Klein Eileen J, Diekema Douglas S, Paris Carolyn A, Quan Linda, Cohen Morty, Seidel Kristy D
Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington and Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Washington 98105-0371, USA.
Pediatrics. 2002 May;109(5):894-7. doi: 10.1542/peds.109.5.894.
To determine whether a combination of oral transmucosal fentanyl (Fentanyl Oralet, Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL) plus oral midazolam has an acceptable safety profile and is more effective than oral midazolam alone for sedation during laceration repair in a pediatric emergency department (ED).
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Patients between 2 and 8 years of age who weighed >10 kg and presented to the ED with a laceration in need of repair under sedation were eligible for inclusion. All patients received oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg; maximum dose 10 mg) and either fentanyl (5-10 microg/kg) or placebo in oralet form. Data collected every 5 minutes included the following: heart rate, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, pain as measured on a Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Score (CHEOPS) scale (range: 4-13), and an activity scale (range: 1-5). Effectiveness of sedation was measured by CHEOPS and activity scores compared between the treatment groups.
Fifty-one patients were randomized to receive oral midazolam plus fentanyl (N = 28) or oral midazolam plus placebo (N = 23). Age, weight, gender, or baseline pain and activity scores did not differ between the 2 groups. Seven patients in the fentanyl group vomited compared with 0 patients in the placebo group. Three patients in the fentanyl group and no patients in the placebo group had brief oxygen saturation below 93% on room air. The mean pain score within 5 minutes of the start of the procedure did not differ between the 2 groups (fentanyl group, 9.4 versus placebo group, 8.8). Mean activity scores within 5 minutes of the start of the procedure were also similar (fentanyl group, 4.3 versus placebo group, 4.3).
The addition of oral transmucosal fentanyl to oral midazolam did not improve pain or activity scores in pediatric patients given sedation for laceration repair. Patients who received Fentanyl Oralet suffered significantly more side effects despite the relatively low doses administered in this study. Oral transmucosal fentanyl should not be used for procedural sedation in the ED.
确定口腔黏膜芬太尼(芬太尼口腔贴片,雅培实验室,伊利诺伊州北芝加哥)联合口服咪达唑仑是否具有可接受的安全性,并且在儿科急诊科(ED)进行伤口缝合修复时,比单独使用口服咪达唑仑镇静效果更好。
随机、双盲、安慰剂对照临床试验。年龄在2至8岁、体重>10 kg且因伤口需要在镇静下进行缝合修复而到急诊科就诊的患者符合纳入标准。所有患者均接受口服咪达唑仑(0.5 mg/kg;最大剂量10 mg),并以口腔贴片形式给予芬太尼(5 - 10 μg/kg)或安慰剂。每5分钟收集的数据包括:心率、血氧饱和度、呼吸频率、采用东安大略儿童医院疼痛评分(CHEOPS)量表测量的疼痛程度(范围:4 - 13)以及活动量表评分(范围:1 - 5)。通过比较治疗组之间的CHEOPS和活动量表评分来衡量镇静效果。
51例患者被随机分为接受口服咪达唑仑加芬太尼组(N = 28)或口服咪达唑仑加安慰剂组(N = 23)。两组在年龄、体重、性别或基线疼痛和活动量表评分方面无差异。芬太尼组有7例患者呕吐,而安慰剂组无患者呕吐。芬太尼组有3例患者在室内空气中短暂血氧饱和度低于93%,安慰剂组无患者出现此情况。手术开始后5分钟内,两组的平均疼痛评分无差异(芬太尼组为9.4,安慰剂组为8.8)。手术开始后5分钟内的平均活动量表评分也相似(芬太尼组为4.3,安慰剂组为4.3)。
在为儿科患者进行伤口缝合修复镇静时,在口服咪达唑仑基础上加用口腔黏膜芬太尼并不能改善疼痛或活动量表评分。尽管本研究中给予的剂量相对较低,但接受芬太尼口腔贴片的患者出现的副作用明显更多。口腔黏膜芬太尼不应在急诊科用于程序性镇静。