Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials

Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.

The effects of dexmedetomidine/remifentanil and midazolam/remifentanil on auditory-evoked potentials and electroencephalogram at light-to-moderate sedation levels in healthy subjects

Avoidance of excessively deep sedation levels is problematic in intensive care patients. Electrophysiologic monitoring may offer an approach to solving this problem. Since electroencephalogram (EEG) responses to different sedation regimens vary, we assessed electrophysiologic responses to two sedative drug regimens in 10 healthy volunteers. Dexmedetomidine/remifentanil (dex/remi group) and midazolam/remifentanil (mida/remi group) were infused 7 days apart. Each combination of medications was given at stepwise intervals to reach Ramsay scores (RS) 2, 3, and 4. Resting EEG, bispectral index (BIS), and the N100 amplitudes of long-latency auditory-evoked potentials (ERP) were recorded at each level of sedation. During dex/remi, resting EEG was characterized by a recurrent high-power low-frequency pattern which became more pronounced at deeper levels of sedation. BIS Index decreased uniformly in only the dex/remi group (from 94 +/- 3 at baseline to 58 +/- 14 at RS 4) compared to the mida/remi group (from 94 +/- 2 to 76 +/- 10; P = 0.029 between groups). The ERP amplitudes decreased from 5.3 +/- 1.3 at baseline to 0.4 +/- 1.1 at RS 4 (P = 0.003) in only the mida/remi group. We conclude that ERPs in volunteers sedated with dex/remi, in contrast to mida/remi, indicate a cortical response to acoustic stimuli, even when sedation reaches deeper levels. Consequently, ERP can monitor sedation with midazolam but not with dexmedetomidine. The reverse is true for BIS.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol/midazolam for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation

PURPOSE: To compare dexmedetomidine (DEX) with standard care (SC, either propofol or midazolam) for long-term sedation in terms of maintaining target sedation and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. METHODS: A pilot, phase III, double-blind multicenter study in randomized medical and surgical patients (n = 85) within the first 72 h of ICU stay with an expected ICU stay of >or=48 h and sedation need for >or=24 h after randomization. Patients were assigned to either DEX (

Intra- and inter-individual variation of BIS-index and Entropy during controlled sedation with midazolam/remifentanil and dexmedetomidine/remifentanil in healthy volunteers: an interventional study

INTRODUCTION: We studied intra-individual and inter-individual variability of two online sedation monitors, BIS and Entropy, in volunteers under sedation. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were sedated in a stepwise manner with doses of either midazolam and remifentanil or dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. One week later the procedure was repeated with the remaining drug combination. The doses were adjusted to achieve three different sedation levels (Ramsay Scores 2, 3 and 4) and controlled by a computer-driven drug-delivery system to maintain stable plasma concentrations of the drugs. At each level of sedation, BIS and Entropy (response entropy and state entropy) values were recorded for 20 minutes. Baseline recordings were obtained before the sedative medications were administered. RESULTS: Both inter-individual and intra-individual variability increased as the sedation level deepened. Entropy values showed greater variability than BIS(R) values, and the variability was greater during dexmedetomidine/remifentanil sedation than during midazolam/remifentanil sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The large intra-individual and inter-individual variability of BIS and Entropy values in sedated volunteers makes the determination of sedation levels by processed electroencephalogram (EEG) variables impossible. Reports in the literature which draw conclusions based on processed EEG variables obtained from sedated intensive care unit (ICU) patients may be inaccurate due to this variability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Nr. NCT00641563.

Anaesthesia with medetomidine-ketamine-isoflurane with and without midazolam, in eight captive Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) premedicated with oral zuclopenthixol

In 8 captive adult chimpanzees of various ages premedicated with oral zuclopenthixol anaesthesia was induced intramuscularly with a combination of medetomidine and ketamine (40 or 50 µg/kg and 5 mg/kg, IM, respectively), with and without midazolam (0.05 mg/kg), and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. At the end of the procedure, sedation was reversed with atipamezole (0.25 mg/kg, IM) and sarmazenil (0.005 mg/kg, IM) when midazolam had been administered. Oral zuclopenthixol resulted in tranquillization of the whole group and only one animal required a second dart injection to achieve adequately deep anaesthesia. Effective and reliable anaesthesia was achieved in all apes; the depth of hypnosis was stable and sudden arousal did not occur. Physiological parameters remained within normal ranges in the majority of the animals; however, manageable anaesthesia-related complications, namely apnoea after darting, hypotension, hypoventilation, hypoxemia and prolonged recovery, occurred in 6 out of 8 animals. The use of monitoring devices was essential to guarantee adequate management of these complications.

Anaesthesia with medetomidine, midazolam and ketamine in six gorillas after premedication with oral zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of medetomidine, midazolam and ketamine (MMK) in captive gorillas after premedication with oral zuclopenthixol. STUDY DESIGN Case series. ANIMALS Six gorillas, two males and four females, aged 9-52 years and weighing 63-155 kg. METHODS The gorillas were given zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride 0.2 ± 0.05 mg kg(-1) per os twice daily for 3 days for premedication. On the day of anaesthesia the dose of zuclopenthixol was increased to 0.27 mg kg(-1) and given once early in the morning. Anaesthesia was induced with medetomidine 0.04 ± 0.004 mg kg(-1) , midazolam 0.048 ± 0.003 mg kg(-1) and ketamine 4.9 ± 0.4 mg kg(-1) intramuscularly (IM). Upon recumbency, the trachea was intubated and anaesthesia was maintained on 1-2% isoflurane in oxygen. Physiological parameters were monitored every 10 minutes and arterial blood gas analysis was performed once 30-50 minutes after initial darting. At the end of the procedure, 42-115 minutes after initial darting, immobilisation was antagonized with atipamezole 0.21 ± 0.03 mg kg(-1) and sarmazenil 5 ± 0.4 μg kg(-1) IM. RESULTS Recumbency was reached within 10 minutes in five out of six animals. One animal required two additional darts before intubation was feasible. Heart rate ranged from 60 to 85 beats minute(-1) , respiratory rate from 17 to 46 breaths minute(-1) and temperature from 36.9 to 38.3 °C. No spontaneous recoveries were observed and anaesthetic level was stable. Blood gas analyses revealed mild respiratory acidosis, and mean PaO(2) was 24.87 ± 17.16 kPa (187 ± 129 mmHg) with all values being above 13.4 kPa (101 mmHg). Recovery was smooth and gorillas were sitting within 25 minutes. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE The drug combination proved to be effective in anaesthetizing captive gorillas of various ages and both sexes, with minimal cardio-respiratory changes.

Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Estudio cronobiológico de la respuesta farmacológica y la variación de parámetros hemodinámicos de la combinación etomidato-Midazolam en perros y gatos

Una doctrina fundamental de la biología, la medicina, la fisiología o la farmacología es la relativa constancia del medio biológico interno (Homeostasis). Las variables homeostáticas no se mantienen a un nivel constante, sino dentro de un cierto intervalo de valores repetidos a intervalos regulares (Ritmos Biológicos); cuando dicho ciclo se cumple en un periodo de 24 h se denomina Ritmo Circadiano. Los sincronizadores que definen este ritmo son, entre otros, la alternancia luz-oscuridad o la rutina de sueño (descanso-actividad). La Cronobiología estudia los ritmos biológicos y sus mecanismos de cronometraje, determinando la influencia que los mismos pueden ejercer en los seres vivos. La Cronofarmacología, a su vez, estudia los efectos de los fármacos en función del ritmo circadiano (bien por alteraciones en su cinética: cronofarmacocinética; o en su dinamia: cronofarmacodinamia), determinando el período decisivo de su administración, para conseguir un aumento de su eficacia y/o disminución de sus efectos adversos. Estas alteraciones son, particularmente, importantes en aquellos grupos farmacológicos más críticos como los anestésicos, ya que existen diferencias en la capacidad anestesia dependientes de la hora del día en que se administran estos fármacos. El etomidato es un agente anestésico no barbitúrico de acción rápida, recomendado para la inducción anestésica en animales que presentan patologías que comprometen su estabilidad hemodinámica, ya que no provoca alteraciones severas en el sistema cardiovascular o en la presión intracraneal. Actúa facilitando la transmisión mediada por GABA, al interactuar con una zona alostérica del complejo receptor GABA – ionóforo Cl-...

A randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of adjuvant intrathecal 2 mg midazolam to 20 micrograms fentanyl on postoperative pain for patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

Background: Intrathecal adjuvants are added to local anaesthetics to improve the quality of neuraxial blockade and prolong the duration of analgesia during spinal anaesthesia. Used intrathecally, fentanyl improves the quality of spinal blockade as compared to plain bupivacaine and confers a short duration of post-operative analgesia. Intrathecal midazolam as an adjuvant has been used and shown to improve the quality of spinal anaesthesia and prolong the duration of post-operative analgesia. No studies have been done comparing intrathecal fentanyl with bupivacaine and intrathecal 2 mg midazolam with bupivacaine. Objective: To compare the effect of intrathecal 2 mg midazolam to intrathecal 20 micrograms fentanyl when added to 2.6 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, on post-operative pain, in patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia. Methods: A total of 40 patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia were randomized to two groups. Group 1: 2.6mls 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.4mls (20micrograms) fentanyl Group 2: 2.6mls of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 0.4mls (2mg) midazolam Results: The duration of effective analgesia was longer in the midazolam group (384.05 minutes) as compared to the fentanyl group (342.6 minutes). There was no significant difference (P 0.4047). The time to onset was significantly longer in midazolam group 17.1 minutes as compared to the fentanyl group 13.2 minutes (P 0.023). The visual analogue score at rescue was significantly lower in the midazolam group (5.55) as compared to the fentanyl group 6.35 (P - 0.043). Conclusion: On the basis of the results of this study, there was no significant difference in the duration of effective analgesia between adjuvant intrathecal 2 mg midazolam as compared to intrathecal 20 micrograms fentanyl for patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery.

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.

Premedicación con midazolam vía oral en pacientes pediátricos, Hospitales Vicente Corral Moscoso, José Carrasco Arteaga Cuenca 1996 -1997

Objetivos: Disminuir la ansiedad y el estrés que presentan los niños que van a ser sometidos a intervenciones quirúrgicas, antes de ingresar a la sala de operaciones. Materiales y Métodos: Se incluyeron 128 niños de ambos sexos, ASA I-II entre 1 y 12 años, sometidos a cirugía en los hospitales José Carrasco de IESS y Vicente Corral del MSP, de la ciudad de Cuenca, desde noviembre de 1996 hasta noviembre de 1997. Se formaron dos grupos aleatorizados: a] grupo CON MIDAZOLAM [Mz], 64 niños a los que se administró midazolam por vía oral 0.25 mg/kg, diluido en +- 5 ml. de una solución azucarada 30 min. antes de la inducción anestésica, y b] grupo SIN MIDAZOLAM [Ctrl], 64 pacientes para control a los que se adminstró únicamente solución azucarada. Ambos grupos tuvieron valoración clínica y de laboratorio. Se monitorizó los signos vitales antes de la premedicación, a los 30 min. de ella y en el transanestésico. Para valoración del estado emocional se utilizó una escala visual semejante a la escala Oucher. Resultados: la edad promedio en el grupo Mz fue de 5.89 +- 1.65 años y en el grupo Ctrl de 5.23 +- 1.24 años. El peso promedio en el grupo Mz fue de 14.98 +- 4.58 kg. y en grupo Ctrl de 15.35 +- 7.35 kg. Las diferencias no fueron significaticas. Hubo un predominio de varones en ambos grupos dependiente del tipo de intervención, cerca del 70 por ciento de las intervenciones fueron de urología y traumatología y ortopedia. En el grupo Mz se registró una mayor disminución de la respiración, frecuencia cardíaca y tensión arterial [p<0.05]. La Sp02 fue menor en el grupo Mz pero la respuesta psicológica a la inducción anestésica fue mayor [p<0.05]. Hubo un 6.25 por ciento de reacciones secundarias como mareo, diaforesis y somnolencia. Conclusiones: Los niños de 1 a 12 años que se someten a ciurugías ambulatorias y que son premedicados con midazolam, presentan: sedación, tranquilidad y disminución de: oximetría, tensión arterial tanto sistólica como diastólica, frecuencia cardíaca y frecuencia respiratoria, dentro de valores fisiológicamente tolerables

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.