A comparison of midazolam, dexmedetomidine 2µg/kg and dexmedetomidine 4µg/kg as oral premedication in children, a randomized double-blinded clinical triall

IF 0.1 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.56126/73.1.07
D. Lalin, S. Singh, V. Thakur
{"title":"A comparison of midazolam, dexmedetomidine 2µg/kg and dexmedetomidine 4µg/kg as oral premedication in children, a randomized double-blinded clinical triall","authors":"D. Lalin, S. Singh, V. Thakur","doi":"10.56126/73.1.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The objective of this study was to analyze an oral administration of midazolam with two different doses of dexmedetomidine for premedication in paediatric patients.\n\nMethods: A prospective, randomized, double blind study. Three hundred patients, aged 1-7 years, undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were recruited for the study. Patients were randomized into three groups to receive oral midazolam 0.5mg/kg (group M), oral dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg (group D2) and oral dexmedetomidine 4 µg/kg (group D4) for premedication. An observer blinded to the patient group allocation assessed level of sedation at 30 minutes after giving the premedication, ease of parental separation was assessed while shifting the patients to the operating room, mask acceptance during induction and postoperative agitation scores in post anesthesia care unit.\n\nResults: The sedation score of group D4 was significantly higher than group D2 and group M [ group D4- 4 (4,3), group D2- 2(2,2) and group M -2(3,2), H statistics = 80.4718, p < 0.00001]. The parental separation score, mask acceptance score and postoperative was also significantly better for group D4 compared to the other two group.\n\nConclusion: These results suggest that oral dexmedetomidine 4 µg/kg is more effective than oral midazolam 0.5mg/kg and oral dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg for premedication in children.","PeriodicalId":7024,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56126/73.1.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to analyze an oral administration of midazolam with two different doses of dexmedetomidine for premedication in paediatric patients. Methods: A prospective, randomized, double blind study. Three hundred patients, aged 1-7 years, undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were recruited for the study. Patients were randomized into three groups to receive oral midazolam 0.5mg/kg (group M), oral dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg (group D2) and oral dexmedetomidine 4 µg/kg (group D4) for premedication. An observer blinded to the patient group allocation assessed level of sedation at 30 minutes after giving the premedication, ease of parental separation was assessed while shifting the patients to the operating room, mask acceptance during induction and postoperative agitation scores in post anesthesia care unit. Results: The sedation score of group D4 was significantly higher than group D2 and group M [ group D4- 4 (4,3), group D2- 2(2,2) and group M -2(3,2), H statistics = 80.4718, p < 0.00001]. The parental separation score, mask acceptance score and postoperative was also significantly better for group D4 compared to the other two group. Conclusion: These results suggest that oral dexmedetomidine 4 µg/kg is more effective than oral midazolam 0.5mg/kg and oral dexmedetomidine 2 µg/kg for premedication in children.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
咪达唑仑、2µg/kg右美托咪定和4µg/kg右美托咪定作为儿童口服前用药的比较,一项随机双盲临床试验
背景:本研究的目的是分析儿科患者术前口服咪达唑仑和两种不同剂量的右美托咪定的情况。方法:前瞻性、随机、双盲研究。本研究招募了300名患者,年龄在1-7岁之间,在全麻下接受选择性手术。患者被随机分为三组,分别接受口服咪达唑仑0.5mg/kg(M组)、口服右美托咪定2µg/kg(D2组)和口服右美托咪定4µg/kg(D4组)的药物治疗。一名对患者组分配不知情的观察者评估了术前用药后30分钟的镇静水平,在将患者转移到手术室时评估了父母分离的容易程度,诱导期间的口罩接受情况以及麻醉后护理室的术后躁动评分。结果:D4组镇静评分显著高于D2组和M组[D4-4组(4,3),D2-2组(2,2)和M-2组(3,2),H统计量=80.4718,p<0.00001]。结论:在儿童用药前,口服4µg/kg右美托咪定比口服0.5mg/kg咪达唑仑和2µg/kg右美托咪定更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: L’Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica est le journal de la SBAR, publié 4 fois par an. L’Acta a été publié pour la première fois en 1950. Depuis 1973 l’Acta est publié dans la langue Anglaise, ce qui a été résulté à un rayonnement plus internationaux. Depuis lors l’Acta est devenu un journal à ne pas manquer dans le domaine d’Anesthésie Belge, offrant e.a. les textes du congrès annuel, les Research Meetings, … Vous en trouvez aussi les dates des Research Meetings, du congrès annuel et des autres réunions.
期刊最新文献
Long-term cognitive dysfunction after COVID ARDS Trends in female authorship in Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica from 2005 to 2021 General anesthesia for maternal surgery during pregnancy: dogmas, myths and evidence, a narrative review Clinical relevance of nocebo effects in anesthesia practice: a narrative review Gender equality and equity in anaesthesia research: Why are we still talking about numbers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1