Suppr超能文献

鼻腔内咪达唑仑治疗院前儿童癫痫发作的疗效:一项非劣效性研究。

The Effectiveness of Intranasal Midazolam for the Treatment of Prehospital Pediatric Seizures: A Non-inferiority Study.

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2022 May-Jun;26(3):339-347. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2021.1897197. Epub 2021 Mar 29.

Abstract

Intranasal (IN) midazolam allows for rapid, painless treatment of pediatric seizures in the prehospital setting and may be a preferred administration route if determined to be non-inferior to intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) routes. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of IN midazolam for terminating prehospital pediatric seizures compared to midazolam administered by alternate routes. We performed a retrospective, non-inferiority analysis using data from a regional Emergency Medical Services (EMS) database. We included pediatric patients ≤ 14 years treated with midazolam (0.1 mg/kg) by EMS for non-traumatic seizures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring redosing of midazolam after initial treatment with IN midazolam compared to those that received IV or IM midazolam. We established a priori a risk difference of 6.5% as the non-inferiority margin. We evaluated outcomes from 2,034 patients (median age 6 years [interquartile range 3 - 10 years], 55% male). Initial administration routes were 461 (23%) IN, 547 (27%) IM, 1024 (50%) IV, and 2 (0.1%) intraosseous (IO). Midazolam redosing occurred in 116 patients (25%) who received IN midazolam versus 222 patients (14%) treated initially with midazolam via alternate routes (risk difference 11% [95%CI 7 - 15%]). The age-adjusted odds ratio for redosing midazolam after intranasal administration compared to alternate route administration was 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 - 2.6). Prehospital treatment of pediatric seizure with intranasal midazolam was associated with increased frequency of redosing compared to midazolam administered by other routes, suggesting that 0.1 mg/kg is a subtherapeutic dose for intranasal midazolam administration.

摘要

鼻腔内(IN)咪达唑仑可快速、无痛地治疗院前儿童癫痫发作,如果确定其效果不劣于静脉(IV)或肌肉内(IM)途径,可能是首选的给药途径。我们旨在评估 IN 咪达唑仑与通过其他途径给予的咪达唑仑相比,终止院前儿科癫痫发作的效果。我们使用区域紧急医疗服务(EMS)数据库中的数据进行了回顾性非劣效性分析。我们纳入了由 EMS 治疗的接受 0.1mg/kg 咪达唑仑治疗的≤14 岁非创伤性癫痫发作的儿科患者。主要结局是与接受 IV 或 IM 咪达唑仑治疗的患者相比,初始 IN 咪达唑仑治疗后需要再次给予咪达唑仑的患者比例。我们事先确定了 6.5%的风险差异作为非劣效性边界。我们评估了 2034 名患者的结局(中位数年龄 6 岁[四分位距 3-10 岁],55%为男性)。初始给药途径为 461 例(23%)IN、547 例(27%)IM、1024 例(50%)IV 和 2 例(0.1%)骨内(IO)。接受 IN 咪达唑仑治疗的 116 名患者(25%)和初始接受其他途径咪达唑仑治疗的 222 名患者(14%)需要再次给予咪达唑仑(风险差异 11%[95%CI 7-15%])。与其他途径给药相比,IN 给药后再次给予咪达唑仑的年龄调整比值比为 2.0(95%CI 1.6-2.6)。与其他途径相比,院前儿童癫痫发作使用 IN 咪达唑仑治疗与再次给予咪达唑仑的频率增加相关,这表明 0.1mg/kg 是 IN 咪达唑仑给药的治疗剂量。

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