were significant differences in number of medications (p < 0.001), average dosages (p < 0.001), and titration at all time points between centers (p < 0.001), and the outcomes of patients in these centers were associated with all parameters described in the multivariate analysis, except for a difference in the titration of sedatives between 12 and 24 h (p = 0.40). There were associations between higher dosing at 48 h (p = 0.003, odds ratio [OR] 1.75) and increased titration of analgesics between 24 and 48 h (p = 0.005, OR 4.89) with awakening after 5 days, increased titration of sedatives between 24 and 48 h with awakening after 5 days (p < 0.001, OR > 100), and increased titration of sedatives between 24 and 48 h with a higher incidence of clinical seizures in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.04, OR 240). There were also significant associations between decreased titration of analgesics and survival at 6 months in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in choice of drug, dosing, and titration when providing sedation and analgesics between centers. Sedation and analgesia dosing and titration were associated with delayed awakening, incidence of clinical seizures, and survival, but the causal relation of these findings cannot be proven.


Asunto(s)
Analgesia , Paro Cardíaco , Hipotermia Inducida , Humanos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes , Fentanilo/efectos adversos , Analgésicos , Paro Cardíaco/terapia
18.
Isr Med Assoc J ; 25(5): 332-335, 2023 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37245097

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has been performed under moderate sedation and local pharyngeal anesthesia. Respiratory complications during the TEE can occur. OBJECTIVES: To test the effectiveness of low-dose midazolam combined with verbal sedation during TEE. METHODS: The study comprised 157 consecutive patients who underwent TEE under mild conscious sedation. All patients received local pharyngeal anesthesia and low doses of midazolam combined with verbal sedation. The course of TEE and clinical characteristics of the patients were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age was 64 ± 15.3 years, 96 males (61%). In 6% of the patients, low dose midazolam in combination with verbal sedation was insufficient and propofol was administrated. In women under 65 years of age with normal renal function, there was a 40% risk of low-dose midazolam being ineffective (P = 0.0018). CONCLUSIONS: In most patients, TEE can be conducted easily using low-dose midazolam combined with verbal sedation. Some patients need deeper sedation with anesthetic agents like propofol. These patients tended to be younger, in good general health, and more often female.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia , Propofol , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Propofol/efectos adversos , Ecocardiografía Transesofágica/efectos adversos , Sedación Consciente
19.
BMC Oral Health ; 23(1): 774, 2023 10 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37865761

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Dental treatments often cause anxiety, fear, and stress in patients. Intravenous sedation is widely used to alleviate these concerns, and various agents are employed for sedation. However, it is important to find safer and more effective sedation agents, considering the adverse effects associated with current agents. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besilate (hereinafter called "remimazolam") and to determine the optimal dosages for sedation in outpatients undergoing dental procedures. METHODS: Thirty-one outpatients aged 18-65 years scheduled for impacted third molar extraction were included in the study. Remimazolam was administered as a single dose of 0.05 mg/kg followed by a continuous infusion at a rate of 0.35 mg/kg/h, with the infusion rate adjusted to maintain a sedation level at a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score of 2-4. The primary endpoint was the sedation success rate with remimazolam monotherapy, and the secondary endpoints included induction time, recovery time, time until discharge, remimazolam dose, respiratory and circulatory dynamics, and frequency of adverse events. RESULTS: The sedation success rate with remimazolam monotherapy was 100%. The remimazolam induction dose was 0.08 (0.07-0.09) mg/kg, and the anesthesia induction time was 3.2 (2.6-3.9) min. The mean infusion rate of remimazolam during the procedure was 0.40 (0.38-0.42) mg/kg/h. The time from the end of remimazolam administration to awakening was 8.0 (6.7-9.3) min, and the time from the end of remimazolam administration to discharge was 14.0 (12.5-15.5) min. There were no significant respiratory or circulatory effects requiring intervention during sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous intravenous administration of remimazolam can achieve optimal sedation levels without significantly affecting respiratory or circulatory dynamics. The study also provided guidance on the appropriate dosage of remimazolam for achieving moderate sedation during dental procedures. Additionally, the study findings suggest that electroencephalogram monitoring can be a reliable indicator of the level of sedation during dental procedural sedation with remimazolam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (No. jRCTs061220052) on 30/08/2022.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia , Diente Impactado , Humanos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Pacientes Ambulatorios , Estudios Prospectivos , Tercer Molar/cirugía , Benzodiazepinas/efectos adversos , Diente Impactado/cirugía
20.
BMC Oral Health ; 23(1): 307, 2023 05 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37210490

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Oral midazolam and nitrous oxide inhalation were commonly used sedative and analgesic techniques during tooth extraction. It is still controversial whether oral midazolam can replace the nitrous oxide inhalation for sedative and analgesic treatment of tooth extraction. Therefore, we conducted this study in order to provide a reference for doctors to choose effective sedative and analgesic treatment in tooth extraction. METHODS: We searched the Chinese and English databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and VIP information databases. RESULTS: Through this meta-analysis, we found that the success rate of sedation and analgesia treatment with oral midazolam during tooth extraction was 75.67% and the incidence of adverse reactions was 21.74%. The success rate of sedation and analgesia treatment using nitrous oxide inhalation during tooth extraction was 93.6% and the incidence of adverse reactions was 3.95%. CONCLUSION: The use of nitrous oxide inhalation for sedation and analgesia during tooth extraction is very effective, and oral midazolam can be used as an alternative to nitrous oxide inhalation.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia Dental , Anestésicos por Inhalación , Humanos , Midazolam/efectos adversos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/efectos adversos , Óxido Nitroso/efectos adversos , Extracción Dental/efectos adversos , Anestesia Dental/efectos adversos , Analgésicos , Anestésicos por Inhalación/efectos adversos , Sedación Consciente/efectos adversos , Sedación Consciente/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA