Suppr超能文献

口服水合氯醛与舌下含服咪达唑仑用于儿童超声心动图镇静的比较。

A comparison of oral chloral hydrate and sublingual midazolam sedation for echocardiogram in children.

作者信息

Layangool Thanarat, Sangtawesin Chaisit, Kirawittaya Thawatchai, Prompan Worakan, Attachoo Anchalee, Pechdamrongsakul Amornrat, Intasorn Yanisa, Hanchai Prisana, Ounjareon Chalerat, Noisang Putra

机构信息

Cardiology Unit, Queen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health, Department of Medical services, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand.

出版信息

J Med Assoc Thai. 2008 Oct;91 Suppl 3:S45-52.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of oral chloral hydrate and sublingual midazolam to sedate the children undergoing echocardiography.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A double-blind, randomized trial study in the children judged to require sedation prior echocardiogram were performed. Two hundred sixty-four patients between 6 months and 5 years of age were randomized to chloral hydrate or midazolam groups. Either 50 mg/kg of chloral hydrate orally or 0.3 mg/kg of midazolam sublingually was given in each groups. If the child was not responded within 30 minutes after the first dose, another half dose of each drug for the second dose will be required. The action duration time, sedation score level and the ability to complete echocardiogram were collected.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body weight, underlying heart disease, baseline O2 saturation and functional heart classification. The children in chloral hydrate group needed the second dose for sedation more than midazolam group (10.6%, 5.3% p = 0.111). The onset, action duration and total study time were significantly shorter in midazolam than in chloral hydrate group (p < 0.001). The number of the patients who had the action duration within the optimal time (< 45 min) were significantly more cases in midazolam than in chloral hydrate group (93.1%, 43.5% p < 0.001). Success rate of echocardiogram was 99.2% in each group. There was no difference in echocardiographic time performed in both groups. The children in chloral hydrate group had deeper in level of sedation (p < 0.001). Both groups showed no significant difference in term of the ability to complete echocardiographic examination. The reaction of the children to take the medication and the number of the patients who had systemic O2 saturation change more than 5%from the baseline were higher in chloral hydrate group significantly (14.4%, 4.5% p = 0.006 and 9.9%, 3.1% p = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Sublingual midazolam at the dose of 0.3 mg/kg can be used to sedate the children at age group between 6 months to 5 years who undergoing echocardiogram with comparable rate of success and safety as 50 mg/kg of chloral hydrate orally. The less depth in the level of consciousness after sedation with midazolam compare to chloral hydrate may be advantage in a high risk patient to avoid deep sedation but may be disadvantage in case who need more comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation.

摘要

目的

比较口服水合氯醛和舌下含服咪达唑仑对接受超声心动图检查儿童的镇静效果及安全性。

材料与方法

对判定在超声心动图检查前需要镇静的儿童进行一项双盲随机试验研究。264例6个月至5岁的患者被随机分为水合氯醛组或咪达唑仑组。每组分别口服50mg/kg水合氯醛或舌下含服0.3mg/kg咪达唑仑。如果患儿在首剂给药后30分钟内无反应,则需给予每种药物的半量作为第二剂。收集起效持续时间、镇静评分水平及完成超声心动图检查的能力。

结果

两组在年龄、性别、体重、基础心脏病、基线氧饱和度及心功能分级方面具有可比性。水合氯醛组需要第二剂镇静的患儿多于咪达唑仑组(10.6%,5.3%;p = 0.111)。咪达唑仑组的起效时间、作用持续时间及总研究时间显著短于水合氯醛组(p < 0.001)。作用持续时间在最佳时间(< 45分钟)内的患者数量,咪达唑仑组显著多于水合氯醛组(93.1%,43.5%;p < 0.001)。每组超声心动图检查的成功率均为99.2%。两组超声心动图检查时间无差异。水合氯醛组患儿的镇静深度更深(p < 0.001)。两组在完成超声心动图检查的能力方面无显著差异。水合氯醛组患儿用药后的反应及全身氧饱和度较基线变化超过5%的患者数量显著更高(14.4%,4.5%;p = 0.006和9.9%,3.1%;p = 0.025)。

结论

0.3mg/kg剂量的舌下含服咪达唑仑可用于6个月至5岁接受超声心动图检查的儿童镇静,其成功率和安全性与口服50mg/kg水合氯醛相当。与水合氯醛相比,咪达唑仑镇静后意识水平较浅,这对于高危患者避免深度镇静可能是一个优势,但对于需要更全面超声心动图评估的患者可能是一个劣势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验