Suppr超能文献

一项比较鼻内咪达唑仑与静脉注射地西泮治疗儿童急性癫痫发作的随机对照试验。

A randomized controlled trial of intranasal-midazolam versus intravenous-diazepam for acute childhood seizures.

机构信息

Division of Child Neurology and Epilepsy, Department of Pediatrics, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, B2-504, Gold Coin CHS, Tardeo Road, Sion, Mumbai 400 034, India.

出版信息

J Neurol. 2013 Feb;260(2):470-4. doi: 10.1007/s00415-012-6659-3. Epub 2012 Sep 16.

Abstract

The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of midazolam given intranasally with diazepam given intravenously in the treatment of acute childhood seizures. A randomized controlled study was conducted in a pediatric emergency department in a tertiary general hospital. Fifty children aged from 1 month to 12 years presenting with acute seizures of at least 10 min duration were enrolled during a 12 month period. Intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) and intravenous diazepam (0.3 mg/kg) were administered. The main outcome measures were interval between arrival at hospital and starting treatment and interval between arrival at hospital and cessation of seizures. Intranasal midazolam and intravenous diazepam were equally effective. Overall 18 of 27 seizures were controlled with midazolam and 15 of 23 with diazepam. The mean interval between arrival at hospital and starting treatment was significantly shorter in the midazolam group [3.37 min (SD 2.46)] as compared to the diazepam group [14.13 min (SD 3.39)]. The mean interval between cessation of seizures and arrival at hospital was significantly shorter in the midazolam group [6.67 min (SD 3.12)] as compared to the diazepam group [17.18 min (SD 5.09)]. The mean interval between control of seizures and administration of the drug was shorter in the diazepam group [2.67 min (SD 2.31)] as compared to the midazolam group [3.01 min (SD 2.79)]. No significant side effects were observed in either group. Seizures were controlled more quickly with intravenous diazepam than with intranasal midazolam. Midazolam was as safe and effective as diazepam. The overall interval between arrival at hospital and cessation of seizures was shorter with intranasal midazolam than with intravenous diazepam. The intranasal route can be possibly used not only in medical centres, but with appropriate instruction by the parents of children with acute seizures at home.

摘要

本研究旨在比较鼻内给予咪达唑仑与静脉内给予地西泮治疗儿童急性癫痫发作的安全性和疗效。在一家三级综合医院的儿科急诊进行了一项随机对照研究。在 12 个月期间,共纳入了 50 名年龄在 1 个月至 12 岁之间、持续至少 10 分钟的急性癫痫发作的儿童。给予鼻内咪达唑仑(0.2mg/kg)和静脉内地西泮(0.3mg/kg)。主要结局指标为到达医院与开始治疗之间的间隔时间以及到达医院与癫痫发作停止之间的间隔时间。鼻内咪达唑仑和静脉内地西泮同样有效。总体而言,咪达唑仑组 18 例/27 例癫痫发作得到控制,地西泮组 15 例/23 例癫痫发作得到控制。咪达唑仑组到达医院与开始治疗之间的平均间隔时间明显短于地西泮组[3.37 分钟(SD 2.46)]。咪达唑仑组癫痫发作停止与到达医院之间的平均间隔时间明显短于地西泮组[6.67 分钟(SD 3.12)]。咪达唑仑组控制癫痫发作与给予药物之间的平均间隔时间短于地西泮组[2.67 分钟(SD 2.31)]。两组均未观察到明显的不良反应。静脉内给予地西泮比鼻内给予咪达唑仑更能迅速控制癫痫发作。咪达唑仑与地西泮一样安全有效。到达医院与癫痫发作停止之间的总间隔时间鼻内给予咪达唑仑短于静脉内给予地西泮。鼻内途径不仅可在医疗中心使用,而且可在儿童发生急性癫痫发作时由其父母在家中接受适当指导后使用。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验