Chen Shouming, Lang Bingchen, Wu Lan, Zhang Wensheng
Department of Anesthesiology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Minerva Anestesiol. 2023 Apr;89(4):331-340. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16937-3. Epub 2023 Feb 27.
Midazolam hydrochloride is a widely accepted benzodiazepine for premedication in pediatric patients. However, there is no consistent conclusion regarding which route of administration is best. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of oral versus intranasal midazolam premedication in children.
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to June 2022, for randomized controlled trials comparing oral versus intranasal midazolam. Primary outcomes included satisfactory mask acceptance for induction and satisfactory sedation at separation from parents. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, incidence of nasal irritation, postoperative recovery time, and hemodynamic changes.
Data from 14 studies involving a total of 901 children were obtained. The results indicated that intranasal and oral midazolam premedication in children provided similar satisfactory mask acceptance for induction (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.13; P=0.64; I=0%), satisfactory sedation at separation from parents (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.10; P=0.90; I=57%), and postoperative recovery time (WMD, -8.01; 95% CI, -20.16-4.14; P=0.20; I=85%). Additionally, intranasal midazolam premedication was associated with lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.96; P=0.03; I2=0%) and shorter onset time.
Differences between intranasal and oral midazolam in satisfactory mask acceptance for induction, satisfactory sedation at separation from parents, and postoperative recovery time were not significant. Intranasal midazolam premedication was associated with shorter onset time and higher incidence of nasal irritation.
盐酸咪达唑仑是儿科患者术前用药中广泛使用的苯二氮䓬类药物。然而,关于哪种给药途径最佳尚无一致结论。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估口服与鼻内给予咪达唑仑用于儿童术前用药的疗效和安全性。
检索了PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌学术数据库,从建库至2022年6月,查找比较口服与鼻内给予咪达唑仑的随机对照试验。主要结局包括诱导时面罩接受度良好以及与父母分离时镇静效果良好。次要结局包括术后恶心呕吐发生率、鼻刺激发生率、术后恢复时间和血流动力学变化。
获得了来自14项研究共901名儿童的数据。结果表明,儿童口服和鼻内给予咪达唑仑在诱导时面罩接受度良好方面相似(相对危险度,1.02;95%置信区间,0.93 - 1.13;P = 0.64;I² = 0%),与父母分离时镇静效果良好方面相似(相对危险度,0.99;95%置信区间,0.89 - 1.10;P = 0.90;I² = 57%),以及术后恢复时间方面相似(加权均数差,-8.01;95%置信区间,-20.16 - 4.14;P = 0.20;I² = 85%)。此外,鼻内给予咪达唑仑用于术前用药与术后恶心呕吐发生率较低(相对危险度,0.70;95%置信区间,0.51 - 0.96;P = 0.03;I² = 0%)和起效时间较短相关。
鼻内和口服咪达唑仑在诱导时面罩接受度良好、与父母分离时镇静效果良好以及术后恢复时间方面的差异不显著。鼻内给予咪达唑仑用于术前用药与起效时间较短和鼻刺激发生率较高相关。