Suppr超能文献

在儿科镇静中使用喷射注射器进行静脉注射与皮下注射咪达唑仑的比较:一项随机临床试验。

Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial.

作者信息

Hajimaghsoudi Majid, Bagherabadi Mehdi, Zarepur Ehsan, Ahmadi Hanzaei Vahid

机构信息

Emergency Department, Trauma Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

Emergency Department, School of Medicine, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

出版信息

Emerg (Tehran). 2018;6(1):e53. Epub 2018 Aug 31.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The quality of interventions in children is largely dependent on their control. Hence, this study compared the sedative effects of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) Midazolam in pediatric sedation induction.

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted on children aged 1-6 years presenting to emergency departments of Shahid Sadoughi and Shahid Rahnemoon Hospitals, Yazd, Iran. Participants were randomly assigned to IV or SC midazolam using a jet injector and success rate, degree of sedation, and satisfaction of parents and physician were compared between groups.

RESULTS

60 cases with the mean age of 3.15±1.43 (1-6) years were randomly assigned to the SC (30 cases) or IV (30 cases) groups (56.7% female). SC and IV groups were similar regarding the mean age (p = 0.165) and sex (p = 0.121). Depth of sedation (p=0.900), control of child (p=0.711), in-charge physician's satisfaction (p=0.467), successful sedation and need for rescue dose (p=0.519) were not different between groups. IV midazolam group had a significantly shorter recovery time (about 10 minutes; p=0.040) and SC midazolam group had a significantly higher level of parent satisfaction (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate no significant difference in depth of sedation, control of child, in-charge physician's satisfaction, successful sedation (reaching stage 1 of sedation or higher), and need for rescue dose of SC and IV midazolam. Parents' satisfaction was significantly greater with SC administration and IV injection had shorter recovery time.

摘要

引言

儿童干预措施的质量很大程度上取决于对其的控制。因此,本研究比较了皮下注射(SC)和静脉注射(IV)咪达唑仑在小儿镇静诱导中的镇静效果。

方法

本随机临床试验针对伊朗亚兹德市沙希德·萨多吉医院和沙希德·拉赫内穆恩医院急诊科1至6岁的儿童进行。使用喷射注射器将参与者随机分配至静脉注射或皮下注射咪达唑仑组,并比较两组之间的成功率、镇静程度以及家长和医生的满意度。

结果

60例平均年龄为3.15±1.43(1 - 6)岁的患儿被随机分配至皮下注射组(30例)或静脉注射组(30例)(女性占56.7%)。皮下注射组和静脉注射组在平均年龄(p = 0.165)和性别(p = 0.121)方面相似。两组之间的镇静深度(p = 0.900)、对儿童的控制(p = 0.711)、主治医生的满意度(p = 0.467)、成功镇静及使用抢救剂量的必要性(p = 0.519)并无差异。静脉注射咪达唑仑组的恢复时间显著更短(约10分钟;p = 0.040),皮下注射咪达唑仑组的家长满意度显著更高(p = 0.001)。

结论

研究结果表明,皮下注射和静脉注射咪达唑仑在镇静深度、对儿童的控制、主治医生的满意度、成功镇静(达到一级或更高镇静水平)以及使用抢救剂量的必要性方面无显著差异。皮下注射给药时家长的满意度显著更高,而静脉注射的恢复时间更短。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/af90/6289147/b9288fb7100c/emerg-6-e53-g001.jpg

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