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.

Comparison Between Diuretic Urography (IVP) and Diuretic Renography for Diagnosis of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children

Background: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is one of the most common causes of urinary tract obstruction in children. Several methods are used to diagnose upper urinary tract obstruction including renal ultrasonography (US), intravenous pyelogram (IVP), diuretic renography (DR), magnetic resonance urography (MRU) and antegrade or retrograde pyelography. Nowadays it is suggested to use diuretic renography as the best method for diagnosing of UPJO. There is no comparative study between IVP and DR scan for diagnosis of UPJO in children. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare IVP with furosemide injection and diuretic renography in diagnosis of clinically significant UPJO. Patients and Methods: This was a cross sectional study performed in 153 UPJO suspected children (121 boys, 32 girls) based on US findings in cases presented with urinary tract infection (UTI), prenatal hydronephrosis, abdominal/flank pain, abdominal mass and hematuria. Renal ultrasound was used as an initial screening tool for detection of urinary tract abnormality. Vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) was ruled out by voiding cystourethrography (VCUG). Serum creatinin, blood urea nitrogen, urinalysis and urine culture was screened in all cases. IVP with furosemide and DR were performed as soon as possible after the mentioned workup. Results: During a five year period, 46 out of 153 patients were diagnosed as UPJO based on diuretic renography: the age ranged from 4 months to 13 years (mean: 3.1 ± 0.78 years). There was a significant higher (76%) proportion of UPJO in the boys and in the left side (78%). The sensitivity of IVP with furosemide injection in diagnosis of UPJO was 91.3% whereas DR was accepted as standard for diagnostic procedure in diagnosis of UPJO. Conclusions: Although DR is accepted as the best method for diagnosis of UPJO, we found a small sensitivity difference between IVP and DR in kidneys with normal or near normal function. In many settings such as small cities lacking facilities for advanced isotope imaging technology, use of IVP with diuretic maybe an acceptable procedure for diagnosis of UPJO.