Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Colistin in Neonates With Culture Proven Sepsis

Background: Although it is well described among adults, intravenous colistin use and its associated toxicities in newborns are poorly understood. Objectives: We present our experience of efficacy and safety of intravenous colistin in the treatment of sepsis in term and preterm neonates. Patients and Methods: The records of neonates who received colistin between January 2013 and February 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. All neonates with culture proven nosocomial infections due to multidrug resistant organisms and treated continuously with colistin for more than 72 hours were included in the study. Results: Patients were evaluated for clinical and microbiological response to the drug and its and side effects. Twelve newborn infants with mean 31.8 ± 3.5 weeks gestational age and median 1482 (810 - 3200) gram birth weight were included. 11/12 (91.7%) patients showed microbiological clearance with intravenous colistin. One patient who had recurrent cerebrospinal fluid positive culture was treated with intraventricular colistin. The major side effects observed was hyponatremia and hypokalemia in 2 (16.6%) patients, all infants required magnesium supplementation. Conclusions: Intravenous colistin administration appears to be safe and efficacious for multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections in neonates, including preterm infants. However, we believe that large prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm its efficacy and safety in neonates.

Application of Lidocaine Spray for Tracheal Intubation in Neonates - A Clinical Trial Study

Background: Tracheal intubation is extremely distressing, painful, and may influence heart rate and blood pressure. Sedatives, analgesics, and muscle relaxants are not commonly used for intubation in neonates. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of lidocaine spray as a non-intravenous drug before neonatal intubation on blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation and time of intubation. Patients and Methods: In a randomized, controlled study each neonate was randomly assigned to one of the two study groups by staffs who were not involved in the infant's care. The allocation concealment was kept in an opaque sealed envelope, and the investigators, the patient care team, and the assessors were blinded to the treatment allocation. The selected setting was NICU unit of a teaching hospital in Ilam city, Iran and participants were 60 neonates with indication of tracheal intubation with gestational age >30 weeks. Patients in the treatment group received lidocaine spray and the placebo group received spray of normal saline prior to intubation. Main outcome measurements were the mean rates of blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, intubation time and lidocaine side effects were measured before and after intubation. Results: Totally 60 newborns including 31 boys and 29 girls were entered into the study (drug group n = 30; placebo group n = 30). Boy/girl ratio in treatment and placebo groups were 1.3 and 0.88, respectively. Mean age ± SD of participants was 34.1 ± 24.8 hours (treatment: 35.3 ± 25.7; placebo: 32.9 ± 24.3; P < 0.0001). Mean weight ± SD of neonates was 2012.5 ± 969 g. Application of lidocaine spray caused a significant reduction of mean intubation time among treatment group compared with placebo group (treatment: 15.03 ± 2.2 seconds; placebo: 18.3 ± 2.3 seconds; P < 0.0001). Mean blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation rate, among neonates in treatment group was reduced after intubation compared with their relevant figures before intubation; however, their differences were not statistically significant except for mean oxygen saturation rate that was reduced significantly in placebo group. No side effects were observed during study. Conclusions: Though the current study revealed some promising results in the application of lidocaine spray during neonatal intubation without any considerable side effects; however, the current investigation could only be considered as a pilot study for further attempts in different locations with higher sample sizes and in different situations.

Efficacy and Safety of Orally Administered Intravenous Midazolam Versus a Commercially Prepared Syrup

Background: Among different categories of sedative agents, benzodiazepines have been prescribed for more than three decades to patients of all ages. The effective and predictable sedative and amnestic effects of benzodiazepines support their use in pediatric patients. Midazolam is one of the most extensively used benzodiazepines in this age group. Oral form of drug is the best accepted route of administration in children. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a commercially midazolam syrup versus orally administered IV midazolam in uncooperative dental patients. Second objective was to determine whether differences concerning sedation success can be explained by child‘s behavioral problems and dental fear. Patients and Methods: Eighty eight uncooperative dental patients (Frankl Scales 1,2) aged 3 to 6 years, and ASA I participated in this double blind, parallel randomized, controlled clinical trial. Midazolam was administered in a dose of 0.5 mg/kg for children under the age 5 and 0.2 mg/kg in patients over 5 years of age. Physiologic parameters including heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure were recorded. Behavior assessment was conducted throughout the course of treatment using Houpt Sedation Rating Scale and at critical moments of treatment (injection and cavity preparation) by North Carolina Scale. Dental fear and behavioral problems were evaluated using Child Fear Schedule Survey-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS), and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Independent t-test, Chi-Square, and Pearson correlation were used for statistical analysis. Results: Acceptable overall sedation ratings were observed in 90% and 86% of syrup and IV/Oral group respectively; Chi-Square P = 0.5. Other domains of Houpt Scale including: sleep, crying and movement were also not significantly different between groups. Physiological parameters remained in normal limits during study without significant difference between groups. Conclusions: “Orally administered IV midazolam” preparation can be used as an alternative for commercially midazolam syrup.