Premedication with melatonin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison with midazolam

We have evaluated the perioperative effects of melatonin with those of midazolam in 75 women in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were given sublingual midazolam 15 mg, melatonin 5 mg or placebo, approximately 100 min before a standard anaesthetic. Sedation, anxiety and orientation were quantified before, and 10, 30, 60 and 90 min after premedication, and 15, 30, 60 and 90 min after admission to the recovery room. Psychomotor performance was evaluated at these times also, using the digit-symbol substitution test (DSST) and the Trieger dot test (TDT). Patients who received premedication with either midazolam or melatonin had a significant decrease in anxiety levels and increase in levels of sedation before operation compared with controls. Midazolam produced the highest scores for sedation at 30 and 60 min after administration and significant psychomotor impairment in the preoperative period compared with melatonin or placebo. After operation, patients who received midazolam or melatonin premedication had increased levels of sedation at 30 min and impairment in performance on the DSST at 15, 30 and 90 min compared with controls. There were no significant differences between the three groups for anxiety levels or TDT performance after operation. Amnesia was notable only in the midazolam group for one preoperative event (entry into the operating room). Patient satisfaction was noted in the midazolam and melatonin groups only. We have demonstrated that melatonin can be used effectively for premedication of adult patients.      

Perioperative effects of melatonin and midazolam premedication on sedation, orientation, anxiety scores and psychomotor performance

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative effects of melatonin and midazolam given in premedication, on sedation, orientation, anxiety scores and psychomotor performance. METHODS: Exogenous administration of melatonin not only facilitates the onset of sleep but also improves its quality. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in 66 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were given melatonin 5 mg, midazolam 15 mg or placebo, 90 min before anaesthesia, sublingually. Sedation, orientation and anxiety were quantified before; 10, 30, 60 and 90 min after premedication; and 15, 30, 60 and 90 min after admission to the recovery room. Neurocognitive performance was evaluated at these times, using the Trail Making A and B and Word Fluency tests. The differences between the groups were analysed by ANOVA. Two-way comparisons were performed by Scheffé analysis. Sedation and amnesia were analysed by the chi2 test. RESULTS: Patients who received premedication with either melatonin or midazolam had a significant increase in sedation and decrease in anxiety before operation compared with controls. After operation, there was no difference in sedation scores of all groups. Whereas, 30, 60 and 90 min after premedication the melatonin and midazolam groups exhibited a significantly poorer performance in Trail Making A and B tests compared with placebo, there were no significant differences among the groups in terms of neuropsychological performance after the operation. Amnesia was notable only in the midazolam group for one preoperative event. CONCLUSION: Melatonin premedication was associated with preoperative anxiolysis and sedation without postoperative impairment of psychomotor performance.     

The effect of midazolam premedication on mental and psychomotor recovery in geriatric patients undergoing brief surgical procedures.

To assess the effect of IV midazolam premedication on recovery of cognitive function, 90 geriatric patients (aged 65-81 yr) undergoing brief transurethral procedures were enrolled into this prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study. In all cases, a standard general anesthetic was administered. Thirty minutes before operating room transfer, patients in Group 0.5 mg, Group 2 mg, and Group S received 0.5 mg of midazolam, 2 mg of midazolam, or an equal volume of saline, respectively. Before study-drug administration (baseline), at 15 min thereafter, as well as on arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and at 60 min and 120 min, postoperatively, we administered a digit-symbol substitution test, a mini-mental test, a shape-sorter test, and a patient-generated 100-mm visual analog score (0 = minimal and 100 = maximal) for anxiety, sleepiness, and coordination. A 4-point scale was used to assess the degree of patient sedation at 7, 15, and 30 min after study-drug administration. Using a modified Aldrete scoring system, PACU discharge was determined by the PACU staff. Patient anxiety, sleepiness, and coordination scores at baseline and at 15 min after study-drug administration were similar. When compared with saline, midazolam was associated with a significantly (P < 0.05) higher incidence of "deep" sedation. In Group 2 mg, the incidence of a low preoperative Spo2 (<94%) was significantly (P < 0.05) higher when compared with Group S. Emergence, extubation, and orientation times, as well as time to follow commands were unaffected by midazolam premedication. Postoperatively, the digit-symbol substitution test, mini-mental test, and shape-sorter test were similar among the groups. However, time to PACU discharge was significantly (P = 0.03) longer in the two midazolam treatment groups (41 +/-25 min, 60 +/- 32 min, 53 +/- 39 min for Groups S, 0.5 mg, and 2 mg, respectively). Finally, patient satisfaction was unaffected by the randomization schedule. IMPLICATIONS: IV premedicant midazolam 0.5 mg or 2 mg does not adversely affect mental and psychomotor recovery in geriatric patients undergoing brief surgical procedures. However, midazolam administration significantly prolonged postanesthesia care unit discharge time. Finally, during the preoperative period, midazolam increases the incidence of a Spo2 <94% in a dose-dependent manner.     

Melatonin premedication and the induction dose of propofol

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Melatonin (N-acetyl-5-methoxytryptamine) is the main indolamine secreted by the pineal gland. Many studies showed that premedication with melatonin is associated with preoperative anxiolysis and sedation without impairment of cognitive and psychomotor skills and without prolonging recovery. We hypothesized that melatonin decreases the amount of propofol required to produce an adequate depth of hypnosis at induction time. METHODS: After approval from the research committee of the anaesthesia department, informed written consent was taken from 45 adult patients undergoing different surgical procedures. They were allocated randomly into three groups according to the premedication. At 100 min preoperatively, premedication was given in the form of oral melatonin 3 mg (M3 group), oral melatonin 5 mg (M5 group) or no premedication (P group). After preoxygenation an anaesthesiologist who was blinded to the premedication injected propofol 10 mg over 5 s every 15 s until the bispectral index (BIS) score fell to 45. The total dose of propofol required to achieve a BIS score of 45 was recorded. Response to verbal commands and eyelash reflex was evaluated and correlated to the BIS score and propofol dosage. When a BIS score of 45 was reached, tracheal intubation was accomplished after administration of a narcotic and muscle relaxant. RESULTS: The mean (standard devitation (SD)) induction dose of propofol producing a BIS score of 45 was 134 (25) mg in the placebo group vs. 115 (19.5) and 114 (20.9) mg in the M3 and M5 groups, respectively (P < 0.05). The propofol dose required to achieve loss of eyelash reflex and loss of response to verbal commands was more in the placebo group. Anxiety score as assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) scored more in the placebo group than both melatonin groups. Time spent in the recovery room did not differ between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Melatonin premedication, in an oral dose of either 3 or 5 mg, reduced the required dose of propofol to achieve a BIS score of 45, reflecting a sufficient level of hypnosis for tracheal intubation without prolongation of postoperative recovery room stay.     

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.     

A comparison of oral midazolam solution with temazepam as a day case premedicant.

Seventy-five women undergoing elective day case gynaecological surgery were randomised into one of three groups to receive an oral formulation of midazolam IV solution 10 mg, temazepam 20 mg or placebo for premedication. The two treatment groups showed a significant reduction in anxiety score compared with placebo (P less than 0.002 and P less than 0.04 for placebo compared with temazepam and midazolam respectively). Similarly the treatment groups showed a significantly greater sedation score compared with placebo. Recovery as assessed by letter deletion and memory tests was no worse for the treatment groups than for placebo. Patient acceptance of the two treatment groups was significantly greater than that of placebo. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with respect to anxiolysis, sedation or recovery. As a day case premedicant, midazolam IV solution 10 mg orally was found to be as effective as temazepam 20 mg and superior to placebo, in terms of anxiolysis and sedation, but did not offer any clinical advantage over temazepam in this setting.     

Sedation and recovery of psychomotor function after intravenous administration of various doses of midazolam and diazepam.

A placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial in 11 healthy male volunteers compared clinical sedation and psychomotor function after intravenous injection of midazolam (0.05, 0.1, or 0.15 mg/kg), diazepam (0.15 or 0.3 mg/kg), or placebo (saline). The depth of sedation was estimated at 5-10-min intervals during the first hour after injection. A comprehensive battery of psychomotor tests was used to collect objective data of psychomotor performance before drug injection and 1, 3, 5, and 7 h after injection. Midazolam (0.15 mg/kg) produced the highest scores of sedation and most impairment of psychomotor performance. In most tests, the maximal psychomotor effects seen after 0.3 mg/kg of diazepam did not reach those of 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam. Although the strongest psychomotor effects were induced by midazolam, these effects disappeared sooner than those of diazepam. By 5 h after injection, 0.3 mg/kg of diazepam showed the highest scores of psychomotor impairment. The authors conclude that at least four times as much diazepam as midazolam is needed to produce equally severe psychomotor impairment. That the residual effects of midazolam terminate sooner than those of diazepam probably accounts for the occasional underestimation of the potency of midazolam in clinical practice.     

Premedication in children: a comparison of oral midazolam and oral clonidine

BACKGROUND: Oral premedication is widely used in pediatric anesthesia to reduce preoperative anxiety and ensure smooth induction. Midazolam is currently the most commonly used premedicant, but good results have also been reported with clonidine. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical effects of oral midazolam and oral clonidine. METHODS: We performed a prospective open study in 64 children who were randomly assigned to receive either oral midazolam 0.5 mg.kg (-1) (group M) or oral clonidine 4 microg.kg (-1) (group C) prior to mask induction. Drug acceptance, preoperative sedation and anxiolysis, quality of mask acceptance, recovery profile and parental satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: The taste of oral clonidine was judged as significantly better; 14% of children rejected oral midazolam. Onset of sedation was significantly faster after premedication with midazolam (30+/-13.1 min) than with clonidine (38.5+/-14.6 min), but level of sedation was significantly better after premedication with clonidine. Quality of mask induction was equally successful in both groups. A steal-induction was performed in 66% of patients of group C, but none in group M. We observed a trend towards an increased incidence of emergence agitation after premedication with midazolam. Parental satisfaction was significantly higher in group C. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, premedication with oral clonidine appeared to be superior to oral midazolam. Quality of mask acceptance was comparable between groups, but oral clonidine was better accepted by the child, produced more effective preoperative sedation, showed a trend towards better recovery from anesthesia and had a higher degree of parental satisfaction.     

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.     

Comparison of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate and an oral solution of meperidine, diazepam, and atropine for premedication in children

The safety and efficacy of premedication with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) was compared with that of an orally administered solution of meperidine, diazepam, and atropine and no premedication in 59 children about to undergo elective operations. The patients were randomly assigned to receive no premedication (n = 19); 0.25 ml/kg of the oral solution (containing meperidine, 1.5 mg/kg, diazepam, 0.2 mg/kg, and atropine, 0.02 mg/kg, n = 20); or OTFC (15-20 micrograms/kg, n = 20). Children had activity (sedation) and anxiety scores, vital signs (including systolic and diastolic arterial blood pressures and heart and respiratory rates) and pulse oximetry determined oxygen saturation measured before and at 10-min intervals after premedication until they were taken to the operating room. Quality of induction and recovery was evaluated using scoring schedules; recovery times were measured and side effects noted. OTFC was readily accepted and provided significant reductions in preoperative activity (sedation) and anxiety starting after 30 min. After OTFC, sedation and anxiolysis were significantly greater than in children having no premedication but similar to children having the oral solution for premedication. Vital signs and oxygen saturations remained unchanged preoperatively in all groups. Induction and recovery evaluations and recovery times were similar in the three groups, although children having OTFC had the lowest requirements for narcotics in the recovery room. OTFC caused an 80% incidence of mild preoperative facial pruritus and a higher overall incidence of postoperative vomiting (37%) than premedication with the oral solution (5%) or no premedication (18%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Melatonin vs. midazolam premedication in children: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Unlike midazolam, melatonin premedication is not associated with cognitive impairment in adults despite its anxiolytic properties. The use of melatonin as a premedicant in children has not been reported. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the perioperative effects of different doses of melatonin and midazolam in children. METHODS: Seven groups of children (n = 15 in each) were randomly assigned to receive one of the following premedicants. Midazolam 0.1, 0.25 or 0.5 mg kg(-1) orally, melatonin 0.1, 0.25 or 0.5 mg kg(-1) orally each mixed in 15 mg kg(-1) acetaminophen, or placebo only (15 mg kg(-1) acetaminophen). Anxiety and temperament were evaluated before and after administration of the study drug, on separation from parents and on the introduction of the anaesthesia mask. At week 2 postoperatively, the behaviour of the children was measured by the Post Hospitalization Behaviour Questionnaire. RESULTS: Melatonin or midazolam each in doses of 0.25 or 0.5 mg kg(-1) were equally effective as premedicants in alleviating separation anxiety and anxiety associated with the introduction of the anaesthesia mask. A trend was noted for midazolam to prolong recovery times as the dosage increased. The use of melatonin was associated with a lower incidence (P = 0.049) of excitement at 10 min postoperatively, and a lower incidence (P = 0.046) of sleep disturbance at week 2 postoperatively than that observed with midazolam and control groups. No postoperative excitement was noted in the melatonin groups at 20, 30 and 45 min. DISCUSSION: Melatonin was not only as effective as midazolam in alleviating preoperative anxiety in children, but it was also associated with a tendency towards faster recovery, lower incidence of excitement postoperatively and a lower incidence of sleep disturbance at week 2 postoperatively.     

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.     

Oral midazolam premedication for children with congenital cyanotic heart disease under-going cardiac surgery: a comparative study

To determine whether oral midazolam is a safe and effective alternative to our current standard premedication for children with cyanotic congenital heart disease (CCHD), 30 children aged 1–6 yr, scheduled for elective cardiac surgery, were studied. The children were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group I received oral midazolam 0.75 mg · kg^{? 1} 30 min before separation from their parents in the surgical waiting area, and Group II received oral or rectal pentobarbitone 2 mg · kg^{? 1} at 90 min, and morphine 0.2 mg· kg^{? 1} and atropine 0.02 mg· kg^{? 1} im at 60 min before separation. Heart rate, haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and anxiolysis and sedation scores were recorded at four times during the study: at baseline (immediately before premedication), immediately after administration of the premedication, at separation of children from parents in the waiting area and at the time of application of the face mask in the operating room. We found that in Group I, anxiolysis improved at separation from parents compared with baseline (P < 0.05) and sedation increased both at separation and on mask application (P < 0.05), whereas in Group II anxiolysis did not change at any time and sedation increased only at separation (P < 0.05). Intramuscular injection of morphine produced a transient decrease in mean SpO₂ (from 84% to 76%) (P < 0.05) that did not occur after ingestion of oral midazolam. The results of this study indicate that oral midazolam is a safe and effective replacement for the standard premedication for children with CCHD undergoing cardiac surgery and avoids the decrease in SpO₂ associated with im injections.     

A comparison of morphine-perphenazine and midazolam on preoperative sedation and arterial oxygen saturation

The effectiveness of midazolam and a mixture of morphine-perphenazine premedication to produce sedation and their effects on preoperative oxygen saturation (SaO2) were examined. Eighty-five patients whose SaO2 measured with a pulse oximeter was greater than 90% and who were not receiving narcotic sedatives or oxygen were randomized to three groups. Each patient had his SaO2 recorded before premedication with placebo (saline), midazolam 0.08 mg.kg-1 or morphine 0.15 mg.kg-1 with perphenazine 2.5-5.0 mg im. From 30-90 min later, prior to anaesthesia SaO2 was repeated, and a sedation score was obtained by a blinded observer using a seven point scale. Median sedation scores were greater for midazolam (4) than for morphine-perphenazine (2) and placebo (1) (P less than 0.0001). As well, there was a decrease in the SaO2 in the morphine-perphenazine group (1.7 +/- 2.7%, P less than 0.001) but not in the midazolam and placebo groups (0.1 +/- 2.3%, -0.8 +/- 2.1%). In conclusion midazolam produced greater sedation than morphine-perphenazine and placebo without effect on SaO2 whereas morphine-perphenazine showed a decrease in SaO2 preoperatively.     

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.      

Outpatient premedication: use of midazolam and opioid analgesics

The perioperative effects of administering sedative and analgesic drugs prior to outpatient surgery were evaluated. One hundred fifty adult outpatients were randomly assigned to one of six study groups according to a double-blind protocol design. Patients were given placebo (saline) or midazolam (5 mg im) 30-60 min prior to surgery, and then either placebo, oxymorphone (1 mg iv), or fentanyl (100 micrograms iv) 3-5 min prior to a standardized anesthetic technique. Preoperatively, midazolam premedication was associated with a significantly lower anxiety level (37 +/- 29 mm vs. 50 +/- 32 mm, P less than 0.05), higher sedation level (254 +/- 136 mm vs. 145 +/- 109 mm, P less than 0.01), worsening of psychomotor skill (5 +/- 5 vs. 2 +/- 2 dots missed, P less than 0.01; midazolam vs. placebo), and impaired recall abilities. In addition, use of midazolam did not prolong the discharge time. Compared to control patients, those who received fentanyl had a decreased incidence of intraoperative airway difficulties such as coughing (28% vs. 0%, P less than 0.01). Although use of opioids increased the incidence of postoperative nausea (42% vs. 18%, P less than 0.01) and vomiting (23% vs. 2%, P less than 0.01; opioid vs. no opioid), average recovery times were not affected by opioid administration. Oxymorphone use was associated with a lower incidence of pain at home compared with that following fentanyl (46% vs. 74%, P less than 0.05). Finally, preoperative administration of both midazolam and fentanyl or oxymorphone prior to a standardized methohexital-nitrous oxide anesthetic technique did not adversely affect recovery after outpatient surgery.     

A comparison of midazolam and temazepam for premedication of day case patients

One hundred patients who underwent day case surgery took part in a randomized double-blind comparison between midazolam 15 mg and temazepam 20 mg orally as premedicants. Postoperative recovery was studied using tests of psychomotor function. Midazolam produced a similar degree of anxiolysis to temazepam and a greater incidence of drowsiness. Recovery was similar after either premedicant and psychomotor function was still depressed 4 hours postoperatively (p less than 0.001). Nearly 90% of patients felt that they had benefitted from either premedicant. We conclude that midazolam is a suitable drug for premedication in day case surgery.     

Double-blind comparison of midazolam and temazepam as oral premedicants for outpatient anaesthesia

Oral premedication with midazolam 7.5 mg was compared with temazepam 20 mg in a double-blind study of sixty patients undergoing day-stay urological surgery. One hour following ingestion similar degrees of anxiolysis and sedation were reported by patients for both compounds. However, midazolam was observed by anaesthetists to produce the greater anxiolytic effect and was given the better overall assessment. Midazolam produced significantly greater amnesia both at the time of induction and 30 minutes postoperatively. At the time of discharge four hours postoperatively no significant difference could be observed in psychomotor performance or subjective sedation although on the evening of surgery the temazepam group had a greater incidence of sleepiness and an earlier time to retiring. Although the differences were small, the residual post-discharge effects of temazepam lead us to conclude that midazolam 7.5 mg is the more suitable premedicant for outpatient use.     

A comparison of triazolam and diazepam as premedication agents for minor gynaecological surgery

Triazolam 0.25 mg, diazepam 10 mg and placebo were compared in a randomized double-blind trial of oral premedication in 90 patients undergoing minor gynaecological surgery. Both triazolam and diazepam produced a significant sedative effect as measured by patient self assessment linear analogue scales but only diazepam was more anxiolytic than placebo. Psychomotor performance assessed by the letter-search test at 3 and 6 hours after awakening showed a decrement in performance in patients receiving triazolam at 3 hours compared with the two other groups. Triazolam was shown to have a pronounced amnesic effect and whilst it might be used for premedication, its lack of anxiolysis coupled with a significant impairment of psychomotor performance at 3 hours after awakening, render the drug unsuitable for premedication in the short stay patient.     

Total intravenous versus inhalational anaesthesia for colonoscopy: a prospective study of clinical recovery and psychomotor function

A randomized, prospective study was conducted on 69 patients comparing recovery after two different anaesthetic techniques for ambulatory colonoscopy. Thirty-five patients received an intravenous fentanyl (1 microg/kg), midazolam (0.05 to 0. 075 mg/kg) and propofol (10 to 20 mg boluses as required) combination. 34 patients received sevoflurane in 67% nitrous oxide. Drug administration was titrated to clinical signs. At baseline and 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes after the procedure patient performance on a comprehensive battery of psychomotor tests was recorded. Emergence times were noted. Depth of sedation was assessed at 5 minute intervals for 30 minutes after the end of the procedure. Emergence times were faster in the fentanyl/midazolam/propofol group by 2.2 minutes. A lower sedation score was detected at 20 minutes in the sevoflurane/nitrous oxide group. Psychomotor impairment was of a greater magnitude and more prolonged by 30 to 90 minutes in the fentanyl/midazolam/propofol group. It is concluded that a sevoflurane/nitrous oxide anaesthetic has a suitable recovery profile for ambulatory colonoscopy and results in faster recovery of cognitive function compared with a fentanyl, midazolam and propofol combination.