Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, 585 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada.
Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 5;10(1):69. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01617-5.
Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2016, which aimed to determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure in adults and children.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to May 2020 together with reference checking to identify additional studies. We imposed no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials of midazolam in comparison with placebo or other medications used for sedation were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study.
Eight new trials were included in this update, which resulted in changed conclusions for the intravenous midazolam versus placebo, oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate and oral midazolam versus placebo comparisons. Effect estimates for all outcomes within the intravenous midazolam versus placebo (7 trials; 633 adults and 32 children) are uncertain due to concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Midazolam resulted in a higher level of sedation than placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.69 to 1.41; 1 study; 100 adults). There was no difference in anxiety (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.99; I = 75%; 2 studies; 123 adults). Risk of difficulty performing procedures was lower in the midazolam group (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; I = 45%; 3 studies; 191 adults and 32 children). There was no difference in discomfort (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.04; I = 0%; 2 studies; 190 adults). Five trials with 336 children were included in the oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate comparison. Midazolam was less likely to result in moderate sedation (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82; I = 64%; 2 studies, 228 participants). This effect estimate is highly uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. There was no difference in ratings of anxiety (SMD - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.75 to 0.23; I = 0%; 2 studies; 68 participants). Midazolam increased risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; I = 0%; 4 studies, 268 participants). This effect estimate is uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias. There were four trials with 359 adults and 77 children included in the oral midazolam versus placebo comparison. Midazolam reduced ratings of anxiety (SMD - 1.01; 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.16; I = 92%; 4 studies; 436 participants). It is unclear if midazolam has an effect on difficulty performing procedures. Meta-analysis was not performed because there was only one incomplete procedure in the midazolam group in one of the trials. Midazolam reduced pain in one study with 99 adults (MD - 2; 95% CI - 2.5 to - 1.6; moderate quality). The effect estimate is uncertain due to concerns about the risk of bias.
The additional evidence arising from inclusion of new studies in this updated review has not produced sufficient high-quality evidence to determine whether midazolam produces more effective sedation than other medications or placebo in any specific population included in this review. For adults, there was low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam did not reduce the risk of anxiety or discomfort/pain in comparison to placebo, but the sedation level was higher. By combining results from adults and children, there was low-quality evidence of a large reduction in the risk of procedures being difficult to perform with midazolam in comparison to placebo. The effect estimates for this comparison are uncertain because there was concern about risk of bias and imprecision. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less-effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures. Ratings of anxiety were not different between oral midazolam and chloral hydrate. The extent to which giving oral midazolam to adults or children decreases anxiety during procedures compared with placebo is uncertain due to concerns about risk of bias and imprecision. There was moderate-quality evidence from one study that oral midazolam reduced the severity of discomfort/pain for adults during a brief diagnostic procedure in comparison with placebo.
咪达唑仑通过多种途径,包括口服、静脉、鼻内和肌肉注射,用于诊断和治疗性医疗程序前的镇静。这是对 2016 年发表的 Cochrane 综述的更新,旨在确定咪达唑仑在成人和儿童诊断或治疗程序前给药时镇静的证据。
我们搜索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 和两个试验登记处,截至 2020 年 5 月,并通过参考文献检查来确定其他研究。我们没有语言限制。包括咪达唑仑与安慰剂或其他用于镇静的药物比较的随机对照试验。两位作者独立提取数据并评估了每个纳入研究的偏倚风险。
这项更新纳入了 8 项新试验,这导致了静脉内咪达唑仑与安慰剂、口服咪达唑仑与水合氯醛和口服咪达唑仑与安慰剂比较的结论发生改变。由于对不精确性和偏倚风险的担忧,所有结局的静脉内咪达唑仑与安慰剂(7 项试验;633 名成人和 32 名儿童)的效应估计值都不确定。咪达唑仑比安慰剂产生更高水平的镇静(平均差(MD)1.05;95%置信区间(95%CI)0.69 至 1.41;1 项研究;100 名成人)。焦虑的发生率没有差异(RR 0.43,95%CI 0.09 至 1.99;I = 75%;2 项研究;123 名成人)。咪达唑仑组进行操作的难度较低(RR 0.5;95%CI 0.29 至 0.86;I = 45%;3 项研究;191 名成人和 32 名儿童)。不适的发生率没有差异(RR 0.51;95%CI 0.25 至 1.04;I = 0%;2 项研究;190 名成人)。5 项试验纳入了 336 名儿童,比较了口服咪达唑仑与水合氯醛。咪达唑仑不太可能导致中度镇静(RR 0.30,95%CI 0.11 至 0.82;I = 64%;2 项研究,228 名参与者)。由于对偏倚、不精确性和不一致性的担忧,这一效果估计值极不确定。焦虑的评分没有差异(SMD - 0.26;95%CI - 0.75 至 0.23;I = 0%;2 项研究;68 名参与者)。咪达唑仑增加了操作不完整的风险(RR 4.01;95%CI 1.92 至 8.40;I = 0%;4 项研究,268 名参与者)。由于对偏倚的担忧,这一效果估计值不确定。4 项试验纳入了 359 名成人和 77 名儿童,比较了口服咪达唑仑与安慰剂。咪达唑仑降低了焦虑评分(SMD - 1.01;95%CI - 1.86 至 - 0.16;I = 92%;4 项研究;436 名参与者)。尚不清楚咪达唑仑是否会影响操作难度。由于在一项试验中,咪达唑仑组仅有 1 例操作不完整,因此无法进行荟萃分析。咪达唑仑在一项 99 名成人的研究中减轻了疼痛(MD - 2;95%CI - 2.5 至 - 1.6;中等质量)。由于对偏倚的担忧,效果估计值不确定。
由于纳入了新研究,本更新综述提供了更多证据,但仍不足以确定咪达唑仑在本综述纳入的任何特定人群中是否比其他药物或安慰剂产生更有效的镇静作用。对于成人,低质量证据表明,与安慰剂相比,静脉内咪达唑仑并未降低焦虑或不适/疼痛的风险,但镇静水平更高。通过合并成人和儿童的结果,有低质量证据表明,与安慰剂相比,咪达唑仑可大大降低操作困难的风险。由于对偏倚和不精确性的担忧,这些比较的效果估计值不确定。有中等质量证据表明,口服咪达唑仑对接受非侵入性诊断程序的儿童的镇静效果不如水合氯醛。在焦虑评分方面,咪达唑仑和水合氯醛没有差异。由于对偏倚和不精确性的担忧,咪达唑仑与安慰剂相比,在操作过程中减轻成人焦虑的程度是不确定的。一项研究表明,与安慰剂相比,口服咪达唑仑可降低成人在短暂诊断过程中的疼痛严重程度。