Deery Christopher, Bolt Robert, Papaioannou Diana, Wilson Matthew, Hyslop Marie, Herbert Esther, Totton Nikki, Marshman Zoe, Young Tracey, Kettle Jennifer, Albadri Sondos, Atkins Simon, Biggs Katie, Clarkson Janet, Evans Chris, Flight Laura, Gath Jacqui, Gilchrist Fiona, Hutchence Kate, Ireland Nicholas, Loban Amanda, Norrington Amy, Paton Hamish, Ray Jaydip, Rodd Helen, Sheldon Elena, Simmonds Richard, Vernazza Christopher
School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2025 Jul;29(29):1-25. doi: 10.3310/CWKF1987.
Anxiety in children prior to general anaesthesia is common, with up to half displaying distress. Anxiety and distress may lead to unsuccessful anaesthesia, together with greater postoperative pain, agitation and behavioural changes after surgery including sleep disturbances. Midazolam is the current standard premedication; however, it has adverse effects such as the potential for respiratory suppression and unpredictable effects which may result in agitation rather than anxiolysis. Melatonin is an alternative preoperative anxiolytic; however, previous trials have delivered conflicting results. The aim of this non-inferiority trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of melatonin compared to midazolam in reducing anxiety in children undergoing general anaesthesia.
We undertook a randomised-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, non-inferiority trial in 20 United Kingdom National Health Service trusts, with an embedded qualitative study and health economic evaluation. Anxious children having day case elective surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly assigned to either control (standard of care) group: midazolam; or intervention group: melatonin. The primary outcome was preoperative distress (non-inferiority hypothesis) as assessed by modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale Short Form. Secondary outcomes included safety and efficacy objectives. Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis. The sample size of the trial was 624 children.
The trial was stopped early due to recruitment futility. Between 30 July 2019 and 9 November 2022, 110 children were recruited; 55 allocated to midazolam and 55 allocated to melatonin. Pre-planned analyses showed an adjusted mean difference of 13.1 (95% confidence interval 3.7 to 22.4) for the intention-to-treat population and 12.9 (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 22.6) for the per-protocol population, in favour of midazolam. In both analyses, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval exceeds the predefined margin of 4.3; therefore, melatonin is not non-inferior to midazolam. The lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals excludes zero and thus melatonin is inferior to midazolam; the difference found is considered to be clinically meaningful. Adverse events in the midazolam arm (26%) were slightly higher than melatonin (18%); there were no serious adverse events in either arm. Challenges to recruitment included study-related factors (eligibility criteria and trial design), participant factors (caregiver stress on the day of treatment) and practitioner factors (valuing predictability). In terms of acceptability, preferences of the anaesthetist, patient and caregiver factors and medication side effects profile were influential and suggest the choice of preoperative anxiolytic is more complex than previously described. On average, costs over the 14 days post surgery were lower for those who received melatonin (-£46.20, 95% confidence interval -£166.14 to £66.74) with a mean incremental difference in procedure success of -0.02 (95% confidence interval -0.08 to 0.004), although there was uncertainty around the results.
In children with preoperative anxiety, midazolam is more effective than melatonin at reducing preoperative anxiety prior to general anaesthesia, although the early termination of the trial increases the likelihood of bias.
The trial was prematurely terminated due to recruitment futility. Despite this, a clinically meaningful and statistically significant finding was observed about the primary outcome.
There remains a need to develop or repurpose another drug with a more favourable side effects profile to midazolam.
This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/80/08.
儿童在全身麻醉前出现焦虑很常见,多达一半的儿童会表现出痛苦。焦虑和痛苦可能导致麻醉失败,以及术后更严重的疼痛、躁动和行为改变,包括睡眠障碍。咪达唑仑是目前的标准术前用药;然而,它有不良反应,如潜在的呼吸抑制和不可预测的效果,这可能导致躁动而不是抗焦虑作用。褪黑素是一种替代的术前抗焦虑药;然而,以前的试验结果相互矛盾。这项非劣效性试验的目的是评估褪黑素与咪达唑仑相比在降低接受全身麻醉儿童焦虑方面的有效性。
我们在英国20个国民健康服务信托机构进行了一项随机对照、平行组、双盲、非劣效性试验,并进行了一项嵌入式定性研究和健康经济评估。在全身麻醉下进行日间择期手术的焦虑儿童被随机分配到对照组(护理标准):咪达唑仑;或干预组:褪黑素。主要结局是通过改良耶鲁术前焦虑量表简表评估的术前痛苦(非劣效性假设)。次要结局包括安全性和有效性目标。分析采用意向性分析,并进行额外的符合方案分析。该试验的样本量为624名儿童。
由于招募无效,试验提前终止。在2019年7月30日至2022年11月9日期间,招募了110名儿童;55名分配到咪达唑仑组,55名分配到褪黑素组。预先计划的分析显示,意向性分析人群的调整后平均差异为13.1(95%置信区间3.7至22.4),符合方案分析人群为12.9(95%置信区间3.1至22.6),支持咪达唑仑。在两项分析中,95%置信区间的上限均超过了预先定义的4.3的界值;因此,褪黑素不劣于咪达唑仑。95%置信区间的下限不包括零,因此褪黑素劣于咪达唑仑;发现的差异被认为具有临床意义。咪达唑仑组的不良事件(26%)略高于褪黑素组(18%);两组均无严重不良事件。招募面临的挑战包括与研究相关的因素(纳入标准和试验设计)、参与者因素(治疗当天照顾者的压力)和从业者因素(重视可预测性)。在可接受性方面,麻醉师的偏好、患者和照顾者因素以及药物副作用情况有影响,这表明术前抗焦虑药的选择比以前描述的更为复杂。平均而言,接受褪黑素治疗的患者术后14天的费用较低(-46.20英镑,95%置信区间-166.14至66.74英镑),手术成功率的平均增量差异为-0.02(95%置信区间-0.08至0.004),尽管结果存在不确定性。
在术前焦虑的儿童中,咪达唑仑在降低全身麻醉前的术前焦虑方面比褪黑素更有效,尽管试验提前终止增加了偏倚的可能性。
由于招募无效,试验提前终止。尽管如此,关于主要结局仍观察到了具有临床意义和统计学意义的发现。
仍需要开发或重新利用另一种副作用比咪达唑仑更有利的药物。
本摘要介绍了由英国国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助的独立研究,资助编号为16/80/08。