• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

相似文献

1
Efficacy of intranasal ketamine and midazolam for pediatric sedation: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial.鼻内注射氯胺酮和咪达唑仑用于小儿镇静的疗效:一项双盲随机临床试验。
Caspian J Intern Med. 2021 Fall;12(4):539-543. doi: 10.22088/cjim.12.4.539.
2
Efficacy and safety of intranasal midazolam versus intranasal ketamine as sedative premedication in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.鼻内咪达唑仑与鼻内氯胺酮作为小儿患者镇静预用药的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
BMC Anesthesiol. 2022 Dec 22;22(1):399. doi: 10.1186/s12871-022-01892-2.
3
The Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Midazolam, Ketamine, and Midazolam Combined with Ketamine Administered Nasally for Premedication in Children.咪达唑仑、氯胺酮及咪达唑仑联合氯胺酮鼻内给药用于儿童术前用药的有效性和安全性比较
Anesth Essays Res. 2018 Apr-Jun;12(2):489-494. doi: 10.4103/aer.AER_80_18.
4
A comparison of intranasal ketamine and intranasal midazolam for pediatric premedication.用于儿科术前药的鼻内氯胺酮与鼻内咪达唑仑的比较。
Anesth Essays Res. 2015 May-Aug;9(2):213-8. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.154051.
5
Comparison of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine and Oral Ketamine Versus Intranasal Midazolam Premedication for Children Undergoing Dental Rehabilitation.经鼻给予右美托咪定与口服氯胺酮对比经鼻给予咪达唑仑用于牙科修复儿童术前用药的比较
Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Feb 6;9(1):e85227. doi: 10.5812/aapm.85227. eCollection 2019 Feb.
6
Intranasal sufentanil/midazolam versus ketamine/midazolam for analgesia/sedation in the pediatric population prior to undergoing multiple dental extractions under general anesthesia: a prospective, double-blind, randomized comparison.在全身麻醉下进行多颗牙齿拔除术前,鼻内舒芬太尼/咪达唑仑与氯胺酮/咪达唑仑用于儿科患者镇痛/镇静的前瞻性、双盲、随机对照比较。
Anesth Prog. 2004;51(4):114-21.
7
Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine and dexmedetomidine-ketamine for premedication in pediatrics patients: A randomized double-blind study.小儿患者术前使用鼻内右美托咪定与右美托咪定-氯胺酮的比较:一项随机双盲研究。
Anesth Essays Res. 2016 May-Aug;10(2):349-55. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.172340.
8
Comparison of the effects of intranasal midazolam versus different doses of intranasal ketamine on reducing preoperative pediatric anxiety: a prospective randomized clinical trial.比较鼻内咪达唑仑与不同剂量鼻内氯胺酮对降低术前小儿焦虑的效果:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。
J Anesth. 2012 Dec;26(6):878-82. doi: 10.1007/s00540-012-1422-6. Epub 2012 Jun 12.
9
A comparative evaluation of intranasal midazolam, ketamine and their combination for sedation of young uncooperative pediatric dental patients: a triple blind randomized crossover trial.鼻内咪达唑仑、氯胺酮及其组合用于不合作小儿牙科患者镇静的比较评估:一项三盲随机交叉试验。
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011 Summer;35(4):415-20. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.35.4.l43h3354705u2574.
10
Evaluation of efficacy of intranasal midazolam, ketamine and their mixture as premedication and its relation with bispectral index in children with tetralogy of fallot undergoing intracardiac repair.评估鼻内咪达唑仑、氯胺酮及其混合物作为小儿法洛四联症心内修复术前用药的疗效及其与脑电双频指数的关系。
Ann Card Anaesth. 2006 Jan;9(1):25-30.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of Intranasal Ketamine on Pain Intensity after Cesarean Section: A Single-Center, Double Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.鼻腔内给予氯胺酮对剖宫产术后疼痛强度的影响:一项单中心、双盲、随机对照试验。
Ethiop J Health Sci. 2023 Jan;33(1):55-64. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v33i1.8.
2
Efficacy and safety of intranasal midazolam versus intranasal ketamine as sedative premedication in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.鼻内咪达唑仑与鼻内氯胺酮作为小儿患者镇静预用药的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
BMC Anesthesiol. 2022 Dec 22;22(1):399. doi: 10.1186/s12871-022-01892-2.

本文引用的文献

1
General Anesthesia-Related Neurotoxicity in the Developing Brain and Current Knowledge and Practice of Physicians at Guilan Academic Hospitals.发育中大脑的全身麻醉相关神经毒性以及吉兰学术医院医生的当前知识与实践
Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Aug 7;9(4):e92366. doi: 10.5812/aapm.92366. eCollection 2019 Aug.
2
Comparative Study of Oral Midazolam Syrup and Intranasal Midazolam Spray for Sedative Premedication in Pediatric Surgeries.口服咪达唑仑糖浆与鼻内咪达唑仑喷雾剂用于小儿外科手术镇静前用药的比较研究
Anesth Essays Res. 2019 Apr-Jun;13(2):370-375. doi: 10.4103/aer.AER_182_18.
3
Intranasal ketamine for anesthetic premedication in children: a systematic review.鼻内给予氯胺酮用于儿童麻醉前用药:一项系统评价
Pain Manag. 2018 Nov 1;8(6):495-503. doi: 10.2217/pmt-2018-0039. Epub 2018 Nov 5.
4
Intranasal drug administration for procedural sedation in children admitted to pediatric Emergency Room.经鼻给予药物用于儿科急诊室收治的患儿的镇静。
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018 Jan;22(1):217-222. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_201801_14120.
5
Intranasal ketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: A systematic review.用于儿童程序性镇静和镇痛的鼻内氯胺酮:一项系统评价。
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 20;12(3):e0173253. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173253. eCollection 2017.
6
Midazolam for sedation before procedures.咪达唑仑用于操作前镇静。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 20;2016(5):CD009491. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009491.pub2.
7
Anesthetic management of 877 pediatric patients undergoing muscle biopsy for neuromuscular disorders: a 20-year review.877例因神经肌肉疾病接受肌肉活检的儿科患者的麻醉管理:一项20年回顾性研究
Paediatr Anaesth. 2016 Jul;26(7):710-21. doi: 10.1111/pan.12909. Epub 2016 Apr 25.
8
A comparison of intranasal ketamine and intranasal midazolam for pediatric premedication.用于儿科术前药的鼻内氯胺酮与鼻内咪达唑仑的比较。
Anesth Essays Res. 2015 May-Aug;9(2):213-8. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.154051.
9
Efficacy and Safety of Orally Administered Intravenous Midazolam Versus a Commercially Prepared Syrup.口服静脉注射咪达唑仑与市售糖浆的疗效和安全性比较
Iran J Pediatr. 2015 Jun;25(3):e494. doi: 10.5812/ijp.25(3)2015.494. Epub 2015 Jun 27.
10
Comparison of nasal Midazolam with Ketamine versus nasal Midazolam as a premedication in children.鼻内咪达唑仑与氯胺酮联用与鼻内咪达唑仑单独作为儿童术前用药的比较。
Saudi J Anaesth. 2014 Jan;8(1):17-21. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.125904.

鼻内注射氯胺酮和咪达唑仑用于小儿镇静的疗效:一项双盲随机临床试验。

Efficacy of intranasal ketamine and midazolam for pediatric sedation: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

作者信息

Khoshrang Hossein, Emir Alavi Cyrus, Rimaz Siamak, Mirmansouri Ali, Farzi Farnoush, Biazar Gelareh, Atrkarroushan Zahra, Sabet Khadem Nazanin

机构信息

Anesthesiology Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Alzahra Hospital, Guilan University of Medical Sciences , Rasht, Iran.

Department of Statistic, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.

出版信息

Caspian J Intern Med. 2021 Fall;12(4):539-543. doi: 10.22088/cjim.12.4.539.

DOI:10.22088/cjim.12.4.539
PMID:34820060
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8590412/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pediatric patients feel significant fear and anxiety when undergoing surgeries. The ideal drug and its administration route have not been found yet. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal (IN) ketamine and midazolam as premedication in children.

METHODS

We studied 71 eligible pediatric patients undergoing elective urologic surgeries, aged 2 to 6 years. The degree of sedation and separation scores was compared between the two groups. Additionally, hemodynamic parameters, before premedication, after induction of anesthesia, and during surgery were documented and compared between two groups. Postoperatively, any side effect was recorded as well.

RESULTS

Finally, the data from 71 children were analyzed. Recovery time was significantly longer in group K (ketamine) compared to group M (midazolam); 27.86±4.42 vs 38.19± 6.67 minutes respectively (P=0.01). No significant difference was observed in terms of sedation score between two groups of K & M; 3.29±0.78 vs 3 ±0.71 respectively (P=0.17), and not regarding separation score; 2.51±0.61 & 2.31±0.52 respectively (P=0.01). Vital signs were kept within the physiological limits in both groups with no marked fluctuations.

CONCLUSION

To produce sedation in young children, both midazolam and ketamine were effective and safe by IN route.

摘要

背景

儿科患者在接受手术时会感到极大的恐惧和焦虑。目前尚未找到理想的药物及其给药途径。本研究的目的是比较鼻内给予氯胺酮和咪达唑仑作为儿童术前用药的有效性和安全性。

方法

我们研究了71例年龄在2至6岁之间接受择期泌尿外科手术的合格儿科患者。比较了两组的镇静程度和分离评分。此外,记录并比较了两组患者术前、麻醉诱导后和手术期间的血流动力学参数。术后,还记录了任何副作用。

结果

最后,分析了71名儿童的数据。与咪达唑仑组(M组)相比,氯胺酮组(K组)的恢复时间明显更长;分别为27.86±4.42分钟和38.19±6.67分钟(P = 0.01)。两组在镇静评分方面未观察到显著差异;分别为3.29±0.78和3±0.71(P = 0.17),分离评分也无显著差异;分别为2.51±0.61和2.31±0.52(P = 0.01)。两组的生命体征均保持在生理范围内,无明显波动。

结论

通过鼻内途径给予咪达唑仑和氯胺酮在幼儿镇静方面均有效且安全。