Högberg L, Nordvall M, Tjellström B, Stenhammar L
Department of Paediatrics, Norrköping Hospital, Sweden.
Acta Paediatr. 1995 Dec;84(12):1429-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1995.tb13582.x.
Sixty-three children under the age of 9 years were randomized to receive intravenous (group A, n = 33) or intranasal (group B, n = 30) midazolam as sedation for small bowel biopsy. Mean doses of midazolam given to produce adequate sedation were 0.31 mg (kg body weight)-1 in group A and 0.34 mg (kg body weight)-1 in group B (NS). Four children in group A and 10 children in group B required additional doses to maintain adequate sedation throughout the biopsy procedure (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the median procedure time (7 min in group A, 8.5 min in group B) or median fluoroscopy time (5 s in group A, 4 s in group B). All children in group B showed signs of discomfort from the nose when given midazolam intranasally. In conclusion, this study indicates that intravenous administration of midazolam is preferable to the intranasal route.
63名9岁以下儿童被随机分组，分别接受静脉注射咪达唑仑（A组，n = 33）或鼻内给予咪达唑仑（B组，n = 30）以用于小肠活检镇静。A组为达到充分镇静给予的咪达唑仑平均剂量为0.31 mg/（kg体重），B组为0.34 mg/（kg体重）（无显著差异）。A组4名儿童和B组10名儿童在整个活检过程中需要额外剂量以维持充分镇静（p < 0.05）。两组之间在中位操作时间（A组7分钟，B组8.5分钟）或中位透视时间（A组5秒，B组4秒）方面无显著差异。B组所有儿童在鼻内给予咪达唑仑时均出现鼻部不适迹象。总之，本研究表明静脉注射咪达唑仑优于鼻内给药途径。
