Humans ; Benzodiazepines ; Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use* ; Intensive Care Units ; Midazolam

Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of oral midazolam sedation combined nitrous oxide sedation for reducing dental fear in children.Methods Totally 77 children with a Frankl's Behavior Rating Scale score of 1 were included in this study,among whom 41 received a total of 78 person-times of oral midazolam sedation (0.50-0.75 mg·kg ) (midazolam group) and 36 children were treated with the combination of 0.4 mg/kg oral midazolam with 30%-40% nitrous oxide (totally 73 person-times)(combination group). At each visit,heart rate,arterial oxygen saturation,and treatments were recorded. The behaviors of children during the treatment were assessed by Frankl's Behavior Rating Scale,the completion of treatment was assessed by Houpt Scale,and the sedation status was assessed by Ramsay Scale. Telephone follow-up was performed to record the side effects 24 hours after treatment. Results The vital signs were stable among all the 77 subjects,with a Ramsay score of 2 or 3. In the midazolam group, the behaviors were cooperative in 52 person-times (66.7%) and not cooperative in 26 person-times (33.3%);the planned treatments were completed in 62 person-times (79.5%) and partially completed in 16 person-times(20.5%). In the combination group,the behaviors were cooperative in 56 person-times (76.7%) and not cooperative in 17 person-times (23.3%);64 person-times (87.7%) completed the planned treatments and 9 person-times (12.3%) partially completed the treatments. The success rates of sedation (χ =1.87,P= 0.17) and treatment (χ =1.83,P= 0.18) were not significantly different between these two groups. The median Frankl scale score was significantly higher in the combination group [3 (3,4)] than in the midazolam group [3 (2,4)] (Z=2.647,P=0.008]. The median score of Houpt scale in the combination group [5(4,6)] was also significantly higher than in midazolam group [5(3,5)] (Z=2.236,P=0.026]. In midazolam group,there were 7 person-times of dysphoria,3 person-times of diplopia,and 2 person-times of hiccough among 78 person-times;in the combination group,there were 5 person-times of dysphoria,5 person-times of diplopia,1 person-time of hiccough,and 2 person-times of vomit among 73 person-times of treatment. Thus,there was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects (15.4% vs.17.8%,χ =0.160,P=0.689). Logistic regression analysis showed that the success rate of treatment was not associated with sex (OR=1.704,P=0.174),dose (OR=1.289,P=0.516),and treatment types (OR=0.555,P=0.143). Children over 3 years old had a significantly high success rate than those under 3 years old (OR=3.372,P=0.011). Conclusions Oral midazolam is safe and effective for reducing dental fear in children. The combination of oral midazolam with 30%-40% nitrous oxide can improve the behaviors of children during the dental treatment,especially in children over 3 years old.
Administration, Oral ; Anesthesia, Dental ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Conscious Sedation ; Cross-Over Studies ; Dental Anxiety ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use ; Nitrous Oxide

BACKGROUNDThe management of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is beneficial for patients and makes it widely applied in clinical practice. Previous studies showed that the clinical practice of PAD in ICU was improving; yet relatively little information is available in China. This study aimed to investigate the practice of PAD in ICUs in China.

METHODSA multicenter, nationwide survey was conducted using a clinician-directed questionnaire from September 19 to December 18, 2016. The questionnaire focused on the assessment and management of PAD by the clinicians in ICUs. The practice of PAD was compared among the four regions of China (North, Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest). The data were expressed as percentage and frequency. The Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and line-row Chi-square test were used.

RESULTSOf the 1011 valid questionnaire forms, the response rate was 80.37%. The clinicians came from 704 hospitals across 158 cities of China. The rate of PAD assessment was 75.77%, 90.21%, and 66.77%, respectively. The rates of PAD scores were 45.8%, 68.94%, and 34.03%, respectively. The visual analog scale, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, and confusion assessment method for the ICU were the first choices of scales for PAD assessment. Fentanyl, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine were the first choices of agents for analgesic, sedation, and delirium treatment. While choosing analgesics and sedatives, the clinicians put the pharmacological characteristics of drugs in the first place (66.07% and 76.36%). Daily interruption for sedation was carried out by 67.26% clinicians. Most of the clinicians (87.24%) used analgesics while using sedatives. Of the 738 (73%) clinicians titrating the sedatives on the basis of the proposed target sedation level, 268 (26.61%) clinicians just depended on their clinical experience. Totally, 519 (51.34%) clinicians never used other nondrug strategies for PAD. The working time of clinicians was an important factor in the management of analgesia and sedation rather than their titles and educational background. The ratios of pain score and sedation score in the Southwest China were the highest and the North China were the lowest. The ratios of delirium assessment and score were the same in the four regions of China. Moreover, the first choices of scales for PAD in the four regions were the same. However, the top three choices of agents in PAD treatment in the four regions were not the same.

CONCLUSIONSThe practice of PAD in China follows the international guidelines; however, the pain assessment should be improved. The PAD practice is a little different across the four regions of China; however, the trend is consistent.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONThe study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (No. ChiCTR-OOC-16009014, www.chictr. org.cn/index.aspx.).

Delirium ; drug therapy ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Fentanyl ; therapeutic use ; Haloperidol ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Intensive Care Units ; statistics & numerical data ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use ; Pain ; drug therapy ; Pain Management ; methods ; Pain Measurement ; methods ; Surveys and Questionnaires

OBJECTIVETo compare the efficacy and safety of different analgesic and sedative treatments in children with mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

METHODSEighty children with mechanical ventilation in the PICU who needed analgesic and sedative treatments were equally and randomly divided into midazolam group and remifentanil+midazolam group. The sedative and analgesic effects were assessed using the Ramsay Scale and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) Scale. The following indices were recorded for the two groups: vital signs, ventilator parameters, organ function, total doses of remifentanil and midazolam, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of PICU stay, PICU cost, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTSSatisfactory sedation was achieved in the two groups, but the remifentanil+midazolam group had a significantly shorter time to analgesia and sedation than the midazolam group. The remifentanil+midazolam group had a significantly higher percentage of patients with grade 3-4 on the Ramsay Scale and a significantly lower dose of midazolam than the midazolam group (P<0.05). Both groups showed decreases in heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and spontaneous breathing frequency (RRs) after treatment. However, the remifentanil+midazolam group had significantly greater decreases in HR at 3-24 hours after treatment and MAP and RRs at 3-12 hours after treatment than the midazolam group (P<0.05). Compared with the midazolam group, the remifentanil+midazolam group had significantly higher ventilator tidal volume and transcutaneous oxygen saturation at 6 and 12 hours after treatment and significantly lower end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure at 6 and 12 hours after treatment (P<0.05). The remifentanil+midazolam group had significantly shorter time to awake, extubation time, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of PICU stay than the midazolam group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in PICU cost, incidence of adverse events, and hepatic and renal functions before and after treatment between the two groups (P>0.05). Both groups showed a significant decrease in fasting blood glucose level after treatment (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONSFor children with mechanical ventilation in the PICU, remifentanil+midazolam treatment can rapidly achieve analgesia and sedation, improve the effect of mechanical ventilation, and reduce the dose of sedative compared with midazolam alone, and is well tolerated.

Analgesics ; therapeutic use ; Blood Glucose ; analysis ; Female ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Infant ; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric ; Male ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use ; Piperidines ; therapeutic use ; Respiration, Artificial

OBJECTIVETo compare the sedative effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MDZ) in dental implant surgery:

METHODSSixty patients undergoing dental implantation were selected and divided randomly into six groups (10 in each group). In group 1 (G1), a highdose of MDZ alone was administered intravenously. In group 2 (G2), a relatively low dose of MDZ and DEX was administered intravenously. In group 3 (G3), a highdose of MDZ and DEX was administered intravenously. In group 4 (G4), a lowdose of MDZ and a highdose of DEX were administered. In group 5(G5), a highdose of MDZ and a low dose of DEX were administered. In group 6 (G6), a highdose of DEX alone was administered intravenously. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and arterial oxygen saturation values were measured. Sedation was assessed by determining the Ramsay sedation scores(RSS) during infiltration anesthesia (T1), incision (T2), cutting (T3), and suturing (T4). Before discharging from the hospital, patients were asked if they remembered the T1 to T4 procedures. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and the degree of patient satisfaction were assessed at the same time.

RESULTSIn T1 to T4, the systolic blood pressure (SBP) in G3 was the lowest and was significantly different from that in G1 and G2 (P < 0.05). In G1, the SBP was higher than that in G6 at the T3 and T4 points (P < 0.05). HR was below the preoperative (P < 0.05) in the G3 only. RSS was the lowest in G1 during the whole procedure. In G2, most patients obtained scores of 2-3. In G3, sedation was deeper, had more cases ofup to 5. In G4, most patients obtained scores of 3-4. In G5, some patients had a score of up to 5. The RSS in G6 was lower than that in G3 and G4 or G5 in T1 to T2, closer to G4 in T2. An evaluation of the VAS and the degree of patient satisfaction did not show any differences among the groups.

CONCLUSIONThe combination of DEX and MDZ is superior to a single intravenous injection. Low-dose MDZ combined with high-dose DEX achieved the highest quality of sedation in this study.

Anesthesia ; Blood Pressure ; Dental Care ; Dental Implants ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Heart Rate ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use ; Pain Measurement ; Patient Satisfaction ; Prospective Studies

BACKGROUNDAwake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) is usually performed in the management of the predicted difficult airway. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of dexmedetomidine with midazolam (DM) and sufentanil with midazolam (SM) for sedation for awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation.

METHODSFifty patients with limited mouth opening scheduled for AFOI were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 25 per group) by a computer-generated randomization schedule. All subjects received midazolam 0.02 mg/kg as premedication and airway topical anesthesia with a modified "spray-as-you-go" technique. Group DM received dexmedetomidine at a loading dose of 0.5 μg/kg over 10 min followed by a continuous infusion of 0.25 μg·kg-1·h-1, whereas Group SM received sufentanil at a loading dose of 0.2 μg/kg over 10 min followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1 μg·kg-1·h-1. As necessary, since the end of the administration of the loading dose of the study drug, an additional dose of midazolam 0.5 mg at 2-min intervals was given to achieve a modified Observers' Assessment of Alertness/Sedation of 2-3. The quality of intubation conditions and adverse events were observed.

RESULTSThe scores of ease of the AFOI procedure, patient's reaction during AFOI, coughing severity, tolerance after intubation, recall of the procedure and discomfort during the procedure were comparable in both groups (z = 0.572, 0.664, 1.297, 0.467, 0.895, and 0.188, respectively, P > 0.05). Hypoxic episodes similarly occurred in the two groups, but the first partial pressure of end-tidal CO2after intubation was higher in Group SM than that in Group DM (45.2 ± 4.2 mmHg vs. 42.2 ± 4.3 mmHg, t = 2.495, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONSBoth dexmedetomidine and sufentanil are effective as an adjuvant for AFOI under airway topical anesthesia combined with midazolam sedation, but respiratory depression is still a potential risk in the sufentanil regimen.

Adult ; Conscious Sedation ; methods ; Dexmedetomidine ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Fiber Optic Technology ; methods ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Intubation, Intratracheal ; methods ; Male ; Midazolam ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Middle Aged ; Sufentanil ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Wakefulness

OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effect of dexmedetomidine on patients during the extubation in general anesthesia.
 METHODS: A total of 90 patients scheduled for general anesthesia were divided into 3 groups (n=30): A dexmedetomidine group (DEX group), a midazolam group (MID group), and a control group(C group). Anesthesia drugs were stopped 10 minutes before the end of the operation. 
At the same time, the patients in the DEX group were given dexmedetomidine at the rate of 
1 g/(kg.h) for 10 min by vein first, which was continuously pumped at the rate of 0.3 g/(kg.h) for 20 min after the operation. The patients in the MID group were given midazolamin at 0.5 mg/kg for 60 s by vein first, which was continuously pumped at the rate of the 0.04 mg/(kg.h) for 20 min after the operation. The patients in the C group were not given any drug. Awakening time and extubation time after the operation were recorded. Ramsay scores, heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, and SpO₂were recorded at time of extubation, 10 min or 1 h after extubation. Chills, nausea, vomiting and other side effects after the operation were recorded.
 RESULTS: Awakening and extubation time were not affected in the DEX group, while delayed recovery occurred in the MID group (P<0.05). Compared with the C group, patients in the DEX and MID groups gained better sedative effect, with 2-4 Ramsay scores (P<0.05). The blood pressure and heart rate were steady in the DEX and MID groups, while inhibition of respiration appeared in the MID group.
 CONCLUSION Dexmedetomidine can provide an effective sedation for the patients without affecting the awakening and extubation time. The hemodynamics could be stably maintained by using dexmedetomidine in patients during the extubation in general anesthesia.
Airway Extubation ; Anesthesia, General ; Arterial Pressure ; Blood Pressure ; Dexmedetomidine ; therapeutic use ; Heart Rate ; Hemodynamics ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVE: To identify the incidence and the risk factors for emergence agitation (EA) in adults undergoing general anesthesia for nasal surgery. METHOD: We examined 674 patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent general anesthesia for nasal surgery between February 2013 and February 2015. The patients were divided into control group (518 cases) and EA group (156 cases) by Sedation-agitation scale (SAS) method. Demographic and clinical variables were assessed and the data were analyzed by multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULT: The overall incidence of emergence agitation was 23. 15%. Significant difference was observed between EA and the control group in many aspects, such as sex, age, ASA classify, smoking history, history of cerebrovascular disease, preoperative anxiety, the use of midazolam, anesthesia means, postoperative pain, postoperative analgesia, presence of a tracheal tube, and presence of a urinary catheter. The results of multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that the occurring of EA was significantly correlated with younger age, male, preoperative anxiety, inhalation anesthesia, postoperative pain, presence of a tracheal tube, and presence of a urinary catheter, while seniors, with the use of midazolam, total intravenous anesthesia, analgesia and natural awakening were protective factors. CONCLUSION EA following general anesthesia is a common complication in patients with adult nasal surgery. To reduce the occurrence and consequences of agitation episodes, elimination of the associated risk factors is necessary, especially in patients with risk factors.
Adult ; Age Factors ; Analgesia ; Anesthesia Recovery Period ; Anesthesia, General ; adverse effects ; Anesthesia, Inhalation ; Anxiety ; Female ; Humans ; Incidence ; Male ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use ; Nasal Surgical Procedures ; Pain, Postoperative ; Psychomotor Agitation ; physiopathology ; Risk Factors

INTRODUCTIONThis study aimed to describe the patterns of sedative use among terminally ill cancer patients who were referred to a hospital-based specialist palliative care service for symptom management. It also aimed to examine whether sedative use among terminally ill cancer patients during the last two days of life had any impact on their survival.

METHODSA retrospective review of case notes was carried out for patients with a diagnosis of terminal cancer, who died in a 95-bedded oncology ward between September 2006 and September 2007. Data was collected on patient characteristics, duration of palliative care, indications and doses of sedatives used at 48 hours and 24 hours before death.

RESULTSA total of 238 patients died while receiving specialist palliative care, 132 of whom (55.5%) were female. At 48 hours and 24 hours before death, 22.6% and 24.8% of patients, respectively, were on sedatives like midazolam, haloperidol or both. The median dose of midazolam was 5 mg/day while the haloperidol dose at 48 hours and 24 hours before death was 3 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively. The indications for midazolam were anxiety, breathlessness and stiffness, while those for haloperidol were confusion agitation and nausea. Survival analysis showed no significant difference in survival between patients who were on sedatives and those who were not. The p-value for log-rank test was 0.78.

CONCLUSIONThe results showed that the doses and overall frequency of sedative use in this patient population tended to be low and that usage of sedatives had no deleterious influence on survival.

Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Analgesics, Opioid ; therapeutic use ; Female ; Haloperidol ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms ; drug therapy ; mortality ; Palliative Care ; methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Terminal Care ; methods ; Terminally Ill ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome

BACKGROUNDAnxiety and fear frequently causes an aversion to applying a face mask and increases difficulty during pediatric induction. There is at present little study of this problem. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the combination of mask preconditioning and midazolam pretreatment on mask acceptance during pediatric induction and on postoperative mask fear.

METHODSOne hundred and sixty children were randomly assigned into four groups: the mask preconditioning group (MaG), the midazolam pretreatment group (MiG), the mask/midazolam combination group (Ma/MiG), and the saline group (SaG). The Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (m-YPAS) was employed to assess the anxiety in the operation room (OR). A Mask Acceptance Score (MAS) was measured during inhalational induction and the incidence of mask fear (MAS ≤ 2) was evaluated postoperatively.

RESULTSThe MaG and Ma/MiG groups had the highest mask acceptance scores but there were no differences between these two groups (P < 0.05). The average anxiety level of children entering the OR was much lower in the MaG and Ma/MiG groups than in the SaG group (P < 0.05). During induction, the anxiety level increased in the SaG and MaG groups but decreased in the MiG and Ma/MiG groups (P < 0.05). At the postoperative third day, the incidence of mask fears was as high as 23% in the SaG group, 15% in the MiG group, but only 2.5% in the MaG and Ma/MiG groups.

CONCLUSIONSThe single use of mask preconditioning has a better influence than midazolam for increasing mask acceptance during inhalational induction and reducing postoperative mask fear, reducing the anxiety level during induction, improving induction compliance and shortening the total mask time. A mask preconditioning and midazolam combination did not increase mask acceptance during inhalational induction, reduce mask fears postoperatively, improve induction compliance, nor shorten the total mask time. But it can better reduce the anxiety level during induction.

Anxiety ; prevention & control ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Fear ; drug effects ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Masks ; Midazolam ; therapeutic use