Midazolam as premedication: is the emperor naked or just half‐dressed?

Berry, Frederic A.

doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.02111.x

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has the advantages of rapid onset, high metabolic clearance and anterograde amnesia, and it is commonly used in pediatric sedation [ 5 ]. However, adverse effects including cognitive impairment, nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, and postoperative emergence agitation have been reported in children after using midazolam [ 6 ]. Propofol is a widely-used sedative agent in pediatric sedation for various medical and diagnostic procedures [ 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam in pediatric sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nie,

Li,

Yang

et al. 2024

BMC Anesthesiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation. Methods The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events. Results A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39–6.13, P = 0.005, I2 = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07–0.68, P = 0.008, I2 = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = − 0.27, 95% CI: − 0.93 to − 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48–1.02, P = 0.06, I2 = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=−3.08; 95% CI: −4.66 to − 1.49, P = 0.0001, I2 = 30%). Conclusions This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%