术前口服咪达唑仑对患儿七氟醚麻醉苏醒期躁动的影响

目的评价术前口服咪达唑仑对患儿七氟醚麻醉苏醒期躁动的影响。方法选择择期七氟醚麻醉下行扁桃体/腺样体切除术的患儿60例,男34例,女26例,年龄2~7岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,将入选患儿随机分为低剂量咪达唑仑组(M1组)、高剂量咪达唑仑组(M2组)和对照组(C组),每组20例。麻醉前30min分别给予M1组和M2组患儿分别口服咪达唑仑0.5 mg/kg和0.75 mg/kg,口服10%葡萄糖混合液5ml。吸入8%七氟醚行麻醉诱导,术中吸入七氟醚及静脉泵注瑞芬太尼维持麻醉。记录患儿分离焦虑量表(PSAS)评分、麻醉苏醒谵妄量表(PAED)评分和FLACC疼痛评分,并记录拔除气管导管时间和滞留PACU时间。结果 C组患儿的分离焦虑发生率明显高于其他两组(P0.05)。三组苏醒期躁动发生率、最高PAED评分、FLACC疼痛评分以及拔除气管导管时间差异均无统计学意义。M2组滞留PACU时间明显长于其他两组(P0.05)。结论术前口服咪达唑仑0.5mg/kg或0.75mg/kg能有效减轻患儿术前分离焦虑,但不能减少七氟醚麻醉苏醒期躁动的发生,咪达唑仑0.75mg/kg会延长PACU滞留时间。     

口服咪达唑仑复合经鼻艾司氯胺酮用于小儿术前镇静的ED90及临床效果

目的确定口服咪达唑仑联合经鼻艾司氯胺酮行小儿术前镇静时所需咪达唑仑的90%有效剂量(90% effective dose, ED90), 并观察其可行性。方法根据偏倚钱币序贯法依次对40例择期手术患儿进行前瞻性双盲序贯研究。主要观察指标为复合经鼻小剂量艾司氯胺酮30 min后使患儿达到亲子分离焦虑评分(Parental Separation Anxiety Score, PSAS)=1分的口服咪达唑仑剂量。次要观察指标为麻醉诱导前后的SBP和心率、镇静水平、起效时间、术前用药副作用、用药30 min时PSAS评分、面罩接受量表(Mask Acceptance Scale, MAS)评分、静脉穿刺反应(reaction to intravenous cannulation scale, ICS)评分、术后拔管时间、意识恢复时间、PACU停留时间、额外镇痛药物使用情况, 以及低氧血症、恶心和呕吐的发生情况。用Isotonic回归分析法计算咪达唑仑ED90及其95%CI。结果咪达唑仑口服复合0.25 mg/kg艾司氯胺酮滴鼻用于小儿术前镇静的ED90为0.253 (95%CI 0.242～0...     

氯胺酮口服用于小儿麻醉前的用药观察

目的:分析研究小儿术前应用氯胺酮的最佳剂量,为临床提供参考。方法:选择ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级择期行小儿泌尿外科手术患儿30例,体重7～10kg,随机分3组:A组(氯胺酮8mg/kg、咪达唑仑0.5mg/kg,),B组(氯胺酮9 mg/kg,咪达唑仑0.5mg/kg,),C组(氯胺酮10mg/kg,咪达唑仑0.5mg/kg,)术前30 mi n,口服。结果:3组在苏醒时间、镇静、镇痛及术后睡眠质量方面比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:B组用药方法和剂量是较理想的小儿术前用药。     

咪达唑仑术前用药预防短小手术患儿七氟醚麻醉恢复期躁动的效果

目的 评价眯达唑仑术前用药预防短小手术患儿七氟醚麻醉恢复期躁动(EA)的效果.方法 择期扁桃体联合腺样体切除术患儿120例,性别不限,年龄3～9岁,体重15～35 kg,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法,将其分为4组(n=30),麻醉前30 min,对照组(C组)口服10％葡萄糖10 ml,不同剂量咪达唑仑组(M1-3组)分别口服0.25、0.50和0.75 mg/kg咪达唑仑与10％葡萄糖混合液10 ml.吸入七氟醚麻醉诱导,静脉输注瑞芬太尼和吸入七氟醚维持麻醉.采用患儿麻醉恢复期躁动量化评分表(PAED)评价患儿EA的发生情况.结果 与C组比较,M2组和M3组PAED评分及EA发生率降低(P＜0.05),M1组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);与M1组比较,M2组和M3组PAED评分及EA发生率降低(P＜0.05);与M2组比较,M3组PAED评分及EA发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 口服咪达唑仑术前用药可预防患儿短小手术七氟醚麻醉恢复期躁动,其适宜剂量为0.50 mg/kg.     

咪达唑仑术前干预对七氟烷全麻患儿苏醒期躁动及PACU滞留时间的影响

目的探讨咪达唑仑术前干预对七氟烷全麻患儿苏醒期躁动(EA)及PACU滞留时间的影响。方法随机将75例行白内障手术的患儿分为3组,各25例。对照组术前予以安慰剂,观察Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组术前分别予以高、低剂量的咪达唑仑。比较3组入室时镇静满意率、EA发生率、PACU滞留时间、手术时间、FLACC疼痛评分。结果观察Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组入室时镇静满意率均明显高于对照组(P 0. 05),但观察组间的差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05); 3组EA发生率、手术时间及入PACU后前30 min FLACC疼痛评分差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。观察I组PACU滞留时间明显长于Ⅱ组和对照组(P 0. 05),但观察Ⅱ组与对照组的差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论咪达唑仑术前干预能有效减轻入室时患儿的焦虑情绪,但无法降低七氟烷的EA率。高剂量咪达唑仑可增加PACU滞留时间。     

右美托咪定术前滴鼻对全麻患儿术后行为改变的影响

目的观察右美托咪定术前滴鼻对全麻患儿术后行为改变的影响。方法择期在全麻下行疝囊高位结扎术的患儿60例,男46例,女14例,年龄2~5岁,体重10~30kg,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级。采用随机数字表法,将其均分为三组:对照组(C组)、咪达唑仑组(M组)和右美托咪定组(D组)。麻醉诱导前30min,C组生理盐水0.02ml/kg滴鼻,M组咪达唑仑0.2mg/kg滴鼻,D组右美托咪定2μg/kg滴鼻。记录患儿与父母分离时的镇静评分及七氟醚诱导时的面罩接受程度评分;记录患儿术后恢复时间、术后并发症及镇痛药补救率等情况。分别在术前1d、术后1、7、30d用术后行为量表(PHBQ)对患儿父母进行术前问卷调查及术后电话随访,观察患儿术后行为改变的情况。结果M组和D组与父母分离时的镇静评分及七氟醚诱导时的面罩接受程度评分明显高于C组(P0.05)。D组苏醒期躁动、恶心呕吐及镇痛药补救率明显低于C组和M组(P0.05)。术后1、7d时M组和D组行为改变的发生率明显低于C组(P0.05)。结论右美托咪定术前滴鼻可以降低全麻患儿术后行为改变的发生率。     

外科重症病人脑电双频指数指导靶控输注咪达唑仑的镇静效果

目的评价外科重症监护病房(SICU)病人脑电双频指数(BIS)指导靶控输注(TCI)咪达唑仑的镇静效果。方法SICU病人30例,随机分为3组(n=10):A组采用恒速输注咪达唑仑0．06 mg·kg-1·h-1镇静;B组采用咪达唑仑TCI镇静,初始血浆靶浓度为60 ng/ml;C组在BIS指导下咪达唑仑TCI镇静,初始血浆靶浓度为60 ng／ml。每30 min采用Ramsay镇静评分评估镇静深度,若Ramsay镇静评分小于或大于4分,则A组输注速率增加或减少0．02 mg·kg-1·h-1,B组血浆靶浓度增加或减少20 ng／ml。C组若BIS大于或小于70,则血浆靶浓度增加或减少20 ng／ml。B、C组均随机抽取30份2 ml动脉血样,测定咪达唑仑血药浓度,用偏离性和精密度评价TCI系统的性能。结果咪达唑仑TCI系统的偏离性为12．5％,精密度为22．5％。咪达唑仑实测血药浓度与Ramsay镇静评分的相关系数为0．67(P<0．05)。镇静过程中C组Ramsay镇静评分4分所占比例(54％)高于A组(28％)和B组(40％)(P<0．01)。结论咪达唑仑TCI系统的性能可靠,用于SICU病人以BIS为70调控咪达唑仑TCI,可产生良好的镇静效果。     

老年人脑电双频指数、咪达唑仑血药浓度与镇静深度的相关性研究

目的 探讨老年人手术病人椎管内麻醉后用咪达唑仑镇静,脑电双频谱指数、咪达唑仑血药浓度和镇静深度间的相关关系。方法 44例ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级择期手术病人,不用术前药。分为老年组（61－82岁）和年轻组（19－43岁）,每组22例。为尽快达到稳态血药浓度,采用靶控输注. 咪达唑仑靶浓度从50ng/ml起渐增,直至病人对轻推无反应（意识消失）,每个浓度维持15min。连续记录EEG参数,在每一稳态血药浓度末,记录BIS、95％SEF,桡动脉取血（高效液相色谱法测定咪达唑仑血药浓度,并评定镇静深度（OAA／S评分法）。用Spearman’s等级相关进行相关分析,并计算预测概率（Pk）值。结果 两组BIS（r=0.935-0.955)与镇静水平的相关性优于血药浓度（r=-0.849～-0.870）和95％SEF（(r=0.503-0.571).BIS的Pk值高（0．942－0．972）。在同一镇静评分(OAA/S4-1时）,老年组BIS值明显高于年轻组（P＜0．01）,而血药浓度低于年轻组。结论 BIS在监测咪达唑仑镇静水平及预测意识消失方面有重要价值。在同一镇静评分时,老年人BIS值高于年轻人。     

阿芬太尼或舒芬太尼复合咪达唑仑与丙泊酚在无痛胃肠镜检查的效果

目的 探讨阿芬太尼或舒芬太尼复合咪达唑仑和丙泊酚在无痛胃肠镜检查的效果。方法 选择行无痛胃肠镜检查患者150例,男62例,女88例,年龄30～60岁,体重45～90 kg, ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级。按照随机数字表法分为两组：阿芬太尼+咪达唑仑组(AM组)、舒芬太尼+咪达唑仑组(SM组),每组75例。AM组静脉注射咪达唑仑0.02 mg/kg、阿芬太尼6μg/kg, SM组静脉注射咪达唑仑0.02 mg/kg、舒芬太尼0.06μg/kg。静脉注射丙泊酚1～2 mg/kg至改良警觉/镇静(MOAA/S)评分为0分时停止注射丙泊酚,立即开始胃肠镜操作。记录丙泊酚首次剂量、总消耗量、追加次数。记录起效时间、操作时间、意识恢复时间和PACU停留时间。记录胃镜插入咽喉部(T₁)、结肠镜插入肛门(T₂)、过脾曲(T₃)、过肝曲(T₄)时改良非插管患者行为疼痛量表(BPS-NI)评分。记录患者和内镜医师满意率,低血压、低氧血症、心动过缓、心动过速、呛咳等不良反应发生情况。结果 与SM组比较,AM组丙泊酚首次剂量明显减少(P...     

静脉输注右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑用于患儿术前用药效果的比较

目的 比较静脉输注右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑用于患儿术前用药的效果.方法 择期行普通外科或泌尿外科手术的患儿92例,年龄1～6岁,其中1～3岁及4～6岁儿童各46例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,按年龄段分层后随机分为2组(n=46):咪达唑仑组(M组)和右美托咪啶组(D组).于麻醉诱导前约20 min由家长陪同进入麻醉准备室,分别于10 min内静脉输注咪达唑仑0.1 mg/kg或右美托咪啶1 μg/kg.采用异丙酚-罗库溴铵-瑞芬太尼行麻醉诱导,七氟醚-瑞芬太尼-罗库溴铵维持麻醉.于用药前(T1)、与家长分离(T2)和进入手术室(T3)时记录改良耶鲁术前焦虑评分(mYPAS)、镇静评分、HR、MAP、RR、SpO2.于T2,3时记录患儿进入睡眠状态(镇静评分4分)的发生情况.记录七氟醚呼气末浓度(CetSev)、瑞芬太尼输注速率、拔除喉罩时间、意识恢复时间、麻醉恢复室观察时间、苏醒期谵妄发生率、补救镇痛药使用率及不良反应的发生情况.结果 与T1时比较,两组T2,3时mYPAS评分降低、镇静评分升高,D组T3时HR及T2,3时MAP降低,M组T3时HR升高(P＜0.05);与M组比较,D组T2,3时镇静评分和睡眠发生率升高,T2时HR降低(P＜0.05),mYPAS评分、RR、MAP、SpO2、CetSev、瑞芬太尼输注速率、拔除喉罩时间、意识恢复时间、麻醉恢复室观察时间、苏醒期谵妄发生率、补救镇痛药使用率、不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 静脉输注右美托咪啶用于患儿术前用药的镇静效果优于咪达唑仑,但对血流动力学的影响强于咪达唑仑,需注意血流动力学的变化.     

Oral ketamine or midazolam or low dose combination for premedication in children

This randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate whether the combination of low dose oral midazolam (0.25 mg/kg) and low dose oral ketamine (3 mg/kg) provides better premedication than oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) or oral ketamine (6 mg/kg). Seventy-eight children of ASA physical status I or II scheduled for elective ophthalmic surgery were randomly divided into three groups and given premedication in the holding area 30 minutes before surgery. Two subjects from each group vomited the medication and were excluded, leaving 72 subjects for further analysis. The onset of sedation was earlier in the combination group than the other two groups. At 10 minutes after premedication 12.5% in the combination group had an acceptable sedation score compared with none in the other two groups. After 20 minutes 54% in the combination group had an acceptable sedation score, 21% in the midazolam group and 16% in the ketamine group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the parental separation score, response to induction and emergence score. The mean time for best parental separation score was significantly less in the combination group (19+/-8 min) than either the midazolam (28+/-7) or ketamine (29+/-7 min) groups (P<0.05). Recovery was earlier in the combination group, as the time required to reach a modified Aldrete score of 10 was significantly less in the combination group (22+/-5 min) than in the oral midazolam (36+/-11 min) or ketamine (38+/-8 min) groups. The incidence of excessive salivation was significantly higher in the ketamine alone group (P<0.05). In conclusion, the combination of oral ketamine (3 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.25 mg/kg) has minimal side effects and gives a faster onset and more rapid recovery than ketamine 6 mg/kg or midazolam 0.5 mg/kg for premedication in children.     

Comparative evaluation of midazolam and ketamine with midazolam alone as oral premedication

BACKGROUND: Oral premedication with midazolam and ketamine is widely used in pediatric anesthesia to reduce emotional trauma and ensure smooth induction. However, various dosing regimens when used alone or in combination have variable efficacy and side effect profile. The aim of our study was to investigate and compare the efficacy of oral midazolam alone with a low-dose combination of oral midazolam and ketamine. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized double-blind study in 100 children who were randomly allocated into two groups. Group M received 0.5 mg.kg(-1) oral midazolam and group MK received 0.25 mg.kg(-1) oral midazolam with 2.5 mg.kg(-1) oral ketamine. The preoperative sedation score, ease of parental separation and ease of mask acceptance were evaluated on a 4-point scale. The time to recovery from anesthesia and to achieve satisfactory Aldrete score was also noted. RESULTS: Uniform and acceptable sedation scores were seen in both the groups (group M 95.9%; group MK 97.96%), without any serious side effects. However, the combination offered significantly more children in an awake, calm and quiet state, who were easily separated from their parents (73.46% in MK vs 41% in group M). The induction scores were comparable between the groups. The recovery room characteristics and time to achieve satisfactory Aldrete score were also comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral midazolam alone and a combination of midazolam with ketamine provide equally effective anxiolysis and separation characteristics. However, the combination provided more children in an awake, calm and quiet state who could be separated easily from parents.     

Evaluation of relatively low dose of oral transmucosal ketamine premedication in children: a comparison with oral midazolam

BACKGROUND: Oral Transmucosal ketamine (lollipop) has been shown to be an effective, harmless preoperative medication for children. However, its efficacy was not compared with commonly used premedication drugs. We, therefore, compared the efficacy of oral transmucosal ketamine with oral midazolam for premedication in children. METHODS: Fifty-five children (2-6 years of age) were randomized to receive orally either a lollipop containing 50 mg of ketamine (the group K; n = 27) or syrup containing 0.5 mg.kg(-1) of midazolam (the group M; n = 28) before minor surgery. A five points-sedation score (1 = asleep to 5 = agitated; scores 2 and 3 were defined as 'effective') on arrival in the operating room and a three points-acceptance score of separation from the parents and a three points-mask cooperation score at induction of anesthesia (1 = easy to 3 = markedly resistant; score 3 was defined as 'poor') were used. RESULTS: Sedation scores in group K were significantly higher than those in group M (P = 0.012), and the incidence of 'effective' in sedation was significantly lower in group K than in group M (P = 0.036). The incidence of 'poor' at separation from the parents and for mask cooperation was significantly higher in group K than in group M (P = 0.017, P = 0.019, respectively). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that a relatively low dose of oral transmucosal ketamine premedication provides no benefits over oral midazolam in children.     

A comparison of two different doses of ketamine with midazolam and midazolam alone as oral preanaesthetic medication on recovery after sevoflurane anaesthesia in children

BACKGROUND: This investigation prospectively evaluated the effect of oral premedication of two different doses of ketamine with midazolam and midazolam alone on the recovery of children after sevoflurane anaesthesia. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind study, 79 children (aged 1-8 years, ASA physical status I or II) were assigned to receive one of three premedications in a volume of 0.5 ml x kg(-1): group 1 received midazolam 0.5 mg x kg(-1) (MD); group 2 received midazolam 0.5 mg x kg(-1) with ketamine 1.8 mg x kg(-1) (MK-1); and group 3 received midazolam 0.5 mg x kg(-1) with ketamine 3 mg x kg(-1) (MK-2). The reactions of the children during administration were noted. Anaesthesia was induced by facemask with incremental sevoflurane administration. All children received alfentanil (15 micro g x kg(-1)). Tracheal intubation was facilitated by mivacurium (0.2 mg x kg(-1)). Anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and an additional dose of alfentanil, if necessary. During recovery, the time interval between discontinuation of anaesthesia and arousal (spontaneous ventilation, extubation) were recorded. RESULTS: Emergence (spontaneous ventilation, extubation) and recovery times (discharge, Aldrete score=9) did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.24, P=0.59 and P=0.145, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of midazolam and ketamine as oral preanaesthetic medication did not significantly affect the recovery time of children after sevoflurane anaesthesia.     

Oral preanaesthetic medication for children: double-blind randomized study of a combination of midazolam and ketamine vs midazolam or ketamine alone

Anxiolysis and sedation with oral midazolam are common practice in paediatric anaesthesia. However, good or excellent results are seen in only 50-80% of cases. For this reason, we investigated if addition of a low dose of oral ketamine (MIKE: ketamine 3 mg kg-1, midazolam 0.5 mg kg-1) resulted in better premedication compared with oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg-1 or ketamine 6 mg kg-1 alone, in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. We studied 120 children (mean age 5.7 (range 2-10) yr) undergoing surgery of more than 30 min duration. After oral premedication in the ward and transfer, the child's condition in the induction room was evaluated by assigning 1-4 points to the quality of anxiolysis, sedation, behaviour at separation from parent and during venepuncture (transfer score). On days 1 and 7 after operation, parents were interviewed for changes in behaviour (eating, sleep, dreams, toilet training), recollection and satisfaction, using a standardized questionnaire. The groups were similar in age, sex, weight, intervention and duration of anaesthesia. The transfer score was significantly better in the MIKE group (12.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.9-13.1)) than in the ketamine or midazolam groups (10.6 (9.8- 11.4) and 11.5 (10.7-12.3), respectively). Success rates for anxiolysis and behaviour at separation were greater than 90% with the combination, approximately 70% with midazolam and only 51% with ketamine alone. The incidence of salivation, excitation and psychotic symptoms was low in all groups. Vertigo and emesis before induction were significantly more frequent after ketamine premedication. During recovery, there were no differences in sedation or time of possible discharge. After 1 week, parents reported nightmares (ketamine five, midazolam three, MIKE one), restless sleep (five/four/four) or negative memories (three/four/one). There were no major or continuing disturbances in behaviour or development. In summary, significantly better anxiolysis and separation were observed with a combination of ketamine and midazolam, even in awake children (sedation was not successful according to the preset criteria), than with midazolam or ketamine alone. Duration of action and side effects of the combination were similar to those of midazolam. The combination of both drugs in strawberry flavoured glucose syrup (pH 4.5 approximately) is chemically stable for 8 weeks.      

S(+)-ketamine for rectal premedication in children

Our purpose for this prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of S(+)-ketamine, an enantiomer of racemic ketamine, compared with a combination of S(+)-ketamine and midazolam, and plain midazolam for rectal premedication in pediatric anesthesia. Sixty-two children, ASA physical status I and II, scheduled for minor surgery, were randomly assigned to be given rectally one of the following: 1.5 mg/kg preservative-free S(+)-ketamine, a combination of 0.75 mg/kg preservative-free S(+)-ketamine and 0.75 mg/kg midazolam, or 0.75 mg/kg midazolam. Preoperative anesthetic efficacy was graded during a period of 20 min by using a five-point scale from 1 = awake to 5 = asleep. Tolerance during anesthesia induction via face mask was graded by using a four-point scale from 1 = very good to 4 = bad. A sufficient anesthetic level (> or = 3) after rectal premedication was reached in 86% in midazolam/S(+)-ketamine premedicated children, in 75% in midazolam premedicated children, but only in 30% in S(+)-ketamine premedicated children (P < 0.05 S(+)-ketamine versus midazolam/S(+)-ketamine and midazolam groups). The incidence of side effects after rectal premedication was rare. Whereas the mask acceptance score was comparable in the three study groups, a 25% rate of complications during anesthesia induction via face was observed in the S(+)-ketamine study group (P < 0.05 versus other study groups). Our conclusions are that S(+)-ketamine for rectal premedication in the dose we chose shows a poor anesthetic effect and a frequent incidence of side effects during induction of anesthesia via face mask compared with the combination of midazolam/S(+)-ketamine and plain midazolam. Dose-response studies of S(+)-ketamine for rectal premedication in pediatric anesthesia may be warranted.     

Efficacy of two oral premedicants: midazolam or a low‐dose combination of midazolam–ketamine for reducing stress during intravenous cannulation in children undergoing CT imaging

Background: Pain, anxiety and fear of needles make intravenous cannulation extremely difficult in children. We assessed the efficacy and safety of oral midazolam and a low‐dose combination of midazolam and ketamine to reduce the stress and anxiety during intravenous cannulation in children undergoing computed tomography (CT) imaging when compared to placebo. Methods: Ninety‐two ASA I or II children (1–5 years) scheduled for CT imaging under sedation were studied. Children were randomized to one of the three groups. Group M received 0.5 mg·kg^?1 midazolam in 5 ml of honey, group MK received 0.25 mg·kg^?1 midazolam mixed with 1 mg·kg^?1 ketamine in 5‐ml honey and group P received 5‐ml honey alone, orally. In 20–30 min after premedication, venipuncture was attempted at the site of eutectic mixture of local anesthetics cream. Sedation scores and venipuncture scores were recorded. Primary outcome of the study was incidence of children crying at venipuncture (venipuncture score of 4). Results: Significantly more children cried during venipuncture in placebo group compared to the other two groups (19/32 (59%) in group P vs 1 each in groups M and MK, (P < 0.001) (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.55‐3.63). In 20–30 min after premedication, group P had more children in sedation score 1 or 2 (crying or anxious) compared to the other two groups (P < 0.05). At this time, group MK showed more children in calm and awake compared to group M (P = 0.02). At venipuncture, group P had more children in venipuncture score 3 or 4 (crying or withdrawing) compared to group M or MK (P < 0.05), while groups M and MK were comparable. Conclusion: A low‐dose combination of oral midazolam and ketamine or oral midazolam alone effectively reduces the stress during intravenous cannulation in children undergoing CT imaging without any adverse effects. However, the combination provides more children in calm and quiet state when compared to midazolam alone at venipuncture.     

Midazolam and ketamine for rectal premedication and induction of anesthesia in children

Fifteen healthy children 2-10 years old and scheduled for elective surgery, received midazolam 0.35 mg/kg body weight and atropine 0.025 mg/kg as rectal premedication about 35 min before the induction of anesthesia. The induction itself was carried out in a separate and quiet room next to the operating theatre by rectal administration of ketamine 10 mg/kg and midazolam 0.2 mg/kg. With the children breathing spontaneously, anesthesia was maintained by repetitive i.v. bolus injections of ketamine. The sedative and anticholinergic effects of the premedication were satisfactory. Induction of anesthesia was smooth. Consciousness was lost after 9-15 (mean 13) min. No significant adverse effects on hemodynamics or respiration were noted. Recovery from anesthesia was uneventful. No cases of rectal irritation or unpleasant dreams were reported. Post-operative analgesia was good. In conclusion, rectal administration of midazolam and atropine for premedication, followed by ketamine and midazolam for the induction of anesthesia, proved to be a pleasant, safe, and reliable method in pediatric anesthesia.     

Oral midazolam with an antacid may increase the speed of onset of sedation in children prior to general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to see whether sodium citrate solution would speed the gastric absorption of oral midazolam. METHODS: Forty presurgical ASA I and II patients (aged 2-6 years) were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group I received midazolam 0.5 mg x kg(-1) mixed with sodium citrate while group II (control) received midazolam 0.5 mg x kg(-1) mixed with Hawaiian fruit punch. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the ages, weights, preoperative sedation and anxiety scores in the two groups. After premedication, the onset of sedation (mean +/- SD) measured by the first change in sedation score was found to be significantly faster (P < 0.05) in group I (17.8 +/- 7.11) compared with group II (21.9 +/- 5.34). There was no statistical difference in anxiety at any time intervals, separation or induction scoring for both groups. Gastric volumes and the pH of gastric aspirates between the two groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The time to onset of sedation can potentially be shortened, by using a preparation of intravenous midazolam and antacid, given orally.     

Significant CO2 retention in children after premedication with Dormicum and Thalamonal

Whereas in adults the use of Innovar for premedication has been abolished, the combination of midazolam and Innovar is still recommended for the premedication of children. This combination may lead to an additional depressive effect on respiration. A prospective, randomized study was performed to evaluate the risk of ventilatory depression. In 36 infants capillary blood gas values were measured pre- and postmedication with either rectal midazolam (0.4 mg/kg) and i.m. Innovar (0.04 ml/kg) or after oral chlorprothixene (2.0 mg/kg). After chlorprothixen the blood gas values did not change, whereas after the combination of midazolam and Innovar pCO2 rose significantly from 35.5 to 43.0 mmHg. In 7 of 22 cases pCO2 reached values above 45 mmHg. This difference compared to the chlorprothixene group was significant (p less than 0.05). The pH fell significantly from 7.42 to 7.36 in the combination group. Clinical signs of respiratory depression could not be observed in this group. The combination of midazolam with Innovar is therefore not useful for premedication in infants and young children.