Wheeler D S, Jensen R A, Poss W B
Division of Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2001 Jul;40(7):381-7. doi: 10.1177/000992280104000704.
The objective of this prospective, randomized, and blinded study was to compare the use of chloral hydrate versus oral midazolam sedation in children undergoing echocardiography. No adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, paradoxical agitation, or significant deviations from baseline vital signs) were noted with either medication. No differences were noted in onset of sedation between the 2 groups, however, the time to complete recovery was significantly shorter with midazolam than with chloral hydrate. The children in the chloral hydrate group had a significantly deeper level of sedation and were more likely to receive a more nearly comprehensive echocardiographic evalation.
这项前瞻性、随机、双盲研究的目的是比较水合氯醛与口服咪达唑仑在接受超声心动图检查儿童中的镇静效果。两种药物均未观察到不良反应(恶心、呕吐、反常激动或生命体征与基线有显著偏差)。两组之间在镇静起效方面未观察到差异,然而,咪达唑仑组的完全恢复时间明显短于水合氯醛组。水合氯醛组的儿童镇静深度明显更深,更有可能接受更全面的超声心动图评估。