|Year : 2017 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 155-159
“Comparative evaluation of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for premedication in children undergoing anesthesia”: A 1-year double-blind randomized controlled trial
Narendra Malineni, Manjunath C Patil
Department of Anesthesiology, KLE'S Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
|Date of Web Publication||30-May-2017|
Department of Anesthesiology, KLE'S Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Belagavi - 590 010, Karnataka
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Introduction: Children undergoing surgical procedures can experience significant anxiety and distress during perioperative period. Use of sedative premedication helps to reduce anxiety and facilitate a smooth induction of anesthesia. Midazolam is the most commonly used premedication agent with adverse effects such as behavioral changes, hiccups, and paradoxical hyperactive reactions. Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective α-2 agonist, has sedative properties.
Aims and Objectives: The aim and objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for premedication in pediatric age group for parental separation anxiety and acceptance of anesthesia mask.
Materials and Methods: This study included 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists I–II patients aged 1–10 years undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under caudal epidural anesthesia. Ethical committee's clearance and informed consent were obtained. Patients were allocated into two groups by a computer-generated randomization table to receive 0.2 mg/kg intranasal midazolam in Group M and 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine in Group D intranasally using 1 ml tuberculin syringe. The Parental Separation Anxiety Scale (PSAS) and Mask Acceptance Scale (MAS) were assessed by an anesthesiologist blinded to the drug given. Heart rate and oxygen saturation were monitored till the end of the procedure.
Results: Demographic data were comparable in both groups (P > 0.05). Mean PSAS was 1.2 ± 0.40 in dexmedetomidine group and 1.6 ± 0.56 in midazolam group (P = 0.003). Mean mask acceptance score (MAS) at the time of induction was 1.7 ± 0.59 in dexmedetomidine group and 2.1 ± 0.58 in midazolam group (P = 0.02).
Conclusion: Intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg is an effective alternative for premedication in children undergoing anesthesia and it results in better parent separation and better mask acceptance at the time of induction when compared to intranasal midazolam 0.2 mg/kg without much side effects or complications.
Keywords: Anxiety, dexmedetomidine, intranasal, midazolam, premedication
|How to cite this article:|
Malineni N, Patil MC. “Comparative evaluation of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for premedication in children undergoing anesthesia”: A 1-year double-blind randomized controlled trial. Indian J Health Sci Biomed Res 2017;10:155-9
|How to cite this URL:|
Malineni N, Patil MC. “Comparative evaluation of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for premedication in children undergoing anesthesia”: A 1-year double-blind randomized controlled trial. Indian J Health Sci Biomed Res [serial online] 2017 [cited 2022 Aug 13];10:155-9. Available from: https://www.ijournalhs.org/text.asp?2017/10/2/155/207264
| Introduction|| |
Children undergoing surgical procedures can experience significant anxiety and distress during the perioperative period. They are usually uncooperative, fearful, anxious, or physically resistant, particularly during the times of parental separation, mask application, and venipuncture. Various interventions used to allay the anxiety of a child during peri-operative period are preoperative preparation programs, parental presence during induction and sedative premedication., Sedation in preoperative room remains one of the widely used methods and helps to reduce anxiety, minimize the emotional trauma, and facilitate a smooth induction of anesthesia.
Many drugs administered by different routes have been tried and used for premedication. Oral triclofos, opioids, and ketamine, etc., used as premedicants gave adequate sedation but have side effects such as nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, increase in salivary, bronchial secretions, unpleasant and vivid dreams.
Benzodiazepines are the most commonly used group of drugs for premedication. Midazolam is a water-soluble, short-acting gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor inhibitor which is used by multiple routes of administration. Administered nasally, it has a faster onset of action. Thus, it gained popularity as a premedicant in children. However, adverse effects such as postoperative behavioral changes, hiccups, and paradoxical hyperactive reactions have been observed. Dexmedetomidine, which is a highly selective alpha-2 agonist, has a faster onset of action with analgesics, has sedative properties, and it is devoid of respiratory depressive action. Dexmedetomidine is used for premedication by oral, intranasal, and intravenous (IV) routes.
Oral route is the most commonly used route for medication as it has a good acceptance by children and can be given by unskilled person. However, it has a longer onset of action and less bioavailability due to first-pass metabolism. Unpalatable drugs cannot be given by this route. IV and intramuscular routes are painful whereas rectal and sublingual routes have fewer acceptances by children. Intranasal route is relatively noninvasive, convenient, and easy, not requiring much of patient co-operation with reduced first-pass metabolism and fast onset of action.
Hence, in this study, we compared the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) and intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) as premedicants in pediatric age group in terms of parental separation anxiety and acceptance of anesthesia mask. The secondary objective was to observe the occurrence of adverse events such as bradycardia and desaturation.
| Materials and Methods|| |
After obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee and informed consent, sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II children aged 1–10 years, undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries under caudal epidural anesthesia with sedation between January 2015 and December 2015, were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups by a computer-generated randomization table into Group M receiving 0.2 mg/kg intranasal midazolam (up to a maximum 5 mg) and Group D receiving 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine intranasally using 1 ml tuberculin syringe with children in recumbent position 45–60 min before shifting them to operating room (OR). Exclusion criteria were children with a known allergy or hypersensitive reaction to dexmedetomidine or midazolam, cardiac arrhythmia, congenital heart disease, running nose, and mental retardation.
Baseline heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were noted and monitored for every 5 min after administration until patients were transferred to OR. To avoid bias, all observers and attending anesthesiologists were blinded for the study drug given. Parental separation anxiety and mask acceptance were assessed by the attending anesthesiologist.
Parental separation anxiety was assessed using the Parental Separation Anxiety Scale (PSAS), which is a 4-point scale.
- Easy separation
- Whimpers but easily reassurable
- Cries and cannot be easily reassured but not clinging to parents
- Crying and clinging to parents.
The child's ability to accept the anesthesia mask during induction in the OR was measured using Mask Acceptance Scale (MAS).
- Excellent (unafraid, cooperative, accept mask readily)
- Good (slight fear of mask, easily reassured)
- Fair (moderate fear of mask, not calmed with reassurance)
- Poor (terrified, crying or combative).
Further, the monitors were attached and patients were induced using sevoflurane and IV. cannula secured. After induction, all patients were given caudal epidural anesthesia using 1 ml/kg body weight of 0.25% bupivacaine and maintained with O2+ N2O using a face mask. Adverse events, if any, were noted till the end of the procedure.
Sample size was calculated by considering the incidence of satisfactory mask induction of dexmedetomidine sedation as 53% and that of midazolam as 18%, with Type I error rate α =0.05 and Type II error rate β = 0.02 with a power of 80%. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to determine difference between the two groups for means of the PSAS and mask acceptance scale. Quantitative data such as HR and SpO2 were analyzed using Student's t-test. P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
| Results|| |
In our study, demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups and there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between the groups [Table 1]. Preprocedure mean HR, baseline mean SpO2, and mean SpO2 after the administration of premedication were comparable in both the groups.
The mean PSAS was 1.2 + 0.40 in dexmedetomidine group and 1.6 + 0.56 in midazolam group which is statistically significant with P = 0.003. The mean mask acceptance score (MAS) at the time of induction was 1.7 + 0.59 in dexmedetomidine group and 2.1 + 0.58 in midazolam group which is statistically significant (P = 0.020). Only 2 (6.6%) children in dexmedetomidine group had MAS > 2 when compared to 6 (20%) children in midazolam group [Table 2].
| Discussion|| |
Pediatric patients undergoing surgery can experience significant anxiety and distress during the perioperative period which can lead to negative response postoperatively. Kain demonstrated that 54% of their patients had negative behavioral patterns at 2 weeks and 20% continued to have these patterns up to 6 months.
The beneficial effects of midazolam as a premedicant include sedation, anxiolysis, and amnesia. However, midazolam is associated with respiratory depression and lacks analgesic property. An increased incidence of adverse postoperative behavioral changes, hiccups, and paradoxical reactions have also been observed.
Dexmedetomidine is a newer α-2 agonist with a more selective action and a shorter half-life compared to clonidine. There is increasing evidence that dexmedetomidine is an effective and safe sedative in children and has analgesic property. It also reduces anesthetic requirement and does not cause respiratory depression.
Intranasal application is a relatively noninvasive, convenient, and easy route of administration, not requiring patient cooperation as would be the case for swallowing the medication in oral route or retaining it sublingually. Intranasal administration has faster onset of action and also reduces first-pass metabolism.
Intranasal midazolam has been used in various doses (0.01–0.5 mg/kg) as a premedicant. Davis et al. in a dose-finding study of intranasal midazolam showed that the percentage of satisfactory separation (91% vs. 90%) and induction scores (60% vs. 80%) were comparable in case of 0.2 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg dose, respectively. Hence, we decided to administer 0.2 mg/kg midazolam as premedicant by intranasal route. Intranasal dexmedetomidine has been used in doses ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 μg/kg. In a comparative study by Yuen et al., it was shown that 75% of the children in dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg group had satisfactory sedation when compared to 59.4% in 0.5 μg/kg group. Ghali et al. showed that dexmedetomidine is effective and safe intranasally in 1 μg/kg dose. Hence, we decided to use 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine intranasally.
Dexmedetomidine is known to decrease sympathetic outflow and circulating catecholamine levels and therefore would cause a decrease in HR. In a pharmacokinetic study of IV dexmedetomidine in children, it was shown that 0.66–1 μg/kg IV dexmedetomidine, given over 10 min, produced a significant reduction of HR >15% compared with baseline.
In our study, HR was decreased by 2% from baseline at 10 min and 9.1% from baseline at 30 min after intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication. Similarly, HR was decreased by 8.8% from baseline at 30 min after intranasal midazolam premedication [Figure 1]. In a comparative study of intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral midazolam by Yuen et al., HR was decreased by 11.1% and 16.4% from baseline in patients who received 0.5 and 1 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine, respectively, during the 1st h after the administration of the drug. However, these effects were clinically insignificant, and no intervention was required. In another similar comparative study by Akin et al., reduction in HR of 6.7% from baseline in the intranasal dexmedetomidine and 7% from baseline in the intranasal midazolam group was noted.
There was no evidence of oxygen desaturation, respiratory depression, or apnea in our study, which was similar to the study done by Davis et al, on 88 children, which indicates that the doses used for both intranasal-administered midazolam and dexmedetomidine are safe and comparable to the findings of other studies., In our study, the baseline mean SpO2 was 99.1% in midazolam group which was comparable to 99.2% in dexmedetomidine and the difference was not statistically significant. None of the patients in both groups had SpO2 <95% at any point of time during preprocedural monitoring [Figure 2]. Similarly, in a comparative study between intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine, SpO2% was comparable and none of the patients had SpO2 <95% at any point of time.
We also evaluated parental separation anxiety in children. Parental separation anxiety has been assessed by different scales by different authors. Yuen et al. have also evaluated parental separation anxiety. Ghali et al. used a 3-point scale  and Akin et al. used a 4-point scale at 30 min  for parental separation anxiety. In our study, we decided to assess PSAS using a 4-point scale.
Our results show that a dose of 1 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication is capable of producing a satisfactory PSAS when compared to 0.2 mg/kg intranasal midazolam (P = 0.003) [Figure 3]. This was similar to a study done by Sheta et al. who compared 72 children and found that children in dexmedetomidine group were significantly more sedated than midazolam group when they were separated from their parents (P = 0.002). Recently, Akin et al. conducted a study comparing intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine on children, aged between 2 and 9 years. Doses similar to that utilized in our study were utilized and administered approximately 45–60 min before the induction of anesthesia. They reported that there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in anxiety score (P = 0.56) upon separation from parents.
Many authors have evaluated behavior of the child while entering and/or quality of mask acceptance., We assessed acceptance of mask and behavior under sedation. In a study conducted to compare midazolam and dexmedetomidine for premedication in children undergoing complete dental rehabilitation, Sheta et al. observed that children in dexmedetomidine group were significantly more sedated and had satisfactory compliance with mask application (80.6% vs. 58.3% [P = 0.035]).
Faritus et al. studied the effect of dexmedetomidine and midazolam on sixty children  and showed a better effect on the mask acceptance behavior (mean mask acceptance score of 2.58 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.67 for midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively; P< 0.05). Our results show that the mean mask acceptance score (MAS) at the time of induction in dexmedetomidine group was 1.7 + 0.59 when compared to 2.1 + 0.58 in midazolam group, which is statistically significant (P = 0.020). Hence, we found that intranasal dexmedetomidine provides better mask acceptance score than intranasal midazolam in children.
Our study did not specifically address the issues of the patient acceptance of the drug. In a study done by Sundaram comparing intranasal midazolam and intranasal dexmedetomidine, seven children receiving midazolam were noted to become euphoric or restless after premedication, but none after dexmedetomidine.
| Conclusion|| |
In our study, we conclude that intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg is more effective and a safe alternative for premedication in children undergoing lower abdominal surgeries under caudal epidural anesthesia and it allowed better parent separation and better mask acceptance at the time of induction when compared with intranasal midazolam 0.2 mg/kg without causing much side effects or postoperative complications.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Creedon LR, Dock M. Pharmacological management of patient behavior. In: McDonald RE, Avery DR, editors. Dentistry for the Children and Adolescent. 8th
ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 2004. p. 285-311.
Kain Z, Mayes L, Caramico L, Hofstadter M. Parental presence during induction of anesthesia vs. sedative premedication. Which intervention is more effective? Anesthesiology 1999;89:1147-56.
Messeri A, Caprilli S, Busoni P. Anaesthesia induction in children: A psychological evaluation of the efficiency of parents' presence. Paediatr Anaesth 2004;14:551-6.
Ivani G, Vercellino C, Tonetti F. Ketamine: A new look to an old drug. Anesthesiology 2003;69:468-71.
Almenrader N, Passariello M, Coccetti B, Haiberger R, Pietropaoli P. Premedication in children: A comparison of oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Paediatr Anaesth 2007;17:1143-9.
Fazi L, Jantzen EC, Rose JB, Kurth CD, Watcha MF. A comparison of oral clonidine and oral midazolam as preanesthetic medications in the pediatric tonsillectomy patient. Anesth Analg 2001;92:56-61.
Akin A, Bayram A, Esmaoglu A, Tosun Z, Aksu R, Altuntas R, et al.
Dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam for premedication of pediatric patients undergoing anesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth 2012;22:871-6.
Kain ZN, Wang SM, Mayes LC, Caramico LA, Hofstadter MB. Distress during the induction of anesthesia and postoperative behavioral outcomes. Anesth Analg 1999;88:1042-7.
Mason KP, Zgleszewski SE, Dearden JL, Dumont RS, Pirich MA, Stark CD, et al.
Dexmedetomidine for pediatric sedation for computed tomography imaging studies. Anesth Analg 2006;103:57-62.
Davis PJ, Tome JA, McGowan FX Jr., Cohen IT, Latta K, Felder H. Preanesthetic medication with intranasal midazolam for brief pediatric surgical procedures. Effect on recovery and hospital discharge times. Anesthesiology 1995;82:2-5.
Yuen VM, Hui TW, Irwin MG, Yuen MK. A comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric anesthesia: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg 2008;106:1715-21.
Ghali AM, Mahfouz AK, Al-Bahrani M. Preanesthetic medication in children: A comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam. Saudi J Anaesth 2011;5:387-91. [Full text]
Faritus SZ, Khazaee-Koohpar M, Ziyaeifard M, Mehrabanian MJ. Oral dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as anesthetic premedication in children undergoing congenital heart surgery. Anesth Pain Med 2015;5:e25032.
Sheta SA, Al-Sarheed MA, Abdelhalim AA. Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for premedication in children undergoing complete dental rehabilitation: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth 2014;24:181-9.
Sundaram AL. A comparative evaluation of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for premedication in children: A double blind RCT. JIDA 2011;5:777-81.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2]