Oral midazolam premedication and postoperative behaviour in children

We examined the effect of oral midazolam premedication on postoperative behaviour. Seventy children (ASA Physical Status 1 and 2; aged 1–10 yrs) were assigned randomly in a prospective, blinded fashion to receive either midazolam 0.5 mg·kg⁻¹ (maximum 10 mg) or placebo. Behaviour assessments were made prior to medication, during induction of anaesthesia and 15 min following arrival to recovery room. The baseline behavioural evaluation scores were not significantly different. The children receiving midazolam cried significantly less during induction (P≤0.02). At one week follow-up, eight of 35 subjects receiving placebo had experienced adverse behaviour changes (nightmares, night terrors, food rejection, anxiety, negativism); 19 of 35 of the midazolam group experienced these changes (P≤0.02). At four week follow-up, most behaviour changes had resolved. Children given preoperative oral midazolam were less likely to cry and fight while being anaesthetized, and preoperative sedation was associated with increased incidence of adverse postoperative behaviour changes.     

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.     

Preparation of parents by teaching of distraction techniques does not reduce child anxiety at anaesthetic induction.

Introduction For those children having surgery, induction of anaesthesia is one of the most stressful procedures the child experiences perioperatively. Current work has failed to show a benefit of parental presence at induction of anaesthesia for all children. The reasons for lack of effect may include the high anxiety levels of some parents and also that the role for parents at their child's induction is not delineated. The main aim of this study was to see if parental preparation by teaching of distraction techniques could reduce their child's anxiety during intravenous induction of anaesthesia. Methods After ethics committee approval 40 children aged 2–10 years old, ASA status I or II undergoing daycase surgery under general anaesthesia were enrolled into the study. To avoid possible confounding factors children with a history of previous, surgery, chronic illness or developmental delay were excluded form participation. No children were given sedative premedication. After written informed consent by the parent, each child and parent was randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Parents in the intervention group received preparation from a play specialist working on the children's surgical ward. It involved preparation for events in the anaesthetic room and instruction on methods of distraction for their child during induction using novel toys, books or blowing bubbles appropriate to the child's age. Preoperative information collected included demographic and baseline data. The temperament of the child was measured using the EASI (Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, Impulsivity) instrument of child temperament(l). In the anaesthetic room all children were planned to have intravenous induction of anaesthesia after prior application of EMLA cream. Anxiety of the child was measured by the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS)( 2 ) by a blinded independent observer at three time points: entrance to the anaesthetic room, intravenous cannulation and at anaesthesia induction. Cooperation of the child was measured by the Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC) by the same observer ( 3 ). Postoperative data collected included parental satisfaction and anxiety scores measured by the Stait Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)( 4 ) and at one week the behaviour of the child was measured Using the Posthospitalisation Behavioural Questionnaire (PHBQ)( 5 ). Normally distributed data were analysed by a two-sample t-test, categorical data by Pearson's Chi-squared test and non-parametric data by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results One parent withdrew after enrolment. This left 22 children in the control group and 17 in the intervention group. There were no significant differences in demographic and baseline data of the children between the two groups including ethnic origin, number of siblings, birth order of the child, recent stressful events in the child's life, previous hospital admissions and the temperament of the child. Parent demographics were also similar between groups including parent's age, sex, relationship to child and level of education. There were no significant differences in child anxiety or cooperation during induction measured by mYPAS and ICC between the control and intervention groups. More parents in the preparation group distracted their child than those without preparation but this did not reach significance. Parental anxiety immediately postinduction was similar between groups as was the level of parental satisfaction. The incidence of development of new negative postoperative behaviour of the child at one week was not significantly different between groups. Discussion This study shows that giving an active role for parents in the induction room, particularly by instructing them on distracting techniques for their child, does not reduce their child's anxiety compared to conventional parental presence. We conclude resources should not be directed at this type of parental preparation. Further work should examine the usefulness of distraction by nursing staff or play specialists during anaesthetic induction.     

An Audit of Preoperative Behaviour and Premedication Practise at Great Ormond Street Hospital

Introduction Despite advances in anaesthesia many children are distressed at induction of anaesthesia (1). The use of paediatric premedication has declined considerably over the last ten years ( 2 ). The aim of our audit was to look at preoperative behaviour and premedication practice at our institute. Method One hundred and seventy seven patients undergoing elective procedures in the main theatre suite at the hospital were audited. This therefore excluded cardiac and neuroanaesthesia. Behaviour scores in the anaesthetic room prior to and at induction were assessed by the operating department assistants. We looked at frequency, type, dose and timing of premedication. The induction method, age and previous anaesthesia were noted. Parents routinely accompany children at induction of anaesthesia. Results Overall 75% of children had satisfactory behaviour scores in the anaesthetic room dropping to 47% at induction. The graph shows the age distribution and associated behaviour scores. Of the patients with satisfactory behaviour scores all received their premedication between 20 and 60 min prior to induction. Three patients in the unsatisfactory behaviour group received their premedication outside this optimal time. Children who had had previous anaesthetics (76%) had worse behaviour scores than those with none both in the anaesthetic room and at induction with satisfactory scores of 71% vs. 84% and 44% vs. 51 % respectively. Those having gas inductions (63%) had worse behaviour scores at induction compared with children having intravenous induction with satisfactory scores of 42% vs. 52% respectively. 12% of all children audited received a sedative premedication. 16 received Midazolam 0.5 mg/kg, 3 Temazepam 10 or 20 mg and 1 Triclofos 50 mg·kg^?1 all given orally. The premedication rate for children with previous anaesthetic experience was 14% vs. 5% in those with none. Only 5% of children received an atropine premedication 20–40 mcg·kg^?1 orally. Only 1 of the 14 children age 6 months and 2 of the 14 children age 6 months?1 year were premedicated with atropine. Discussion As a paediatric tertiary referral centre, many of the patients have previous experience of anaesthetics and have ongoing medical problems Our audit found that many of these children, especially age 1–3, are distressed at induction of anaesthesia despite methods shown to reduce peri‐operative anxiety, including play specialists. It also confirms the perceived trend for decreasing use of sedative and anticholinergic premedication. However several papers report decrease in distress at induction ( 1 ) especially in high‐risk groups ( 2 ) without undue delays in awakening and discharge using midazolain premedication. Conclusion It was decided that a more child friendly anaesthetic room with pictures, toys and other distractions would be helpful. There may also be a need to increase the use of sedative premedication in high‐risk groups especially preschool children.     

Oral premedication with midazolam in paediatric anaesthesia. Effects on sedation and gastric contents

The aim of this study was to assess oral premedication with midazolam in paediatric anaesthesia. Sedation, quality of induction, recovery time, acceptance and effects on gastric contents were analysed. This prospective, double blind, at random and controlled study was performed in 107 children, aged between three and ten years. They were divided into: group 1 (control, n=29), group 2 (placebo) receiving 5 ml of water in the preoperative stage (n=40), and group 3 (midazolam) with 0.75 mg·kg^-1 midazolam by mouth (n=38). Two children refused to take medication. In children aged five years or more (n=48) of groups 2 and 3, acceptance of premedication was evaluated. The midazolam group showed a better level of sedation as compared with the placebo (P<0.05). The recovery time was similar for the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in gastric pH or residual volume among the three groups. It is concluded that midazolam given by mouth is an efficient and safe drug for premedication in paediatric anaesthesia.     

Oral midazolam is an effective premedication for children having day-stay anaesthesia.

The effect of oral premedication was studied in a double-blind, randomised trial of 200 children undergoing day-stay anaesthesia. Midazolam 0.25 mg/kg, midazolam 0.5 mg/kg, diazepam 0.5 mg/kg or a placebo was given orally one hour prior to anaesthesia. Patient state was assessed at nine stages, from administration of the premedication up to and including induction of anaesthesia, using a four-point behavioural scale. Patient state was also assessed postoperatively in the recovery area and the day-stay ward. There was no difference between the four groups until induction of anaesthesia. At this stage 82% of children were either asleep or awake and calm. Patients who received midazolam 0.5 mg/kg were more likely to be asleep or awake and calm at induction rather than other groups (P = 0.05). Children receiving midazolam 0.5 mg/kg or diazepam 0.5 mg/kg slept longest in the post anaesthetic recovery room (P less than 0.005), and spent most time there (P less than .005). There was no difference between groups in the length of time spent in the day-stay ward or in the number of overnight admissions. The study shows that a high proportion of unsedated children are calm at induction of anaesthesia and that oral midazolam is an effective premedication in children for day-stay anaesthesia.     

Clonidine vs. midazolam as premedication in children undergoing adeno-tonsillectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Clonidine administration in the setting of paediatric anaesthesia is associated with a number of desirable effects, e.g. preoperative sedation, analgesia and reduced anaesthetic requirements. The aim of the current study was to compare postoperative outcome variables using a prospective, randomized, double-blind design after premedication with clonidine or midazolam. METHODS: One hundred paediatric ASA physical status 1 patients (age 1-11 year) scheduled for adeno-tonsillectomy were assigned to receive rectal premedication with midazolam (300 microg kg(-1) and atropine 40 microg kg(-1); group M, n = 52) or clonidine (5 microg kg(-1 and) atropine 40 microg kg(-1); group C, n = 48) prior to a standardized sevoflurane anaesthetic. The incidence of immediate postoperative pain (0-2 h), as assessed by repeated Objective Pain Scale (OPS) scores, was chosen as the primary end-point of the study. Degree of sedation (modified Vancouver sedation scale 0-3), occurrence of postoperative vomiting (POV), and incidence of shivering and immediate postoperative confusion were registered as secondary end-points. After hospital discharge parents were instructed to continue the evaluation of pain, sedation, POV and sleep pattern during a 24-h period. Parents were also asked for their preference concerning the postoperative behaviour of their child (calm, sedated vs. alert, active). RESULTS: In the early postoperative period patients in the clonidine group had a significantly lower sum of 5 OPS scores (median = 8.0) compared to group M (median = 11.5) (P = 0.011). Administration of clonidine was also associated with a slightly higher sum of sedation scores (median = 13) in the early postoperative period compared to children receiving midazolam (median = 12) (P < 0.001). No episode of shivering was observed in the clonidine group but was present in five of the patients in the midazolam group (P = 0.057). In younger children (< 5 years) the incidence of postoperative confusion was lower in the clonidine group (P = 0.001). No difference in the frequencies of POV incidences, degree of postoperative pain, need for analgesics, or sleep pattern during the first 24 postoperative hours could be observed between the groups according to the parental evaluation. Children premedicated with clonidine were more calm and sedated compared to children in the midazolam group (P = 0.024) as judged by their parents. A significant majority of parents (75%; P < 0.001) preferred a calm and sedated child during the first postoperative 24-h period. CONCLUSION: Rectal premedication with clonidine was associated with a significant reduction of pain in the early postoperative period compared to midazolam and was also associated with moderately increased sedation during the first 24 postoperative hours. The sedative effect of clonidine is in agreement with the unambiguous finding of a parental preference for a calm and sedated child during the first 24 postoperative hours.     

Premedication for ambulatory surgery in preschool children: a comparison of oral midazolam and rectal thiopentone

Seventy five ASA 1 and 2 children, aged between six months and five years were randomized to receive oral midazolam 0.5 mg · kg^?1, rectal thiopentone 35 mg · kg^?1 or no premedication to compare the safety and efficacy of, and parental attitudes to, both premedicants. Cardio-respiratory variables were recorded from the time of premedication to awakening from anaesthesia. In addition, anxiety and sedation scores and patients’ acceptance of both premedicant and mask at induction, were all recorded using four-point rating scales. Times to recovery and discharge, and parental satisfaction with the pre-medication their child had received were also recorded Children receiving rectal thiopentone had higher sedation scores and were more accepting of the mask than were the other two groups (P < 0.001). Their acceptance of the premedication was similar to that of the midazolam group. Times to spontaneous eye opening and discharge were longer in the thiopentone group (P< 0.005). Parental preoperative satisfaction rating was higher for thiopentone, but not midazolam, than no premedication (P < 0.05). When asked their premedication preferences for subsequent general anaesthetics, a higher proportion of parents whose children were not premedicated requested an alternative regimen (P < 0.01). In conclusion the study found that pre-medication with rectal thiopentone provided superior induction characteristics to oral midazolam, but with a longer recovery period.     

Répercussions psychocomportementales en périopératoire chez l’enfant

The relevant literature since the 1940s has been collected from the Medline database, using the keywords: child, operation, anxiety, distress, postoperative complications, preparation, premedication, parental presence, prevention. Preoperative anxiety, emergence delirium, and postoperative behavior changes are all manifestations of psychological distress in children undergoing surgery. Preoperative anxiety is most prominent during anaesthesia induction. Emergence delirium is frequent and somewhat independent of pain levels. Postoperative behavior changes most often include separation anxiety, tantrums, fear of strangers, eating problems, nightmares, night terrors and bedwetting. These difficulties tend to resolve themselves with time but can last up to one year in some children. The major risk factors for postoperative behavior problems are young age, prior negative experience with hospitals or medical care, certain kinds of hospitalization, postoperative pain, parental anxiety, and certain personality traits of the child. Currently, tools exist for quantifying anxiety (m-YPAS) and postoperative behavior (PHBQ). It is possible to identify those children who are at risk for postoperative complications during the preanaesthesia consultation by paying close attention to children under six years with higher levels of emotionality and impulsivity and poorer socialization skills with anxious parents. Suggested strategies for reducing child distress include preoperative preparation, premedication, parental presence during anaesthesia induction, and interventions affecting the child's environment, such as hypnosis. There are numerous ways to provide preoperative preparation (information, modeling, role playing, encouraging effective coping) and their effectiveness is proven in the preoperative setting but not during anaesthesia induction or in the operating room. Midazolam has been shown to be an effective preoperative sedative for reducing anxiety. Parental presence during induction has been shown to effectively reduce preoperative anxiety in children in certain contexts (when the parent is calm and the child is anxious). It is worthwhile if it is integrated into a family-centered anxiety management program and remains one of several options offered to families. Overall, taking into account the child's psychological needs should be considered an essential part of paediatric anaesthesia. Tools and techniques are available for assessing and managing the perioperative distress experienced by children.     

Oral premedication in children: a comparison of chloral hydrate, diazepam, alprazolam, midazolam and placebo for day surgery

A double-blind study consisting of 339 randomly selected children investigated the effects of several premedicants on the preoperative and postoperative behaviour of children who underwent day-stay surgery. Patients were allocated into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 165 children aged between 6 and 47 months. Group 2 consisted of 174 children aged four years and older to a body weight of 50 kg. Each child received one premedicant. Both groups included alprazolam 0.005 mg/kg, midazolam 0.3 mg/kg and placebo. In addition Group 1 included chloral hydrate 40 mg/kg and Group 2 diazepam 0.25 mg/kg. Chloral hydrate produced superior conditions (more patients calm or asleep) at induction of anaesthesia. Postoperative behaviour and incidence of vomiting were similar for all drugs. No premedicant reduced anxiety in the older group. The time to awaken postoperatively with diazepam was longer than with placebo. Alprazolam and midazolam were unpalatable for children over four years and conferred no advantage over placebo.     

Parental presence during induction enhances the effect of oral midazolam on emergence behavior of children undergoing general anesthesia

Background:  Pre-anesthetic anxiety and emergence agitation are major challenges for anesthesiologists in pediatric anesthesia. Thus, sedative premedication and parental presence during induction of anesthesia (PPIA) are used to treat pre-anesthetic anxiety in children. The aim of the present study was to test if a combination of mother presence and midazolam premedication is effective for improving emergence condition in children undergoing general anesthesia.
Methods:  Sixty children were allocated to one of three groups: a sedative group (0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam), a PPIA group or a sedative and PPIA group. When anesthesia was induced with 7% sevoflurane in 100% oxygen, qualities of mask induction were rated. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane (1.5–2.5%) in 60% oxygen and intravenous fentanyl 4 μg/kg. During emergence from anesthesia, the score of the child's emergence behavior was rated.
Results:  The children in the midazolam group showed a better quality of mask induction compared with those in the PPIA group, the addition of parental presence to oral midazolam did not provide additional improvement of mask induction. In contrast, the children in the midazolam + PPIA group were less agitated than those in the other groups at emergence from anesthesia.
Conclusion:  Parental presence during induction of anesthesia enhanced the effect of oral midazolam on emergence behavior of children undergoing general anesthesia.     

Perioperativer Verlauf von physiologischen und kognitiven Funktionen nach oraler Prämedikation von 3,75 mg Midazolam bei Operationen in Retrobulbäranästhesie

The number of surgical procedures performed as day surgery has significantly increased in recent years. Therefore, a safe and short postoperative recovery period has become increasingly important. The aim of the present study was to investigate perioperative cognitive and physiological function after oral premedication with low-dose midazolam (3.75 mg), especially during the postoperative period. Methods. Forty-seven men (age >60 years, weight 50–90 kg) scheduled for elective cataract surgery under retrobulbar anaesthesia (RBA) were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to either group 1 (n=28), receiving 3.75 mg midazolam p.o. (Dormicum^®), or group 2 (n=19), receiving a placebo orally 30 min before RBA. We measured the following parameters: sedation (modified Glasgow coma scale); anxiety (visual analogue scale); numerical and verbal memory (digit span and reproduction of previously presented words); concentration (Revisionstest of Stender/Marschner). To identify depression of ventilation, pulse oximetry and nasal end-tidal PCO₂ were monitored intraoperatively. Results. After premedication with 3.75 mg midazolam, patients were significantly more sedated (P<0.01) and systolic blood pressures were significantly reduced (P<0.05); 30 min after midazolam premedication only concentration was significantly (P<0.05) decreased. The results of the other cognitive functions did not differ. No differences in cognitive and physiological functions between the groups could be found 2 h after the operation (293±41 min after premedication). Intraoperatively, there were no significant differences in end-tidal PCO₂ and oxygenation between the groups. In both groups anxiety and blood pressure were significantly higher pre- than postopertively. Conclusion. Oral administration of low-dose midazolam (0.049±0.006 mg/kg) seems to be appropriate for premedication before ambulatory surgical procedures in elderly patients. In the interest of patient safety, standardised oral premedication with 3.75 mg midazolam may not be sufficient for some of the patients.     

Efficacy and safety of premedication with oral ketamine for day-case adenoidectomy compared with rectal diazepam/diclofenac and EMLA

BACKGROUND: Because of its pain-attenuating and sedative properties oral ketamine has been used as premedication in children and adults. We wanted to compare in children scheduled for adenoidectomy safety and efficacy of oral ketamine with a premedication that causes similar preoperative sedation and relief of pain at the venepuncture site. We also evaluated the effect of i.v. glycopyrrolate added to these combinations. METHODS: One hundred children between 10 and 15 kg of body weight scheduled for day-case adenoidectomy were randomly assigned to one of four groups: groups DG and DS received diclofenac 12.5 mg and diazepam 0.5 mg/kg rectally, EMLA cream at the venepuncture site, and placebo orally; groups KG and KS received ketamine 6.0 mg/kg orally, placebo cream at the puncture site, and placebo rectally; additionally, groups DG and KG received glycopyrrolate 5 microg/kg, and groups DS and KS received placebo intravenously. We recorded perioperatively scores (open scale 1-9) for stridor, sedation, bleeding, nausea, pain, heart rate, the need for analgesics and registered psychotomimesis and well-being at home. RESULTS: The children of the K-groups became more tearful during separation from their parents (P=0.0072). No other differences were found between the ketamine and diazepam/diclofenac groups before and after premedication until induction of anaesthesia. Oral ketamine produced unpleasant psychotomimesis in four out of 59 children. During the first 10 min postoperatively, the score for stridor was significantly higher in group KS than in the D-groups; stridor scores > or = 6 were seen in one child of the D-groups (DS) and in six children of the K-groups (n.s.), of whom three developed laryngospasm (one reintubation). Glycopyrrolate diminished salivation in all groups, but had no effect on stridor scores. Additionally, glycopyrrolate delayed the onset of eating at home. CONCLUSION: Premedication with racemic oral ketamine 6 mg/kg does not seem to be suitable for upper airway procedures. Addition of i.v. glycopyrrolate before the induction of anaesthesia significantly reduced the scores for salivation.     

A comparison of midazolam with trimeprazine as an oral premedicant for children

The effect of oral premedication was investigated in a double-blind, randomised trial in 85 children undergoing tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy. Orally administered midazolam 0.5 mg.kg⁻¹ given 30 min pre-operatively was compared with trimeprazine 2 mg.kg⁻¹ given 90 min pre-operatively and a placebo preparation. Compliance, sedation and ease of induction were assessed as were the duration and quality of recovery. Following premedication with midazolam none of the patients was anxious, crying or distressed on leaving the ward, compared with 2/28 in the trimeprazine group and 5/28 in the placebo group (p =0.0007). More patients were calm and quiet on arrival in the anaesthetic room following midazolam than following trimeprazine, with both premedicant agents comparing favourably with placebo. There was no significant difference between the three groups in the time to recovery or the sedation score on discharge to the ward. Midazolam is a safe and effective oral premedicant for children.     

Pre-induction behaviour of children A review of placebo-controlled trials of sedatives

Placebo-controlled trials of sedative premedication in children are reviewed in an attempt to determine which drugs have been shown to reduce the frequency with which children cry or appear apprehensive. Small samples and inappropriate statistical methods limit the value of many of the studies. Most of the drugs tested will, in sufficient dose, increase the proportion of children who are asleep. Only intramuscular opioid analgesics, either alone or in combination with other drugs, have been shown repeatedly to increase the frequency of calm behaviour in those who are awake. There is some evidence, however, that intramuscular placebo controls have a lower frequency of calm behavior than oral placebo controls.     

Parental Presence during Induction of Anesthesia versus Sedative Premedication: Which Intervention Is More Effective?

Background: Both midazolam and parental presence during induction of anesthesia are routinely used to treat preoperative anxiety in children. The purpose of this investigation was to determine which of these two interventions is more effective.

Methods: Anxiety of the child during the perioperative period was the primary end point. Secondary end points included anxiety of the parent and compliance of the child during induction. Children (n = 88) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) 0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam; (2) parental presence during induction of anesthesia; or (3) control (no parental presence or premedication). Using multiple behavioral measures of anxiety, the effect of the intervention on the children and their parents was assessed.

Results: Observed anxiety in the holding area (T1), entrance to the operating room (T2), and introduction of the anesthesia mask (T3) differed significantly among the three groups (P = 0.032). Post hoc analysis indicated that children in the midazolam group exhibited significantly less anxiety compared with the children in the parental-presence group or control group (P = 0.0171). Similarly, parental anxiety scores after separation were significantly less in the midazolam group compared with the parental-presence or control groups (P = 0.048). The percentage of inductions in which compliance of the child was poor was significantly greater in the control group compared with the parental-presence and midazolam groups (25% vs. 17% vs. 0%, P = 0.013).     

Premedication of children with oral midazolam

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the safety, efficacy and feasibility of oral midazolam premedication in children were evaluated in an ambulatory surgery unit. Eighty unmedicated children (ASA PS I or II, ages 1-6 yr) were randomly assigned to one of four groups receiving midazolam 0.5, 0.75, or 1.0 mg.kg-1 or a placebo 30 min before separation from parents. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, sedation and anxiolysis scores were recorded before premedication, every five minutes for 30 min and then during induction of anaesthesia and recovery. We found that heart rate, systolic blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation and respiratory rate were unchanged during the study. Sedation and anxiolysis scores in the midazolam-treated groups were greater than those in the placebo group and that anxiolysis at the time of separation from the parents was judged excellent in 80-90% of the children who received midazolam. However, sedation and anxiolysis did not differ among the three midazolam groups. Mean times to discharge from hospital were similar for all four groups. The side effects, loss of balance and head control, blurred vision and dysphoric reactions were observed only in the 0.75 and 1.0 mg.kg-1 midazolam groups. We conclude that oral midazolam 0.5 mg.kg-1 is a safe and effective premedication and that 0.75 and 1 mg.kg-1 while offering no additional benefit, may cause more side effects.     

Midazolam (Dormicum) as oral premedication for local anesthesia

Good physician-patient rapport and an anxiolytic, sedative, and amnesic premedication are necessary for comfortable, stress-free surgery under local anesthesia. Sufficient experience exists with the intramuscular and intravenous administration of the new benzodiazepine midazolam (Dormicum), while knowledge relating to its oral administration is still scant. Therefore, in a randomized double-blind study midazolam was investigated for oral premedication prior to local anesthesia: two dosages of midazolam were studied and compared with diazepam and placebo. One hour prior to ophthalmic surgery under local anesthesia, four randomized groups of 30 patients each, received a tablet of 7.5 or 15 mg midazolam, 10 mg diazepam, or a placebo. Following this medication, the anxiolytic, sedative, amnesic, and side-effects were determined at defined points of time during the day of surgery and the 1st postoperative day. Anxiolysis was determined using the "state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI)" of Spielberger et al.; sedation was assessed according to Pandit et al.; amnesia was determined by recall of picture cards which had been presented to the patients 50 min after premedication; and patients were asked about 13 side-effects typical of benzodiazepines in a standardized way. Anxiety increased little following the placebo; it decreased significantly following 10 mg diazepam and more markedly following 7.5 and 15 mg midazolam. Sedation increased little following the placebo; it increased more and similarly 50 min after the benzodiazepines; after 90 min the sedative effect was most marked for 15 mg midazolam. However, sedation was of shorter duration after midazolam than after diazepam.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Effects of a single 1200-mg preoperative dose of gabapentin on anxiety and memory

Background

Gabapentin has antihyperalgesic and potential anxiolytic effects. We therefore evaluated the effects of gabapentin premedication on anxiety, amnesia, and sedation. We tested the primary hypothesis that 1200 mg of oral gabapentin 2 to 3 h before surgery reduces preoperative anxiety. Our secondary hypothesis was that gabapentin administration is sedative without causing preoperative amnesia.

Study design

Prospective, randomized and placebo-controlled study.

Methods

Surgical patients having general anaesthesia were randomly assigned to either 1200 mg oral gabapentin (n = 32) or an identical-looking placebo (n = 32) 2 to 3 h before anaesthesia. Anxiety, sedation, and amnesia were quantified before premedication, 2 h thereafter, and postoperatively. Preoperative anxiety was measured using the Spielberger state trait anxiety inventory (STAI state) and the visual analogue scale anxiety (VAS). Memory was assessed with the picture recall test of Snodgrass and Vanderwart. Results were compared with t, Mann-Whitney U, or Chi² tests as appropriate, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

STAI state, our primary outcome, decreased significantly in the gabapentin group, from 37.2 to 30.8, and remained unchanged in the placebo group, from 39.3 to 37.9 (P = 0.003). The VAS score for anxiety also decreased, but not significantly, from 28.2 to 19.2 in the gabapentin group and from 28.7 to 24.7 in the placebo group (P = 0.065). No difference was observed in the amnesic effect; nor did the groups differ in terms of recovery times or sedation scores.

Conclusion

Gabapentin premedication, 1200 mg, provided preoperative anxiolysis without causing sedation or impairing preoperative memory.     

Experience with parents’ presence during anaesthesia induction in children

Parents of 50 unpremedicated children were invited to be present during induction of anaesthesia in their children. The presence of the parents resulted in a significant decrease in the number of very upset or turbulent children during the pre-induction and induction periods, when compared to a control group that was induced without the parents’ participation. There was no difference in the children’s behaviour in the recovery room or at home following surgery. Most parents were calm and supportive during induction, and there were no complications related to their presence. It is concluded that for some preschool children, allowing the parents to support an anxious child during anaesthesia induction can be very effective in relieving anxiety, and minimizes the need for premedication.