Effect of oral premedication of midazolam, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine on pediatric sedation and ease of parental separation in anesthesia induction for elective surgery: A randomized clinical trial

IF 0.4 Q4 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Acute Disease Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.4103/2221-6189.355310
Aref Zarei, H. Modir, Behnam Mahmoodiyeh, A. Kamali, Farzad Zamani-Barsari
{"title":"Effect of oral premedication of midazolam, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine on pediatric sedation and ease of parental separation in anesthesia induction for elective surgery: A randomized clinical trial","authors":"Aref Zarei, H. Modir, Behnam Mahmoodiyeh, A. Kamali, Farzad Zamani-Barsari","doi":"10.4103/2221-6189.355310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare effect of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine as oral premedication on pediatric sedation and ease of parental separation anxiety in anesthesia induction. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial focused on a pediatric population aged 2-7 years (n=153) with the American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II who required elective surgery. The patients were stratified into three intervention groups: midazolam, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine. Hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation) every 5 min until induction of anesthesia along with non-hemodynamic factors, comprised of sedation score before the administration and at the time of being separated from the parents, as well as parental separation anxiety scale, acceptance of anesthesia induction, and side effects were recorded and compared. Results: No statistically significant difference in oxygen saturation, heart rate, blood pressure, duration of surgery, time to achieve an Aldrete score of 9-10, or sedation score was noted in the study groups. More patients in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups could better ease parental separation anxiety than the ketamine group (P=0.001). Moreover, fewer patients accept anesthesia induction (P=0.001) and more had side effects in the ketamine group (P=0.047). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that compared to the ketamine group, dexmedetomidine and midazolam are better in easing parental separation anxiety and accepting induction of anesthesia with fewer side effects. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam may be considered better choices. However, the final choice hinges on the patient′s specific physical condition and the anesthesiologist′s preference. Clinical registarion: This study is registered in the Iranian Registry Clinical Trial center with the clinical trial code of IRCT20211007052693N1.","PeriodicalId":45984,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Acute Disease","volume":"11 1","pages":"133 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Acute Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2221-6189.355310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare effect of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine as oral premedication on pediatric sedation and ease of parental separation anxiety in anesthesia induction. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial focused on a pediatric population aged 2-7 years (n=153) with the American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II who required elective surgery. The patients were stratified into three intervention groups: midazolam, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine. Hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation) every 5 min until induction of anesthesia along with non-hemodynamic factors, comprised of sedation score before the administration and at the time of being separated from the parents, as well as parental separation anxiety scale, acceptance of anesthesia induction, and side effects were recorded and compared. Results: No statistically significant difference in oxygen saturation, heart rate, blood pressure, duration of surgery, time to achieve an Aldrete score of 9-10, or sedation score was noted in the study groups. More patients in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups could better ease parental separation anxiety than the ketamine group (P=0.001). Moreover, fewer patients accept anesthesia induction (P=0.001) and more had side effects in the ketamine group (P=0.047). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that compared to the ketamine group, dexmedetomidine and midazolam are better in easing parental separation anxiety and accepting induction of anesthesia with fewer side effects. Dexmedetomidine and midazolam may be considered better choices. However, the final choice hinges on the patient′s specific physical condition and the anesthesiologist′s preference. Clinical registarion: This study is registered in the Iranian Registry Clinical Trial center with the clinical trial code of IRCT20211007052693N1.
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
口服咪达唑仑、氯胺酮和右美托咪定对择期手术麻醉诱导中儿童镇静和父母分离的影响:一项随机临床试验
目的:比较咪达唑仑、右美托咪定和氯胺酮在麻醉诱导中对儿童镇静和缓解父母分离焦虑的作用。方法:这项多中心、前瞻性、随机、双盲的临床试验主要针对美国麻醉师学会I-II要求择期手术的2-7岁儿童(n=153)。患者被分为三个干预组:咪达唑仑、氯胺酮和右美托咪定。记录并比较麻醉诱导前每5分钟的血液动力学参数(血压、心率和血氧饱和度)以及非血液动力学因素,包括给药前和与父母分离时的镇静评分,以及父母分离焦虑量表、麻醉诱导的接受程度和副作用。结果:研究组在血氧饱和度、心率、血压、手术持续时间、达到Aldrete评分9-10的时间或镇静评分方面没有统计学显著差异。右美托咪定和咪达唑仑组比氯胺酮组有更多的患者能更好地缓解父母分离焦虑(P=0.001)。此外,接受麻醉诱导的患者更少(P=0.000),氯胺酮组的副作用更多(P=0.047)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,与氯胺酮组相比,右美托咪定和咪达唑仑在缓解父母分离焦虑和接受麻醉诱导方面效果更好,副作用更少。右美托咪定和咪达唑仑可能被认为是更好的选择。然而,最终的选择取决于患者的具体身体状况和麻醉师的偏好。临床注册:本研究在伊朗注册临床试验中心注册,临床试验代码为IRCT20211007052693N1。
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
Journal of Acute Disease
Journal of Acute Disease CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
自引率
20.00%
发文量
652
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The articles published mainly deal with pre-hospital and hospital emergency medicine, cardiopulmonary-cerebral resuscitation, critical cardiovascular disease, sepsis, severe infection, multiple organ failure, acute and critical diseases in different medical fields, sudden cardiac arrest, Intensive Care Unit (ICU), critical care medicine, disaster rescue medicine (earthquakes, fires, floods, mine disaster, air crash, et al.), acute trauma, acute toxicology, acute heart disease, and related topics. JAD sets up columns for special subjects in each issue.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors for development of pneumothorax in patients with COVID-19 at a government health facility in North India: An exploratory case-control study Predictors of hemorrhagic manifestations in dengue: A prospective observational study from the Hadoti region of Rajasthan COVID-19 mortality trends before and after the national vaccination program in Iran: A joinpoint regression analysis Neurological manifestations of COVID-19 infection: A case series A public health perspective on dengue in Bangladesh in the twenty-first century
×
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