2015
DOI: 10.4103/2394-6954.180661
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study of intranasal midazolam spray and oral midazolam syrup as premedication in pediatric patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As per results, Group M achieved superior and faster sedation levels than Group C. This rapid onset of intranasal midazolam can be attributed to pharmacokinetic properties of midazolam where it is rapidly absorbed from highly vascular nasal mucosa into the systemic circulation, firstpass hepatic metabolism is bypassed and therapeutic plasma and Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) concentrations are achieved 12,13,15,[17][18][19][20] Regarding child-parent separation, the scores are better with Group M than with Group C. In our study mean separation scores were 1.28 ± 0.60 in midazolam group, which is comparable with studies by Ramesh Koppal et al and Anisha AC et al 6,17 About 89.74% children in midazolam group had satisfactory mask acceptance in our study, which is consistent with studies by Bhakta et al, 21 Ravi Verma et al, 12 Sneha P et al 19 and Abhishek et al 22 A study by Mitra S et al showed 100% good mask acceptance with intranasal clonidine. 1 But in our study, only 66.66% children on clonidine had satisfactory mask acceptance.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…As per results, Group M achieved superior and faster sedation levels than Group C. This rapid onset of intranasal midazolam can be attributed to pharmacokinetic properties of midazolam where it is rapidly absorbed from highly vascular nasal mucosa into the systemic circulation, firstpass hepatic metabolism is bypassed and therapeutic plasma and Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) concentrations are achieved 12,13,15,[17][18][19][20] Regarding child-parent separation, the scores are better with Group M than with Group C. In our study mean separation scores were 1.28 ± 0.60 in midazolam group, which is comparable with studies by Ramesh Koppal et al and Anisha AC et al 6,17 About 89.74% children in midazolam group had satisfactory mask acceptance in our study, which is consistent with studies by Bhakta et al, 21 Ravi Verma et al, 12 Sneha P et al 19 and Abhishek et al 22 A study by Mitra S et al showed 100% good mask acceptance with intranasal clonidine. 1 But in our study, only 66.66% children on clonidine had satisfactory mask acceptance.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Similar to the present study, Raval and Gunga[17] also found higher scores for nasal (3.06) as compared to oral (2.96) but found the difference to be much lower (0.1) that observed in the present study (1.03). Abhishek et al [18] in their study while using a different scoring system for sedation, also found the performance of nasal group to be better than oral group (86% vs. 83%) but did not find a significant difference between two groups. However, Nainegali et al [19] also reported results comparable to the present study and reported 20-min postadministration sedation scores in nasal group to be significantly higher as compared to that in oral group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Intra nasal midazolam has emerged an excellent alternative to IV, IM, rectal and other invasive routes in children. 3 In this study, Intranasal Midazolam used in dose of 0.3 mg/ kg and 0.5 mg / kg because earlier report suggest that dose less than 0.2 mg / kg was ineffective. 4,5 So we tried to find out which dose gives better effect without any side effect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%