Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. OBJECTIVES: To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

Drug-herb interactions: eliminating toxicity with hard drug design.

By searching the literatures, it was found that a total of 32 drugs interacting with herbal medicines in humans. These drugs mainly include anticoagulants (warfarin, aspirin and phenprocoumon), sedatives and antidepressants (midazolam, alprazolam and amitriptyline), oral contraceptives, anti-HIV agents (indinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir), cardiovascular drug (digoxin), immunosuppressants (cyclosporine and tacrolimus) and anticancer drugs (imatinib and irinotecan). Most of them are substrates for cytochrome P450s (CYPs) and/or P-glycoprotein (PgP) and many of which have narrow therapeutic indices. However, several drugs including acetaminophen, carbamazepine, mycophenolic acid, and pravastatin did not interact with herbs. Both pharmacokinetic (e.g. induction of hepatic CYPs and intestinal PgP) and/or pharmacodynamic mechanisms (e.g. synergistic or antagonistic interaction on the same drug target) may be involved in drug-herb interactions, leading of altered drug clearance, response and toxicity. Toxicity arising from drug-herb interactions may be minor, moderate, or even fatal, depending on a number of factors associated with the patients, herbs and drugs. Predicting drug-herb interactions, timely identification of drugs that interact with herbs, and therapeutic drug monitoring may minimize toxic drug-herb interactions. It is likely to predict pharmacokinetic herb-drug interactions by following the pharmacokinetic principles and using proper models that are used for predicting drug-drug interactions. Identification of drugs that interact with herbs can be incorporated into the early stages of drug development. A fourth approach for circumventing toxicity arising from drug-herb interactions is proper design of drugs with minimal potential for herbal interaction. So-called ”hard drugs” that are not metabolized by CYPs and not transported by PgP are believed not to interact with herbs due to their unique pharmacokinetic properties. More studies are needed and new approached are required to minimize toxicity arising from drug-herb interactions.

Herb-drug interactions: a literature review

Herbs are often administered in combination with therapeutic drugs, raising the potential of herb-drug interactions. An extensive review of the literature identified reported herb-drug interactions with clinical significance, many of which are from case reports and limited clinical observations.
Cases have been published reporting enhanced anticoagulation and bleeding when patients on long-term warfarin therapy also took Salvia miltiorrhiza (danshen). Allium sativum (garlic) decreased the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration of saquinavir, but not ritonavir and paracetamol (acetaminophen), in volunteers. A. sativum increased the clotting time and international normalised ratio of warfarin and caused hypoglycaemia when taken with chlorpropamide. Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo) caused bleeding when combined with warfarin or aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), raised blood pressure when combined with a thiazide diuretic and even caused coma when combined with trazodone in patients. Panax ginseng (ginseng) reduced the blood concentrations of alcohol (ethanol) and warfarin, and induced mania when used concomitantly with phenelzine, but ginseng increased the efficacy of influenza vaccination. Scutellaria baicalensis (huangqin) ameliorated irinotecan-induced gastrointestinal toxicity in cancer patients.
Piper methysticum (kava) increased the 'off' periods in patients with parkinsonism taking levodopa and induced a semicomatose state when given concomitantly with alprazolam. Kava enhanced the hypnotic effect of alcohol in mice, but this was not observed in humans. Silybum marianum (milk thistle) decreased the trough concentrations of indinavir in humans. Piperine from black (Piper nigrum Linn) and long (P. longum Linn) peppers increased the AUC of phenytoin, propranolol and theophylline in healthy volunteers and plasma concentrations of rifamipicin (rifampin) in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Eleutheroccus senticosus (Siberian ginseng) increased the serum concentration of digoxin, but did not alter the pharmacokinetics of dextromethorphan and alprazolam in humans. Hypericum perforatum (hypericum; St John's wort) decreased the blood concentrations of ciclosporin (cyclosporin), midazolam, tacrolimus, amitriptyline, digoxin, indinavir, warfarin, phenprocoumon and theophylline, but did not alter the pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine, pravastatin, mycophenolate mofetil and dextromethorphan. Cases have been reported where decreased ciclosporin concentrations led to organ rejection. Hypericum also caused breakthrough bleeding and unplanned pregnancies when used concomitantly with oral contraceptives. It also caused serotonin syndrome when used in combination with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. sertraline and paroxetine).
In conclusion, interactions between herbal medicines and prescribed drugs can occur and may lead to serious clinical consequences. There are other theoretical interactions indicated by preclinical data. Both pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic mechanisms have been considered to play a role in these interactions, although the underlying mechanisms for the altered drug effects and/or concentrations by concomitant herbal medicines are yet to be determined. The clinical importance of herb-drug interactions depends on many factors associated with the particular herb, drug and patient. Herbs should be appropriately labeled to alert consumers to potential interactions when concomitantly used with drugs, and to recommend a consultation with their general practitioners and other medical carers.

Pain relief for the removal of femoral sheath in interventional cardiology adult patients (Review)

Pain relief for removal of femoral sheath after cardiac procedures
Procedures for the non-surgical management of coronary heart disease include balloon angioplasty and intracoronary stenting. At the start of each procedure an introducer sheath is inserted through the skin (percutaneously) into an artery, frequently a femoral artery in the groin. This allows the different catheters used for the procedure to be exchanged easily without causing trauma to the skin. At the end of the procedure the sheath is removed and, if the puncture site isn't "sealed" using a device closure, firm pressure is required over the site for 30 minutes or more to control any bleeding and reduce vascular complications. Removing the sheath and the firm pressure required to control bleeding can cause pain, although this is generally mild. Some centres routinely give pain relief before removal such as intravenous morphine, or an injection of a local anaesthetic in the soft tissue around the sheath (called a subcutaneous injection). Adequate pain control during sheath removal is also associated with a reduced incidence of a vasovagal reaction, a potentially serious complication involving a sudden drop of blood pressure and a slowed heart rate. Four studies were reviewed in total. Three trials involving 498 participants compared subcutaneous lignocaine, a short acting local anaesthetic, with a control group (participants received either no pain relief or an inactive substance known as a placebo). Two trials involving 399 people compared intravenous opioids (fentanyl or morphine) and an anxiolytic (midazolam) with a control group. One trial involving 60 people compared subcutaneous levobupivacaine, a long acting local anaesthetic, with a control group. Intravenous pain regimens and subcutaneous levobupivacaine appear to reduce the pain experienced during femoral sheath removal. However, the size of the reduction was small. A significant reduction in pain was not experienced by participants who received subcutaneous lignocaine or who were in the control group. There was insufficient data to determine a correlation between pain relief administration and either adverse events or complications. Some patients may benefit from routine pain relief using levobupivacaine or intravenous pain regimens. Identifying who may potentially benefit from pain relief requires clinical judgement and consideration of patient preference. The mild level of pain generally experienced during this procedure should not influence the decision as some people can experience moderate levels of pain.

General anaesthesia or conscious sedation for painful procedures in childhood cancer: the family's perspective

Background: Until recently, midazolam sedation was routinely used in our institution for bone marrow aspirates and lumbar punctures in children with cancer. It has been perceived by many doctors and nurses as being well tolerated by children and their families.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of inhalational general anaesthesia and midazolam sedation for these procedures.

Methods: A total of 96 children with neoplastic disorders, who received either inhalational general anaesthesia with sevoflurane, nitrous oxide, and oxygen (GA) or sedation with oral or nasal midazolam (SED) as part of their routine preparation for procedures were studied. The experiences of these childen were examined during their current procedure and during their first ever procedure. Main outcome measures were the degree of physical restraint used on the child, and the levels of distress and pain experienced by the child during the current procedure and during the first procedure. The family‘s preference for future procedures was also determined.

Results: During 102 procedures under GA, restraint was needed on four occasions (4%) when the anaesthetic mask was first applied, minimal pain was reported, and children were reported as distressed about 25% of the time. During 80 SED procedures, restraint was required in 94%, firm restraint was required in 66%, the child could not be restrained in 14%, median pain score was 6 (scale 0 (no pain) to 6 (maximum pain)), and 90% of the parents reported distress in their child. Ninety per cent of families wanted GA for future procedures. Many families reported dissatisfaction with the sedation regime and raised concerns about the restraint used on their child.

Conclusions: This general anaesthetic regime minimised the need for restraint and was associated with low levels of pain and distress. The sedation regime, by contrast, was much less effective. There was a significant disparity between the perceptions of health professionals and those of families with respect to how children coped with painful procedures.

Herb-drug interactions and mechanistic and clinical considerations

Herbal medicines are often used in combination with conventional drugs, and this may give rise to the potential of harmful herb-drug interactions. This paper updates our knowledge on clinical herb-drug interactions with an emphasis of the mechanistic and clinical consideration. In silico, in vitro, animal and human studies are often used to predict and/or identify drug interactions with herbal remedies. To date, a number of clinically important herb-drug interactions have been reported, but many of them are from case reports and limited clinical observations. Common herbal medicines that interact with drugs include St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum), ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba), ginger (Zingiber officinale), ginseng (Panax ginseng), and garlic (Allium sativum). For example, St John's wort significantly reduced the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and blood concentrations of cyclosporine, midazolam, tacrolimus, amitriptyline, digoxin, indinavir, warfarin, phenprocoumon and theophylline. The common drugs that interact with herbal medicines include warfarin, midazolam, digoxin, amitriptyline, indinavir, cyclosporine, tacrolimus and irinotecan. Herbal medicines may interact with drugs at the intestine, liver, kidneys, and targets of action. Importantly, many of these drugs have very narrow therapeutic indices. Most of them are substrates for cytochrome P450s (CYPs) and/or P-glycoprotein (P-gp). The underlying mechanisms for most reported herb-drug interactions are not fully understood, and pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic mechanisms are implicated in many of these interactions. In particular, enzyme induction and inhibition may play an important role in the occurrence of some herbdrug interactions. Because herb-drug interactions can significantly affect circulating levels of drug and, hence, alter the clinical outcome, the identification of herb-drug interactions has important implications.

Prospective observational study of emergent endotracheal intubation practice in the intensive care unit and emergency department of an Australian regional tertiary hospital

Objective: The present study aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of intubation occurring in the ICU and ED of an Australian tertiary teaching hospital. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of intubation practice across the Geelong Hospital over a 6 month period from 1 August 2012 to 31 January 2013. Data were entered by the intubating team through an online data collection form. Results: There were 119 patients intubated and 134 attempts at intubation in the ED and ICU over a 6 month period. The first-pass success rate was 104/119 (87.4%), and all but a single patient was intubated by the second attempt. Propofol, fentanyl, midazolam and suxamethonium were the most common drugs used in rapid sequence induction. AEs were reported in 44/134 (32.8%) of intubation attempts, with transient hypoxia and hypotension being the most common. A significant adverse outcome, namely aspiration pneumonitis, occurred in one patient. There were no peri-intubation deaths. Conclusion: The majority of airways are managed by ICU and ED consultants and trainees, with success rates and AE rates comparable with other published studies. © 2014 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine.

Trajectory of sedation assessment and sedative use in intubated and ventilated patients in intensive care: a clinical audit

Background: Sedation is crucial for the recovery of patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Maintaining comfort and safety promotes optimal care for critically ill patients. Purpose: To examine sedation assessment and management undertaken by health professionals for mechanically ventilated patients in one Australian ICU. Methods: A retrospective clinical audit was undertaken of medical records of all eligible, mechanically ventilated patients admitted to an ICU of an Australian metropolitan, teaching hospital over a 12-month period. A Sedation Audit Tool was used to collect data from the day of intubation to 5 days after intubation. Findings: Data were extracted from medical records of 150 patients. The Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) was the scoring system used. Patients were unarousable or very sedated between 57% and 81% at some point during the study period, while between 5% and 11% were agitated, very agitated or extremely agitated across this time. Patients' sedation scores were not documented in between 3.3% and 23.3% of patients. Medications commonly used were propofol, midazolam, morphine, and fentanyl. There were 135 situations of adverse events, which related to patients pulling endotracheal tubes leading to malpositioning, patients biting endotracheal tubes causing desaturation, patient experiencing excessive agitation requiring restraint use, patients experiencing increased intracranial pressure above desired limits, patients self-extubating, and patients experiencing over-drowsiness leading to delays in extubation. Conclusions: Many patients were either very sedated or agitated at some point during the study period, and some patients experienced adverse outcomes associated with sedation practices. The findings inform future quality initiatives to improve sedation practices.

The effects of a designer music intervention on patients' anxiety, pain, and experience of colonoscopy: a short report on a pilot study.

There is a controversy on whether listening to music before or during colonoscopy reduces anxiety and pain and improves satisfaction and compliance with the procedure. This study aimed to establish whether specifically designed music significantly affects anxiety, pain, and experience associated with colonoscopy. In this semirandomized controlled study, 34 patients undergoing a colonoscopy were provided with either muted headphones (n = 17) or headphones playing the investigator-selected music (n = 17) for 10 minutes before and during colonoscopy. Anxiety, pain, sedation dose, and overall experience were measured using quantitative measures and scales. Participants' state anxiety decreased over time (P < .001). However, music did not significantly reduce anxiety (P = .441), pain scores (P = .313), or midazolam (P = .327) or fentanyl doses (P = .295). Despite these findings, 100% of the music group indicated that they would want music if they were to repeat the procedure, as compared with only 50% of those in the nonmusic group wanting to wear muted headphones. Although no significant effects of music on pain, anxiety, and sedation were found, a clear preference for music was expressed, therefore warranting further research on this subject.