Efficacy and safety of intravenous thiamylal in sedation for colonoscopy in children.

Objectives: Since a standard sedation protocol for pediatric colonoscopy (CS) has not been established, evidence on optimal sedative agents is needed. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of thiamylal in sedation for pediatric CS compared to midazolam. Methods: Children from 7 to 16 years of age who underwent CS under sedation with intravenous thiamylal or midazolam at our hospital between June 2010 and March 2024 were included in this retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was the efficacy (success rate of CS without mid-awakening) of the drugs. Meanwhile, the secondary outcomes were the sedation level during CS, procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events related to sedation. Results: Sixty children were included in the study. The success rate of CS without mid-awakening was significantly higher in the thiamylal group (90.6%) than in the midazolam group (64.3%; p = 0.03). The two groups had no significant differences in median sedation depth, procedure time, or recovery time. Adverse events related to sedation in thiamylal group (22%) and midazolam group (25%) were similar. No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Intravenous thiamylal provides effective and safe sedation in children requiring CS, with little or no mid-awakening during the procedure.

Comparison of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy conducted by pediatric gastroenterologists.

Objectives: The effectiveness and safety of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy were compared. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the cases of pediatric patients (≤15 years old) who had undergone bidirectional endoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and colonoscopy by pediatric gastroenterologists. Demographic data, indications, sedatives/dosages, clinical outcomes, endoscopic findings, adverse events, and total patient time requirements (total time in which patients stay in our hospital) were compared in the two sedation groups. Results: Ninety-one children (51 boys, 40 girls, mean age 13 years, range 9-15) treated at our hospital were enrolled. Propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and/or pentazocine was administered to 51 patients (propofol-based sedation group). Midazolam alone or in combination with pentazocine was administered to the other 40 patients (midazolam sedation group). In the propofol group, the following mean doses were used: propofol, 96 mg (range 40-145 mg); midazolam, 4.9 mg (range 3-5 mg); and pentazocine, 7.5 mg. In the midazolam group, the mean doses of midazolam and pentazocine were 6.2 mg (range 4-10 mg) and 15 mg, respectively. All procedures were successfully completed by pediatric gastroenterologists. The total procedure times and endoscopic findings were similar in the two groups, but the median patient time requirement in the propofol group was significantly shorter versus the midazolam group (7.3 h vs. 8.4 h, p < 0.001). No adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusions: Propofol-based sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy was safely and effectively performed by pediatric gastroenterologists, and its patient time requirement was shorter than that for midazolam sedation.

Comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for sedation during colonoscopy in Japanese patients: A propensity score matching analysis.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation with midazolam and remimazolam for colorectal endoscopy. Methods: This single-center, two-arm, post-hoc analysis of the REM-IICTJP01 study investigated the efficacy and safety of remimazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation. We enrolled 40 and 208 patients who underwent colonoscopy under remimazolam and midazolam sedation, respectively, during the same period. The primary outcome was the time from the end of the colonoscopy until discharge. The secondary outcomes included the time from the end of the colonoscopy until awakening, dosage, and adverse events. Propensity score matching was employed to eliminate the effect of confounding factors. Results: Thirty-seven patients in each group were matched. After propensity matching, the time to awakening after colonoscopy was 28.0 (13.0-37.0) min in the midazolam group and 0 (0-0) min in the remimazolam group; moreover, the time till discharge was 40.0 (35.0-46.5) min in the midazolam group and 0 (0-5.0) min in the remimazolam group, both of which were significantly shorter in the remimazolam group (p < 0.01). The number of additional doses was 0 (0-0) and 2 (1-3) in the midazolam and remimazolam groups, respectively. The total dose was 2.0 (2.0-3.5) and 6.0 (5.0-7.0) mg in the midazolam and remimazolam groups, respectively. Conclusions: Remimazolam yielded significantly faster times to awakening and discharge safely compared to midazolam.

Effect of propofol versus midazolam on short-term outcomes in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury.

Background: Propofol and midazolam are commonly used sedative drugs in mechanically ventilated patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). However, there is still a lack of relevant studies exploring the influence of midazolam and propofol on the prognosis of patients with Sepsis-associated Acute Kidney Injury (S-AKI). Patients and methods: A statistical analysis was conducted on 3,745 patients with S-AKI in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database. The patients' baseline characteristics were grouped based on the use of either propofol or midazolam as sedatives. Cox proportional hazards models, logistic regression models, and subgroup analyses were used to compare the effects of propofol and midazolam on the short-term prognosis of S-AKI patients, including 30-day mortality, ICU mortality, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Results: In the statistical analysis, a total of 3,745 patients were included, with 649 patients using midazolam and 3,096 patients using propofol. In terms of the 30-day mortality, compared to patients using midazolam, S-AKI patients using propofol had a lower ICU mortality (hazard ratio = 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.74, p < 0.001), lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio = 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.67, p < 0.001), and shorter mechanical ventilation time (odds ratio = 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.88, p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed lower survival probabilities in the midazolam group (p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that propofol was strongly protective of short-term prognosis in older, male, smaller SOFA score CCI score, no heart failure, and comorbid chronic kidney disease patients with S-AKI. Conclusion: Compared to midazolam, propofol was considered a protective factor for short-term mortality risk and ICU mortality risk in S-AKI patients. Additionally, S-AKI patients using propofol had a lower risk of requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Overall, propofol may be more beneficial for the short-term prognosis of S-AKI patients compared to midazolam.

Efficacy and safety of buccal midazolam for seizures outside the hospital: Real-world clinical experience.

INTRODUCTION: Buccal midazolam (buc MDL) is the first buccal mucosal delivery formulation applied for status epilepticus in Japan. Herein, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness and adverse events of buc MDL as a pre-hospital treatment for epileptic seizures in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This study involved a retrospective review based on medical records. We included children who received buc MDL as pre-hospital treatment for epileptic seizures and were subsequently transported to the emergency department between April 2021 and November 2023. RESULTS: This study included 26 patients (136 episodes). The overall efficacy rate, which was defined as seizure cessation within 10 min after buc MDL administration with no recurrence within 30 min, was 43 %. Moreover, 70 % of the episodes did not require additional medications. None of the episodes required bag-mask ventilation or intubation following seizure cessation with buc MDL alone. The efficacy was decreased when buc MDL was administered longer than 15 min from seizure onset. Furthermore, the efficacy did not decrease as long as it was within 0.2-0.5 mg/kg, even if the dose was smaller than the appropriate dose for the specific age. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate was significantly higher in episodes where buc MDL was administered within 15 min. Additionally, there was no concern regarding respiratory depression with buc MDL alone.

Midazolam-Induced Seizure-Like Activity in Five Neonates: A case series.

An intravenous (IV) administration of midazolam may result in seizure-like activity or movement. This report describes 5 neonates who developed seizure-like movements after IV midazolam injection. The patients presented between 2019 and 2022 and were admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit located within an academic centre in Muscat, Oman. The abnormal movements occurred shortly after IV bolus administration of midazolam. None of the patients experienced seizure-like movements after receiving midazolam infusions. The seizure-like movements were aborted either spontaneously or by antiseizure medications. In addition, seizure recurrence was not observed in any of the infants during the later stages of their treatment. Since this adverse effect might be related to the speed of the bolus administration, IV midazolam must be given as a slow bolus over 2-3 minutes followed by a slow flush of normal saline. To prevent midazolam's potential adverse effect on newborns, neonatal caregivers must be aware of it.

γ-Aminobutyric acid type A receptor ß1 subunit gene polymorphisms are associated with the sedative and amnesic effects of midazolam.

Midazolam is widely used for intravenous sedation. However, wide interindividual variability is seen in the sensitivity to midazolam. The association between genetic factors and interindividual differences in midazolam sensitivity remains unclear. The present study explored the association between common genetic variants and sedative and amnesic effects of midazolam. This prospective study included patients who were scheduled to undergo dental procedures under intravenous sedation. The sedative effect was evaluated using the Ramsay sedation scale 5 min after midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) administration. We employed two parallel approaches in this study: genome-wide approach and candidate gene approach. The γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor subunit genes were selected as candidate genes. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between the Ramsay sedation scale and genetic variants. We also analyzed the association between the presence of anterograde amnesia and genetic variants using multivariate binominal logistic regression analyses. The analyses were adjusted for potential confounding factors. A total of 191 patients were included in the analyses. In the genome-wide association analyses, no significant association was found between the genetic variants and Ramsay scores. In the candidate gene analyses, the rs73247636 (dominant model: ß = 0.72 [95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 1.10], P < 0.001) and rs56278524 (dominant model: ß = 0.73 [0.37 to 1.10], P < 0.001) polymorphisms of the GABRB1 gene were significantly associated with Ramsay scores. Additionally, the rs73247636 (dominant model: odds ratio [OR] = 8.39 [2.36 to 29.85], P = 0.001) and rs56278524 (dominant model: OR = 15.26 [3.42 to 68.07], P < 0.001) polymorphisms were also significantly associated with the presence of anterograde amnesia. The rs73247636 and rs56278524 single-nucleotide polymorphisms of GABRB1 were associated with the sedative and amnesic effects of midazolam.

A Blinded Crossover Study Design to Evaluate Midazolam as an Adjunct for Equine Standing Sedation for Routine Oral Examinations.

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of including midazolam to a common equine standing sedation protocol for routine oral examination. Twelve horses underwent two examinations at least seven days apart. Horses were randomly assigned to receive midazolam intravenously (IV) (0.02mg/kg) or a placebo injection of saline (2-2.5mL IV). Five minutes later, detomidine (0.01mg/kg) and butorphanol (0.01mg/kg) were administered IV and horses were placed in standing stocks. A veterinarian blinded to the treatment protocol used a descriptive scoring system to assess degree of ataxia, acceptance of speculum, chewing on the speculum, headshaking, tongue movement, resistance to palpation, and eye appearance as related to the grimace score. During each examination, additional sedation of IV detomidine (0.006mg/kg) and butorphanol (0.006mg/kg) was administered at the discretion of the blinded practitioner to facilitate safe examination. At the second examination horses received the opposite treatment protocol and, following examination, a routine occlusal adjustment. Scores were compared using JMP software with a repeated measures mixed effects model, treatment as a fixed effect and horse and horse/treatment interaction as random effects. Significance was set at P<0.05. There were no significant differences in any of the single or overall sedation scores between treatment groups or within individual horses (P=0.3). Trends towards improvement of some assessed characteristics of sedation, including decreased tongue movement and less resistance to acceptance of speculum were observed. The use of midazolam may prove beneficial for routine oral examination, as well as other standing procedures, with no obvious undesired side effects.

[New recommendations on palliative sedation]. / Neue Empfehlungen zur palliativen Sedierung.

Palliative sedation aims to relieve refractory suffering in patients with life-limiting disease. The 2009 framework on palliative sedation of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) has recently been updated. Recommendations have also been formulated by the research group SedPall in Germany. This article describes the social and ethical complexity of decision-making and summarises the recommendations. Patient autonomy is emphasised. Refractoriness of the suffering should be determined jointly by physician and patient. Sedation should be proportional, that is to say, its form and duration should be adapted to the patient's individual situation. The decision on palliative sedation and that on hydration involve two separate decision-making processes. Midazolam should be used as first choice. Particular attention should be paid to the patient's relatives/significant others and the treating team.

Intravenous Sedation and Analgesia in a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Retrospective Descriptive Study.

Background Painful procedures in the pediatric emergency department often require the use of sedation and analgesia to ensure adequate pain control, a right of children and adolescents. This study aims to describe the procedural sedation and analgesia with intravenous medications performed in a pediatric emergency department. Methods This is a retrospective descriptive study of intravenous sedoanalgesia used in a pediatric emergency department of a level II district hospital in the Lisbon metropolitan area from October 2018 to December 2023. The type of intervention, drugs used, and adverse events were analyzed. Results A total of 615 patients were included in the study; 65.7% (n=404) were male with a median age of 6 years. The most frequently performed procedures were wound suturing (50.9%, n=313) and fracture reduction (36.3%, n=223). The drugs used for sedation and analgesia were ketamine (99.2%, n=610), midazolam (95.8%, n=589), propofol (1.6%, n=10), and morphine (0.5%, n=3). The majority of patients received midazolam and ketamine in association (93.8%, n=577). A total of 50 adverse events (8.1%) were recorded in 42 patients. The most frequent side effects were transient oxygen desaturation (2%, n=12), vomiting (1.5%, n=9), apnea/bradypnea (1%, n=6), and hallucinations (0.8%, n=5). The occurrence of adverse events was not dose-dependent (p >0.05). Respiratory complications resolved without requiring invasive interventions. Children were sedated by a pediatric intensivist in 68.1% (n=419), by a general pediatrician in 26.7% (n=164), and by a pediatric resident in 2% (n=12). Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate that intravenous sedoanalgesia, particularly the combination of ketamine and midazolam, is a safe method for sedation in pediatric patients, with a low rate of adverse events.

Sedative and behavioral effects of atomized intranasal midazolam in comparison with nebulized midazolam for children undergoing dental treatment: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Fear and anxiet are significant barriers of dental care in children. Sedation emerged as a valuable behaviour guidance technique to manage uncooperative children. AIM: To evaluate the sedative and behavioral effectiveness of midazolam administered via nebulizer in comparison with intranasal atomizer in the behavior management of anxious children during dental treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Two-arm randomized clinical trial with 68 children (3-5 years) assigned to receive nebulized midazolam (NEB MDZ) and atomized intranasal midazolam (AIN MDZ) during dental treatment. The onset time, sedation levels, and behavior of children were documented. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Significant differences between the two groups in terms of onset time, sedation level, and behavior of children during the dental treatment. AIN MDZ was associated with a significantly faster onset time compared with NEB MD, (p < .001). Children who received NEB MDZ exhibited deeper levels of sedation compared with AIN MDZ group (p = .02). During the administration of local anesthesia, notable statistical differences were observed between the behavior of the two groups (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam administered via either nebulizer or intranasal atomizer was the effective route of administration and proved effective in the management of anxious children undergoing dental treatment. AIN MDZ, however, exhibited a faster onset time, whereas children receiving NEB MDZ demonstrated superior behavior compared with those receiving AIN MDZ.

Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for End-of-Life Sedation and Agitation: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (The DREAMS Trial).

BACKGROUND: Sedation at the end of life is used to relieve distressing symptoms including agitation and delirium. Standard care may include infused benzodiazepines or antipsychotics. These agents often result in deep sedation with loss of interaction with loved ones, which may be distressing. OBJECTIVE: The DREAMS (Dexmedetomidine for the Reduction of End-of-life Agitation and for optiMised Sedation) trial aimed to compare the sedative and antidelirium effects of the alpha-2 agonist dexmedetomidine, a novel palliative care sedative, compared with midazolam, a benzodiazepine when administered by subcutaneous infusion at the end of life, with doses of both agents targeting lighter, or potentially interactive sedation. METHODS: Participants were recruited from adult inpatients admitted for end-of-life care under a palliative care team in regional New South Wales, Australia. Inclusion criteria included patients older than 18 years, with a preference for lighter sedation at the end of life. Exclusion criteria included severe cardiac dysfunction (contraindication to dexmedetomidine). Participants consented and were placed on a treatment-pending list. Upon experiencing terminal deterioration, patients were randomized to either arm 1 (dexmedetomidine) or arm 2 (midazolam) as their treatment arm. These treatments were administered by continuous subcutaneous infusion. The level of consciousness and agitation of the patients were measured by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-Palliative version and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Score. Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-Palliative version assessments were performed by both nursing and medical staff, while Memorial Delirium Assessment Score assessments were carried out by medical staff only. Families and patients were asked to complete, as able, a patient comfort assessment form, to gauge perceptions of distress. Data were collected and matched with the breakthrough medication doses administered, along with qualitative comments in the medical record. In addition, the study tracked symptoms and patient functional status that were recorded as part of the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative, a national tracking project for monitoring symptom outcomes in palliative care. RESULTS: The DREAMS trial was funded in May 2020, approved by the ethics committee in November 2020, and started recruiting participants in May 2021. Data collection commenced in May 2021 and is anticipated to continue until December 2024. Publication of results is anticipated from 2024 to 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for sedative dosing in palliative care for distress and agitation is not robust, with standard care based primarily on clinical experience and not robust scientific evidence. This study is important because it will compare a standard and a novel sedative used in end-of-life treatment. By assessing the potential efficacy and benefits of both, it seeks to optimize the quality of dying by providing targeted sedation that can improve the communication between dying patients and their loved ones. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12621000052831; https://uat.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380889. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55129.

Non-operating Room Anesthesia (NORA): A Comprehensive Review of Monitored Anesthesia Care.

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is being increasingly employed in non-operative environments, particularly in the realms of endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures. This in-depth analysis delves into the essential components of MAC within these specific contexts, with a primary focus on ensuring patient safety, evaluating efficacy, and assessing procedural outcomes. It is a common practice in endoscopic procedures to necessitate sedation for the purpose of alleviating discomfort and anxiety, ultimately ensuring patient cooperation and the successful completion of the procedure. MAC, which entails the administration of sedatives and analgesics under the close supervision of an anesthesia professional, offers a personalized approach that carefully balances the depth of sedation with maintaining optimal patient safety standards. Within the domain of MRI procedures, where challenges such as claustrophobia and motion artifacts can significantly impact the process, MAC plays a crucial role in providing a controlled setting that not only enhances image quality but also improves patient compliance throughout the procedure. The review extensively investigates the various pharmacological agents commonly utilized in these scenarios, including but not limited to midazolam and fentanyl, shedding light on their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties specific to these contexts. Furthermore, the critical role of the anesthesia provider in effectively managing potential complications, such as respiratory depression, hemodynamic instability, and allergic reactions, is thoroughly examined and discussed. The analysis extends to the implementation of MAC protocols, encompassing pre-procedural assessments, continuous intra-procedural monitoring, and comprehensive post-procedural care, all aimed at ensuring the best possible outcomes for patients. Additionally, the review delves into the economic considerations associated with MAC, taking into account its impact on procedural efficiency, healthcare costs, and patient throughput within these settings. By exploring current guidelines and recommendations established by professional societies such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), this review aims to provide a holistic understanding of the best practices in MAC for both endoscopy and MRI procedures. Through the synthesis of available evidence, the primary objective of this review is to contribute to informing clinical practices, enhancing patient safety measures, improving procedural success rates, and ultimately advocating for the broader adoption of monitored anesthesia care in diverse non-operative medical settings.

Incidences of Rocuronium Use during Anesthetic Induction in Adult Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery Using Supraglottic Airway Devices: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background/Objectives: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are not usually necessary during the induction of general anesthesia in patients using supraglottic airway (SGA) devices. In this study, we assessed the incidences of rocuronium use in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia using SGA devices. Methods: From September 2022 to August 2023, the medical records of adult patients (≥19 years) who underwent orthopedic surgery using SGA devices were retrospectively investigated. The incidences of rocuronium use during anesthetic induction were analyzed according to the anesthetic induction drug. The association of rocuronium use during anesthesia was analyzed in terms of demographic (age, sex, height, and weight), surgical (surgical time), and anesthetic factors (premedication, anesthetic agent, anesthetic time). Results: In total, 321 patients were enrolled. The incidence rate of rocuronium use during anesthetic induction was 28.3%. In the subgroup analysis, patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol (PPF) and remifentanil showed a markedly lower incidence (14.4%) than the other anesthetic groups. Premedication or short anesthetic duration was associated with lower incidences of rocuronium use. Demographic and other anesthetic factors did not seem to affect the incidences of rocuronium use during anesthesia. Conclusions: The incidence of rocuronium use during anesthetic induction with SGA devices was significantly lower with the PPF-TIVA compared to that using remimazolam-TIVA or inhalational anesthesia. Premedication with midazolam and shorter operation times were associated with a significantly lower incidence of rocuronium use.

The Impact of Sedative Choice in the Management of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Scoping Review.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is characterized by high mortality and morbidity. This scoping review assesses the current evidence regarding the use of sedatives and analgesics in the acute intensive care unit management of aSAH. We conducted a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid EmCare, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to June 2023. Studies were included if they enrolled intensive care unit patients aged 18 or older with a significant proportion (> 20%) who had aSAH and evaluated the impact of one or more commonly used analgosedatives on physiological parameters in the management of aSAH. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies score. Of 2,583 articles, 11 met the inclusion criteria. The median sample size was 47 (interquartile range 10-127), and the median Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies score was 9.5 (interquartile range 8-11). The studies' publication years ranged from 1980 to 2023. Dexmedetomidine and ketamine showed potential benefits in reducing the incidence of cortical spreading depolarization and delayed cerebral ischemia. Propofol and opioids appeared safe but lacked robust evidence for efficacy. Benzodiazepines were associated with increased delayed cerebral ischemia-related cerebral infarctions and cortical spreading depolarization events. The evidence available to guide the use of analgosedative medications in aSAH is critically inadequate. Dexmedetomidine and ketamine warrant further exploration in large-scale prospective studies because of their potential benefits. Improved study designs with consistent definitions and a focus on patient-centered outcomes are necessary to inform clinical practice.

Pharmacological chaperones restore proteostasis of epilepsy-associated GABAA receptor variants.

Recent advances in genetic diagnosis identified variants in genes encoding GABAA receptors as causative for genetic epilepsy. Here, we selected eight disease-associated variants in the α1 subunit of GABAA receptors causing mild to severe clinical phenotypes and showed that they are loss of function, mainly by reducing the folding and surface trafficking of the α1 protein. Furthermore, we sought client protein-specific pharmacological chaperones to restore the function of pathogenic receptors. Applications of positive allosteric modulators, including Hispidulin and TP003, increase the functional surface expression of the α1 variants. Mechanism of action study demonstrated that they enhance the folding, assembly, and trafficking and reduce the degradation of GABAA variants without activating the unfolded protein response in HEK293T cells and human iPSC-derived neurons. Since these compounds cross the blood-brain barrier, such a pharmacological chaperoning strategy holds great promise to treat genetic epilepsy in a GABAA receptor-specific manner.

Correlation Between Serum and CSF Concentrations of Midazolam and 1-Hydroxy-Midazolam in Critically Ill Neurosurgical Patients.

BACKGROUND: Midazolam (MZ) is commonly used in critically ill neurosurgical patients. Neuro-penetration of MZ and its metabolite, 1-hydroxy-midazolam (1-OH-MZ), is not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated correlations between serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of MZ and 1-OH-MZ and assessed implications on patient sedation. METHODS: Adults in the neurosurgical intensive care unit (ICU) with external ventricular drains receiving MZ via continuous infusion were prospectively studied. Serum and CSF samples were obtained 12-24 h and 72-96 h after initiation, and concentrations were determined in duplicate by high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Bivariate correlation analyses used Pearson coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 31 serum and CSF samples were obtained from 18 subjects. At sampling, mean MZ infusion rate was 3.9 ± 4.4 mg/h, and previous 12-h cumulative dose was 51.4 ± 78.2 mg. Mean concentrations of MZ and 1-OH-MZ in serum and CSF were similar between timepoints. Similarly, ratios of 1-OH-MZ to MZ in serum and CSF remained stable over time. Serum MZ (126.2 ± 89.3 ng/mL) showed moderate correlation (r2 = 0.68, P < 0.001) with serum 1-OH-MZ (17.7 ± 17.6 ng/mL) but not CSF MZ (3.9 ± 2.5 ng/mL; r2 = 0.24, P = 0.005) or CSF 1-OH-MZ (2.5 ± 0.6 ng/mL; r2 = 0.47, P = 0.30). CSF MZ did not correlate with CSF 1-OH-MZ (r2 = 0.003, P < 0.001). Mean serum ratio of 1-OH-MZ to MZ (0.14 ± 0.2 ng/mL) did not correlate with CSF ratio (1.06 ± 0.83 ng/mL; r2 = 0.06, P = 0.19). Concentrations and ratios were unrelated to MZ infusion rate or 12-h cumulative dose. Sedation was weakly correlated with CSF 1-OH-MZ, but not with serum MZ, serum 1-OH-MZ, or CSF MZ. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Continuous infusions of MZ result in measurable concentrations of MZ and 1-OH-MZ in CSF; however, CSF concentrations of MZ and 1-OH-MZ poorly represent serum concentrations or dosages. Accumulation of MZ and 1-OH-MZ in serum or CSF over time was not evident. Concentrations of MZ and 1-OH-MZ do not predict sedation levels, reinforcing that pharmacodynamic assessments are warranted.

Intranasal atomized dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with ketamine or midazolam to sedate healthy dogs.

A prospective, randomized, blinded experiment was conducted to compare the effects of intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine (Dex, 10 µg/kg; n=12) alone or combined with midazolam (DexM, 0.3 mg/kg; n=12) or ketamine (DexK, 2 mg/kg; n=12) in healthy dogs. Ease of administration (EA1), total administration time (TAT), time for first (TA1) and second nostril administration (TA2), and adverse events during atomization were recorded. Two days later, EA2 was assessed by IN atomization of injectable water as an additional outcome variable. Onset of sedation was evaluated, along with behavioral scores and physiological parameters from T0 (baseline) to T120. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis, repeated measures or Friedman's ANOVA, and Wilcoxon's tests. Significance was p≤0.05. Onset of sedation was 12.9 ± 4.1, 18.2 ± 7.5, and 9.9 ± 4.3 mins (mean ± SD) for Dex, DexM, and DexK, respectively. Onset was shorter in DexK compared to DexM (p=0.002), explaining the lower behavioral scores in DexM at T15. All dogs in Dex and DexK reached adequate sedation, with peak sedation occurring at T30, while some dogs in DexM never reached adequate sedation and this group peaked at T45. Adverse events such as saliva drooling and pawing at the nose were significantly higher in DexM and DexK, explaining their differences in TA2, TAT, and EA1 comparing to Dex. EA2 was also higher in Dex compared to DexM and DexK. In conclusion, Dex was better tolerated in dogs and DexK showed faster and more profound sedative effects. Due to paradoxical excitement, unpredictable sedation, and nasal irritation, DexM is not recommended.

Intranasal midazolam for procedural distress in children in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Intranasal (IN) midazolam is the most common anxiolytic for children in the emergency department (ED), but evidence of benefit is conflicting. We synthesized the evidence on IN midazolam for procedural distress in children undergoing ED painful procedures. METHODS: We included trials involving painful ED procedures in children 0-18 years involving IN midazolam. Primary outcome was procedural distress. We summarized results using Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," and "unfavorable" (p < 0.05), supporting IN midazolam or comparator, respectively, or "indeterminate" (unable to judge). Where possible, we pooled results using meta-analysis. Methodologic quality of evidence was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and GRADE system. RESULTS: We included 41 trials (n = 2973 participants). Thirty trials involved intravenous insertion. IN midazolam was superior to placebo (RR = 7.2; 95% CI: 3.43, 15.25; 3 trials; I2 = 0%). However, 56-90% of the IN midazolam group resisted the procedure. Focusing on the three trials that used validated measures, IN midazolam was "neutral" versus IN ketamine and either "neutral" or "unfavorable" versus IN dexmedetomidine. There was no difference in the proportion of children with a satisfactory distress score between IN midazolam and oral midazolam (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.73; 2 trials; I2 = 53%), IN ketamine (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.25; 6 trials; I2 = 0%), or IN dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.17, 1.05; 3 trials; I2 = 84%). Ten trials involved laceration repair. IN midazolam was "favorable" versus placebo; however, both groups scored in the anxious range. There was no difference in distress between IN midazolam and oral midazolam (SMD = 0.01; 95% CI:-0.32, 0.34; 2 trials; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3E) [64,65]. Using validated instruments, IN midazolam was "unfavorable" versus IN dexmedetomidine but "favorable" versus oral diazepam and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited methodologically rigorous evidence that IN midazolam is better than placebo for IV insertion and laceration repair. At the doses studied, preliminary evidence suggests that IN dexmedetomidine may be superior to IN midazolam for both IV insertion and laceration repair.

ABSTRAIT: OBJECTIFS: Le midazolam intranasal (IN) est l'anxiolytique le plus courant chez les enfants du service des urgences (DE), mais les preuves des avantages sont contradictoires. Nous avons synthétisé les preuves sur l'IN midazolam pour la détresse procédurale chez les enfants subissant des procédures douloureuses d'urgence. MéTHODES: Nous avons inclus des essais impliquant des procédures douloureuses d'urgence chez les enfants de 0 à 18 ans impliquant IN midazolam. Le résultat principal était la détresse procédurale. Nous avons résumé les résultats en utilisant la classification de Tricco et coll. de « neutre ¼ (p 0,05), « favorable ¼, « défavorable ¼ (p < 0,05), à l'appui du midazolam IN ou du comparateur, respectivement, ou « indéterminé ¼ (incapable de juger). Dans la mesure du possible, nous avons regroupé les résultats en utilisant la méta-analyse. La qualité méthodologique des preuves a été évaluée à l'aide de l'outil de risque de biais de Cochrane Collaboration et du système GRADE. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 41 essais (n = 2973 participants). Trente essais portaient sur l'insertion intraveineuse. L'IN midazolam était supérieur au placebo (RR = 7,2; IC à 95 % : 3,43,15,25; 3 essais; I2 = 0 %). Cependant, 56 à 90 % du groupe IN midazolam a résisté à la procédure. En se concentrant sur les trois essais qui ont utilisé des mesures validées, IN midazolam était « neutre ¼ par rapport à IN kétamine et « neutre ¼ ou « défavorable ¼ par rapport à IN dexmedetomidine. Il n'y avait pas de différence dans la proportion d'enfants ayant un score de détresse satisfaisant entre IN midazolam et midazolam oral (RR = 1,1; IC à 95 % : 0,74,1,73; 2 essais; I2 = 53 %), IN kétamine (RR = 1,1; IC à 95 % : 0,91,1,25; 6 essais; I2 = 0 %) ou IN dexmedetomidine (RR = 0,4; IC à 95 % : 0,17,1,05; 3 essais; I2 = 84 %). Dix essais portaient sur la réparation de la lacération. L'IN midazolam était « favorable ¼ par rapport au placebo, mais les deux groupes ont obtenu des résultats dans la fourchette de l'anxiété. Il n'y avait pas de différence de détresse entre le midazolam IN et le midazolam oral (SMD = 0,01; IC à 95 %:-0,32,0,34; 2 essais; I2 = 0 %) (figure 3E)64,65. À l'aide d'instruments validés, l'IN midazolam était « défavorable ¼ par rapport à l'IN dexmedetomidine, mais « favorable ¼ par rapport au diazépam oral et au placebo. CONCLUSION: Il y a peu de preuves méthodologiques rigoureuses que l'IN midazolam est meilleur que le placebo pour l'insertion IV et la réparation de lacération. Aux doses étudiées, des preuves préliminaires suggèrent que l'IN dexmedetomidine peut être supérieure à l'IN midazolam pour l'insertion IV et la réparation de lacération.