Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Midazolam”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

The direct effects of diazepam and midazolam on myocardial depression in cultured rat ventricular myocytes.

UNLABELLED: We examined the direct myocardial depressant effects of diazepam and midazolam and determined whether a benzodiazepine receptor antagonist, flumazenil, or an L-type Ca2+ channel agonist, Bay K 8644, affects the myocardial depression induced by diazepam and midazolam in cultured rat ventricular myocytes. Ventricular myocytes of neonatal rats were obtained by enzymatic digestion with collagenase and cultured for 6-7 days. The myocytes were stabilized in serum-free medium, and the spontaneous beating rate and amplitude were measured by determining displacement with a fiberoptic sensor. Myocytes were exposed to either diazepam or midazolam at concentrations of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100 microM. The beating rate and amplitude were measured 4 min after diazepam or midazolam administration. In other cells, either diazepam or midazolam was administered at each concentration in the presence of flumazenil or Bay K 8644. Midazolam and diazepam decreased the beating rate and amplitude concentration-dependently. These myocardial depressant effects were prevented by Bay K 8644 and, to a lesser degree, by flumazenil. Thus, the L-type Ca2+ channel is important in the direct myocardial depression caused by diazepam and midazolam. IMPLICATIONS: This study describes the direct effect of midazolam and diazepam on intrinsic myocardial contraction using cultured rat ventricular heart cells. Both of these drugs have a direct myocardial depressant effect at the cellular level, which is mainly mediated by an inhibition of the sarcolemmal L-type Ca2+ channel.

3-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 1,4-dihydro-2,6-dimethy↗
PubMed2002

Flumazenil recovers diaphragm muscle dysfunction caused by midazolam in dogs.

UNLABELLED: We studied the effects of flumazenil on diaphragm muscle dysfunction caused by midazolam in dogs. Animals were divided into three groups of eight each. In each group, anesthetic doses (0.1 mg/kg initial dose plus 0.5 mg. kg(-1). h(-1) maintenance dose) of midazolam were administered for 60 min. Immediately after the end of midazolam administration, Group 1 received no study drug; Group 2 was infused small-dose (0.004 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) flumazenil; Group 3 was infused with large-dose (0.02 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) flumazenil. We assessed diaphragm muscle function (contractility and electrical activity) by transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) and integrated electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi). After midazolam was administered in each group, Pdi at low-frequency (20-Hz) and high-frequency (100-Hz) stimulation decreased from baseline values (P < 0.05), and values of Edi at 100-Hz stimulation were less than those obtained during baseline (P < 0.05). In Group 1, Pdi and Edi to each stimulus did not change from midazolam-induced values. In Groups 2 and 3, with an infusion of flumazenil, Pdi at both stimuli and Edi at 100-Hz stimulation increased from midazolam-induced values (P < 0.05). The increase in Pdi and Edi was more in Group 3 than in Group 2 (P < 0.05). We conclude that flumazenil recovers the diaphragm muscle dysfunction (reduced contractility and inhibited electrical activity) caused by anesthetic doses of midazolam in dogs. IMPLICATIONS: In dogs, flumazenil recovers diaphragm muscle dysfunction (reduced contractility and inhibited electrical activity) caused by midazolam in a dose-related manner.

Anesthetics, Intravenous↗
PubMed2002

The differential effects of midazolam and diazepam on intracellular Ca2+ transients and contraction in adult rat ventricular myocytes.

UNLABELLED: We investigated the direct effects of midazolam and diazepam on cardiac excitation-contraction coupling in adult rat ventricular myocytes. Freshly isolated rat ventricular myocytes were loaded with fura-2/AM and field-stimulated at 28 degrees C. Intracellular Ca(2+) transients (340:380 ratio) and myocyte shortening (video edge detection) were simultaneously monitored in individual cells. Midazolam (3-100 micro M) caused a dose-dependent decrease in both peak intracellular Ca(2+) and cell shortening. Diazepam (30 and 100 micro M) increased myocyte shortening and peak Ca(2+) concomitant with a decrease in time to peak Ca(2+). A larger concentration of diazepam (>300 micro M) nearly abolished intracellular Ca(2+) and cell shortening. Midazolam (100 micro M) and diazepam (300 micro M) decreased the amount of Ca(2+) released from intracellular stores in response to caffeine. Diazepam (30 micro M), but not midazolam (10 micro M), caused a downward shift in the dose-response curve to extracellular Ca(2+) for shortening, with no concomitant effect on peak intracellular Ca(2+) transient. These results indicate that midazolam and diazepam have different inotropic effects on cardiac excitation-contraction coupling at the cellular level, which is mediated by altering the availability of intracellular-free Ca(2+). However, the benzodiazepines have no direct influence on excitation-contraction coupling in rat ventricular myocytes, except at very large doses. Inhibition of Ca(2+) release from caffeine-sensitive intracellular Ca(2+) stores may play some part in myocardial depression at the larger concentrations of benzodiazepines. Diazepam, but not midazolam, decreased myofilament responsiveness to Ca(2+). IMPLICATIONS: Midazolam and diazepam differentially alter the cardiac excitation-contraction coupling at the cellular level, which is mediated by altering the availability of intracellular free Ca(2+) in adult rat ventricular myocytes. In addition, diazepam, but not midazolam, decreases myofilament Ca(2+) sensitivity. However, the benzodiazepines have no direct influence on excitation-contraction coupling, except at very large doses.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed1982

Cerebral metabolic, vascular and protective effects of midazolam maleate: comparison to diazepam.

The effects of midazolam maleate and diazepam on cerebral metabolism and circulation were examined for each drug in six dogs maintained on N2O 70 per cent and halothane less than 0.1 per cent. Midazolam maleate at 0.2 mg/kg and diazepam at 0.3 mg/kg (the ED 100 per cent for induction of anesthesia for each drug in humans) did not decrease metabolic rate for oxygen (CMRO2) but did decrease cerebral blood flow (CBF) to about 55 per cent of control. Additional drug administrations (2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 mg/kg midazolam maleate, and 3.0 and 7.5 mg/kg diazepam) resulted in dose-related decreases in CMRO2 to a maximum of 55 per cent of control after 10.0 mg/kg midazolam maleate. Concomitant with the initial decreases in CMRO2, there was a change in the EEG as reflected by a decrease in frequency and an increase in amplitude. This EEG change suggests that 2.0 mg/kg midazolam maleate and 3.0 mg/kg diazepam represent a comparable canine anesthetic dose. Each additional dose of midazolam maleate decreased CBF to a greater extent than did the added doses of diazepam. Brain biopsies taken at the end of the midazolam maleate studies revealed a normal cerebral energy state (phosphocreatine, ATP, ADP, and AMP) and normal glucose, lactate, and pyruvate concentrations. In a hypoxic mouse model (FIO2 = 0.05), midazolam maleate provided greater protection from hypoxia (2.8 x control survival time) than diazepam (1.6 x control survival time). By comparison barbiturates in this model provide a survival time which is 4.0 x control.

Anesthetics↗
PubMed1988

Cerebral effects of high-dose midazolam and subsequent reversal with Ro 15-1788 in dogs.

The effects of a continuous high-dose infusion of midazolam on cerebral function, metabolism, and hemodynamics were studied in nine dogs receiving a spinal anesthetic and breathing 65% nitrogen/35% oxygen. In five dogs, the effects of 65% nitrous oxide (N2O) inspired and the benzodiazepine antagonist Ro 15-1788 were also examined. Midazolam was infused at a rate of 0.66 mg.kg-1.min-1 for 60 min for a total dose of 40 mg.kg-1. Cerebral metabolic rate for oxygen (CMRO2) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) (measured by venous outflow technique) both decreased until a plateau level was reached at approximately 75% of control values (4.0 +/- 0.2 ml.min-1.100 g-1 and 49 +/- 3 ml.min-1.100 g-1, respectively, mean +/- SEM). This occurred after 6-10 mg.kg-1 of midazolam, corresponding to serum midazolam levels between 18.4 +/- 3.8 and 31.2 +/- 3.3 micrograms.ml-1. Serum midazolam levels increased throughout the midazolam infusion, reaching a mean value of 53 +/- 5.5 micrograms.ml-1 by the end of the midazolam infusion. A similar plateau was seen for changes in the electroencephalogram (EEG), which never developed burst suppression. Five dogs inspired 65% nitrous oxide/35% oxygen during minutes 30-45 of the midazolam infusion, rather than 65% nitrogen/35% oxygen. Nitrous oxide had no effect upon CMRO2, but significantly increased CBF when compared to dogs receiving nitrogen. Ro 15-1788, 1.0 mg.kg-1 caused a return of CMRO2 and EEG activity to control levels. CBF and intracranial pressure (ICP) increased markedly, to greater than control levels immediately following Ro 15-1788.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Animals↗
PubMed1990

Frequent hypoxemia and apnea after sedation with midazolam and fentanyl.

More than 80 deaths have occurred after the use of midazolam (Versed), often in combination with opioids, to sedate patients undergoing various medical and surgical procedures. We investigated the respiratory effects of midazolam (0.05 mg.kg-1) and fentanyl (2.0 micrograms.kg-1) in volunteers. The incidence of hypoxemia (oxyhemoglobin saturation less than 90%) and apnea (no spontaneous respiratory effort for 15 s) and the ventilatory response to carbon dioxide were evaluated. Midazolam alone produced no significant respiratory effects. Fentanyl alone produced hypoxemia in half of the subjects and significant depression of the ventilatory response to CO2, but did not produce apnea. Midazolam and fentanyl in combination significantly increased the incidence of hypoxemia (11 of 12 subjects) and apnea (6 of 12 subjects), but did not depress the ventilatory response to CO2 more than did fentanyl alone. Adverse reactions linked to midazolam and reported to the Department of Health and Human Services highlight apnea- and hypoxia-related problems as among the most frequent adverse reactions. Seventy-eight per cent of the deaths associated with midazolam were respiratory in nature, and in 57% an opioid had also been administered. All but three of the deaths associated with the use of midazolam occurred in patients unattended by anesthesia personnel. We conclude that combining midazolam with fentanyl or other opioids produces a potent drug interaction that places patients at a high risk for hypoxemia and apnea. Adequate precautions, including monitoring of patient oxygenation with pulse oximetry, the administration of supplemental oxygen, and the availability of persons skilled in airway management are recommended when benzodiazepines are administered in combination with opioids.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

Effect of flumazenil on recovery after midazolam and propofol sedation.

BACKGROUND: Flumazenil, a benzodiazepine antagonist, reverses midazolam-induced sedation and amnesia. We designed a double-blind study to evaluate the effects of flumazenil on patient outcome when flumazenil was used to reverse large or small doses of midazolam as part of standardized monitored anesthesia care. METHODS: Ninety-nine healthy consenting women undergoing breast biopsy procedures with local anesthesia were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: group 1, propofol-placebo (control); group 2, propofol-flumazenil; group 3, midazolam-placebo; or group 4, midazolam-flumazenil. All patients received intravenous midazolam 2 mg and intravenous fentanyl 50 micrograms, followed by an infusion of either propofol 25-150 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 or midazolam 0.5-4 micrograms.kg-1.min-1. At the end of the operation, patients were intravenously administered either 10 ml saline (groups 1 and 3) or flumazenil 1 mg in 10 ml saline (groups 2 and 4). Amnesia was assessed by determining recall of pictures shown before and after the procedure. Subjective feelings of sedation, anxiety, clumsiness, and fatigue were evaluated using 100-mm visual analogue scales preoperatively and at 30-min intervals in the recovery room. Cognitive function was assessed using the digit-symbol substitution test at similar intervals. Early recovery was evaluated by the ability of the patients to be transferred directly from the operating room to the step-down unit, as well as by times to ambulation and discharge. A standardized questionnaire and telephone interview were used to assess "resedation" and other postdischarge side effects. RESULTS: Flumazenil (1 mg) enhanced early recovery and picture recall after high-dose (group 4) but not low-dose (group 2) midazolam. Only 32% of patients in group 3 were transferred directly to the step-down unit compared with 85% in group 4 (P < 0.05). Flumazenil significantly improved visual analogue scale and digit-symbol substitution test scores at the 30- and 60-min testing intervals (P < 0.05). At the 90-min interval, there were no significant differences between groups 3 and 4. Compared with group 3 (84 +/- 22 min), patients in groups 1, 2, and 4 were ready for discharge significantly earlier (60 +/- 23, 65 +/- 21, and 67 +/- 27 min, respectively) (P < 0.05). However, 33% of the patients in group 4 reported resedation after discharge (vs. 0-8% in the other three study groups) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Early recovery after breast biopsy procedures with midazolam sedation and flumazenil reversal is similar to recovery after propofol sedation. However, the beneficial effects of flumazenil were apparent only during the first 60 min after the procedure and resedation after discharge is an important consideration in the outpatient setting.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Cardiovascular responses during sedation after coronary revascularization. Incidence of myocardial ischemia and hemodynamic episodes with propofol versus midazolam. Institutions of the McSPI Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Propofol sedation offers advantages for titration and rapid emergence in the critically ill patient, but concern for adverse hemodynamic effects potentially limits its use in these patients. The current study compares the cardiovascular effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam during the first 12 h after coronary revascularization. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-one patients undergoing coronary revascularization were anesthetized using a standardized sufentanil/midazolam regimen, and assigned randomly to 12 h of sedation with either propofol or midazolam while tracheally intubated. The incidence and characteristics of hemodynamic episodes, defined as heart rate less than 60 or greater than 100 beats/min or systolic blood pressure greater than 140 or less than 90 mmHg, were determined using data electronically recorded at 1-min intervals. The presence of myocardial ischemia was determined using continuous three-channel Holter electrocardiography (ECG) and of myocardial infarctions (MI) using 12-lead ECG (Q wave MI, Minnesota Code) or creatine kinase isoenzymes (CK-MB) analysis (non-Q wave MI, peak CK-MB > 70 ng/ml, or CK-MB > 70 IU/I). RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of patients in both treatment groups had at least one hemodynamic episode during the period of postoperative sedation. Propofol sedation resulted in a 17% lower incidence of tachycardia (58% vs. 70%, propofol vs. midazolam; P = 0.04), a 28% lower incidence of hypertension (39% vs. 54%; P = 0.02), and a greater incidence of hypotension (68% vs. 51%; P = 0.01). Despite these hemodynamic effects, the incidence of myocardial ischemia did not differ between treatment groups (12% propofol vs. 13% midazolam; P = 0.66), nor did its severity, as measured by ischemic minutes per hour monitored (8.7 +/- 5.8 vs. 6.2 +/- 4.6 min/h, propofol vs. midazolam; P = 0.19) or ischemic area under the curve (6.8 +/- 4.0 vs. 5.3 +/- 4.2; P = 0.37). The incidence of cardiac death (one per group), Q wave MI (propofol, n = 7; midazolam, n = 3; P = 0.27), or non Q wave MI (propofol, n = 16; midazolam, n = 18; P = 0.81) did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic episodes occur frequently in the first 12 h after coronary revascularization. Compared with a standard sedation regimen (midazolam), propofol sedation appears to modulate postoperative hemodynamic responses by reducing the incidence and severity of tachycardia and hypertension and increasing the incidence of hypotension. Both sedation regimens appear similarly safe with respect to myocardial ischemia. These findings indicate that propofol infusion provides effective sedation without deleterious hemodynamic effects in patients recovering from cardiac surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Differential effects of etomidate, propofol, and midazolam on calcium and potassium channel currents in canine myocardial cells.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous anesthetics etomidate, propofol, and midazolam produce negative inotropic effects of various degrees. The mechanism underlying these differences is largely unknown. METHODS: The effects of intravenous anesthetics on L-type Ca2+, transient outward and inward-rectifier K+ channel currents (ICa, IKto, and IK1) were compared in canine ventricular cells using the whole-cell voltage-clamp technique. ICa and IK were elicited by progressively depolarizing cells from -40 to +40 mV, and from -90 to +60 mV, respectively. The peak amplitude and time-dependent inactivation rate of ICa and IK were measured before, during, and after the administration of equimolar concentrations (5, 30, or 60 microM) of etomidate, propofol, or midazolam. RESULTS: Exposure to etomidate, propofol, and midazolam produced a concentration-dependent inhibition of ICa. Midazolam was the most potent intravenous anesthetic; at 60 microM, etomidate, propofol, and midazolam decreased peak ICa by 16 +/- 4% (mean +/- SEM), 33 +/- 5%, and 47 +/- 5%, respectively. Etomidate, propofol, and midazolam given in a 60-microM concentration decreased IKto by 8 +/- 3%, 9 +/- 2%, and 23 +/- 3%, respectively. IK1 was decreased by 60 microM etomidate and midazolam by 20 +/- 6% and 14% +/- 5%, respectively. Propofol had no effect on IK1. CONCLUSIONS: At equimolar concentrations, intravenous anesthetics decreased the peak ICa, IKto, and IK1 with various degrees of potency. Effects of anesthetics on ICa were significantly greater compared with their effects on K+ currents. These findings suggest that the negative inotropic actions of etomidate, propofol, and midazolam are related, at least in part, to decreased ICa. Some effects, such as IK inhibition, may partially antagonize effects of decreased ICa. Indeed, the final effect of these intravenous anesthetics on myocardium will be the sum of these and other sarcolemmal and intracellular effects.

Anesthetics, Intravenous↗
PubMed1996

Interactions between midazolam and remifentanil during monitored anesthesia care.

BACKGROUND: Remifentanil, an ultra-short-acting opioid analgesic, may be useful as an intravenous adjuvant to local anesthesia for treating patient discomfort and pain during monitored anesthesia care (MAC). However, the remifentanil dose requirements, interactions with other commonly used sedative drugs (such as midazolam), and recovery characteristics after ambulatory procedures have not been determined. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of remifentanil alone and in combination with different doses of midazolam during MAC. METHODS: Eighty-one healthy consenting women scheduled for elective breast biopsy procedures were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups according to an institutional review board-approved, double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol. The study medication (containing either saline or 2 mg, 4 mg, or 8 mg of midazolam) was administered intravenously 5 min before starting an infusion of remifentanil at 0.1 microgram.kg-1.min-1. The remifentanil infusion was subsequently adjusted in 0.025- and 0.05-microgram.kg-1.min-1 increments to maintain patient comfort and adequate ventilation during the operation. The level of sedation was assessed at 1- to 10-min intervals during the procedure using the inverted observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) scale, with a score of 1 = awake, alert to 5 = asleep, unarousable. Discomfort and pain were assessed using numerical rating scales. Hemoglobin oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, blood pressure (systolic, diastolic, mean), and heart rate were monitored at 1- to 5-min intervals. Intraoperative amnesia was assessed by asking patients to recall a picture shown 5 min after the study medication was administered. Recovery was evaluated using the Aldrete score and the times to "home readiness" and actual discharge. Side effects and patient satisfaction were assessed in a follow-up telephone interview on the first postoperative day. RESULTS: Midazolam produced dose-dependent increases in the median level of sedation. Remifentanil produced a greater reduction in respiratory rate in the 4-mg and 8-mg midazolam groups. However, there were no significant differences in the hemodynamic variables or discharge times. Patients with OAA/S scores of 1 to 3 ("light" sedation) 5 min after the study medication experienced a greater incidence of intraoperative pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) compared with those with OAA/S scores of 4 to 5 ("deep" sedation). Discharge times were prolonged for patients in the light sedation group in whom PONV developed. CONCLUSIONS: Use of remifentanil alone for MAC did not provide optimal sedation during local anesthesia. However, 0.05 to 0.1 microgram.kg-1.min-1 remifentanil in combination with 2 mg midazolam given intravenously, provided effective sedation and analgesia during MAC in healthy patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists status 1 to 2. Midazolam also produced dose-dependent potentiation of remifentanil's depressant effect on respiratory rate. In outpatients receiving a combination of midazolam and remifentanil during local anesthesia, the level of sedation appears to influence the incidence of both intraoperative pruritus and PONV.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed1997

The comparative amnestic effects of midazolam, propofol, thiopental, and fentanyl at equisedative concentrations.

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated the effects of midazolam, propofol, thiopental, and fentanyl on volunteer participants' memory for words and pictures at equisedative concentrations. METHODS: Sixty-seven healthy volunteers were randomized to receive intravenous infusions of midazolam (n = 11), propofol (n = 11), thiopental (n = 10), fentanyl with ondansetron pretreatment (n = 11), ondansetron alone (n = 8), or placebo (n = 16) in a double-blind design. Three increasing and then two decreasing sedative concentrations were achieved by computer-controlled infusion in each volunteer. Measures of sedation, memory, and drug concentration were obtained at each target concentration. Drug concentrations were normalized to equisedative effects using both Emax and logistic regression methods of pharmacodynamic modeling. The serum concentrations at 50% memory effect (Cp50s) were determined using four different memory end points. The relative potencies compared with midazolam for memory impairment were determined. RESULTS: Equisedative concentrations were midazolam, 64.5 +/- 9.4 ng/ml; propofol, 0.7 +/- 0.2 microg/ml; thiopental, 2.9 /- 1.0 microg/ml; and fentanyl, 0.9 +/- 0.2 ng/ml. The Cp50s for 50% loss of memory for words were midazolam, 56 +/- 4 ng/ml; propofol, 0.62 +/- 0.04 microg/ml; thiopental, 4.5 +/- 0.3 microg/ml; and fentanyl, 3.2 +/- 0.4 ng/ml. Compared with midazolam, relative potencies (with 95% confidence intervals) were propofol, 0.96 (0.44-1.78); thiopental, 0.76 (0.52-0.94); and fentanyl, 0.34 (0.05-0.76). Large effects on memory were only produced by propofol and midazolam. CONCLUSIONS: At equal sedation, propofol produces the same degree of memory impairment as midazolam. Thiopental has mild memory effects whereas fentanyl has none. Ondansetron alone has no sedative or amnesic effects.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Actions of midazolam on GABAergic transmission in substantia gelatinosa neurons of adult rat spinal cord slices.

BACKGROUND: Although intrathecal administration of midazolam has been found to produce analgesia, how midazolam exerts this effect is not understood fully at the neuronal level in the spinal cord. METHODS: The effects of midazolam on either electrically evoked or spontaneous inhibitory transmission and on a response to exogenous gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), a GABA(A)-receptor agonist, muscimol, or glycine were evaluated in substantia gelatinosa neurons of adult rat spinal cord slices by using the whole-cell patch-clamp technique. RESULTS: Bath-applied midazolam (1 microM) prolonged the decay phase of evoked and miniature inhibitory postsynaptic currents (IPSCs), mediated by GABA(A) receptors, without a change in amplitudes, while not affecting glycine receptor-mediated miniature inhibitory postsynaptic currents in both the decay phase and the amplitude. Either GABA- or muscimol-induced currents were enhanced in amplitude by midazolam (0.1 microM) in a manner sensitive to a benzodiazepine receptor antagonist, flumazenil (1 microM); glycine currents were, however, unaltered by midazolam. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam augmented both the duration of GABA-mediated synaptic current and the amplitude of GABA-induced current by acting on the GABA(A)-benzodiazepine receptor in substantia gelatinosa neurons; this would increase the inhibitory GABAergic transmission. This may be a possible mechanism for antinociception by midazolam.

2-Amino-5-phosphonovalerate↗
PubMed2001

Speed of recovery and side-effect profile of sevoflurane sedation compared with midazolam.

BACKGROUND: Sedation for surgical procedures performed with regional or local anesthesia has usually been achieved with intravenous medications, whereas the use of volatile anesthetics has been limited. The use of sevoflurane for sedation has been suggested because of its characteristics of nonpungency, rapid induction, and quick elimination. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the quality, recovery, and side effects of sevoflurane sedation compared with midazolam. METHODS: One hundred seventy-three patients undergoing surgery with local or regional anesthesia were enrolled in a multicenter, open-label, randomized investigation comparing sedation with sevoflurane versus midazolam. Sedation level was titrated to an Observer's Assessment of Alertness--Sedation score of 3 (responds slowly to voice). Recovery was assessed objectively by Observer's Assessment of Alertness--Sedation, Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), and memory scores, and subjectively by visual analog scales. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in the sevoflurane group had to be converted to general anesthesia because of excessive movement (18 sevoflurane and 2 midazolam; P = 0.043). Of remaining patients, 141 were assessable for efficacy and recovery data (93 sevoflurane and 48 midazolam). Sevoflurane and midazolam produced dose-related sedation. Sevoflurane patients had higher DSST and memory scores during recovery. Seventy-six percent (sevoflurane) compared with 35% (midazolam) returned to baseline DSST at 30 min postoperatively (P < 0.05). More frequent excitement-disinhibition was observed with sevoflurane (15 [16%] vs. midazolam; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Sevoflurane for sedation produces faster recovery of cognitive function as measured by DSST and memory scores compared with midazolam. However, sevoflurane for sedation is complicated by a high incidence of intraoperative excitement.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Comparative study of propofol versus midazolam in the sedation of critically ill patients: results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, characteristics, duration of action, hemodynamic and biochemical effects, and side effects of propofol and midazolam used for continuous intravenous sedation of ventilated critically ill patients. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, nonblinded study. SETTING: Nine Spanish general intensive care units (ICUs). PATIENTS: Ninety-eight patients admitted to the ICU who were mechanically ventilated and required sedation for a minimum of 48 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: Propofol or midazolam was used for induction and maintenance of continuous intravenous sedation for a maximum of 5 days. The effectiveness of those two regimens was assessed according to their effects on ventilatory management and the presence of agitation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In 93% of the patients studied, there was a medical cause necessitating mechanical ventilation. The mean (+/-SD) duration of sedation was 81 +/- 25 hrs and 88 +/- 27 hrs for the propofol and midazolam groups, respectively. The induction dose was 2.24 +/- 0.43 mg/kg over 318 +/- 363 secs for propofol, and 0.22 +/-0.07 mg/kg over 33 +/-29 secs for midazolam. The maintenance dose was 2.8 +/-1.1 mg/kg/hr for propofol and 0.14 +/- 0.10 mg/kg/hr for midazolam. There was no difference regarding the opiate and muscle relaxant requirements between the two groups. Sedation with propofol was more effective in achieving patient-ventilator synchrony than that with midazolam after the first hour of treatment (p < .01). Patients sedated with propofol awoke more rapidly and with less variability that those patients sedated with midazolam (23 +/- 16 mins vs. 137 +/- 185 mins, respectively, p < .05), particularly in those patients requiring deep sedation (27 +/- 16 mins vs. 237 +/- 222 mins, respectively, p < .01). No hemodynamic or biochemical changes were detected in any of the treatment groups. During induction, five patients in the propofol group and two patients in the midazolam group had hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of critically ill patients, propofol is an effective and safe alternative for sedation, with some advantages, such as short duration of action and high effectiveness over the conventional regimen with benzodiazepines and opiates.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Sedation with intranasal midazolam in adults undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The use of intranasal (IN) midazolam in adults for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy has been evaluated in a controlled clinical study. Eighty-one patients with a mean age of 37.02 +/- 12.50 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for various reasons were included in the study. Three groups were formed according to the sedation regimen. In the first group (n = 30), patients received IN midazolam. In the second group (n = 28) intravenous (IV) midazolam was given for sedation, and the third group of patients (n = 23) received placebo before the procedures. Patients were monitored (using a pulse oximeter with an interval of 5 minutes until the 45th minute after the procedure) for arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, systolic and diastolic arterial blood pressure, and respiratory rate. Efficacy of sedation, amnesia, side effects, and patients' preferences were evaluated. Superior results regarding the efficacy of sedation has been documented with the use of IV midazolam (p < 0.001), and this was the preferred route for drug application according to the patients' answers (p < 0.01). However, regarding amnesia, IN midazolam was found to be almost equally effective as IV midazolam (p < 0.05); moreover, IN route of drug application caused significantly fewer side effects than did the IV form (p < 0.001 ). Intranasal application of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy appeared to be an interesting alternative to the IV route, the usage of which might be limited because of its potentially serious side effects. In contrast to the IV application of midazolam, the IN route may not even necessitate the monitoring of the patient during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed1997

Evaluation of intranasal midazolam in children undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous midazolam and opioids are used to produce conscious sedation in children undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). However, children may experience significant fear and anxiety before receiving these medications, especially during separation from parents and during venipuncture. Intranasal administration of midazolam represents a noninvasive method of sedating children before anxiety-producing events. The objective of this study was to determine whether premedication with intranasal midazolam reduces stress and anxiety of separation from parents and of undergoing venipuncture, while maintaining adequate sedation during EGD. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study in 40 children, aged 2 to 12 years, who were undergoing EGD. Patients in group I were premedicated with intranasal placebo (0.9% NaCl) followed 10 minutes later by intravenous midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) and intravenous meperidine (1 mg/ kg). Patients in group II were premedicated with intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) followed by intravenous placebo (0.9% NaCl) and intravenous meperidine (1 mg/kg). Anxiolysis and sedation were scored by a blinded observer, who identified minor and major negative behaviors during four observation periods: intranasal drug administration, separation from parents, venipuncture, and EGD. RESULTS: Premedication with intranasal midazolam significantly reduced negative behaviors during separation from parents (p < 0.05); however, no difference between regimens was noted during venipuncture or EGD. Negative behaviors appeared to increase during administration of intranasal midazolam or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with intranasal midazolam is effective in reducing negative behaviors during separation from parents, while it maintains sedation during the endoscopic procedure. The benefits of intranasal administration may be negated, however, by irritation, and discomfort caused by intranasal drug delivery.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed2004

Sedation during mechanical ventilation in infants and children: dexmedetomidine versus midazolam.

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare the efficacy of midazolam versus dexmedetomidine for sedation during mechanical ventilation in infants and children. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized trial in a pediatric intensive care unit in a tertiary care center. Infants and children requiring mechanical ventilation underwent a continuous infusion of either midazolam (starting dose of 0.1 mg/kg/h) or dexmedetomidine (starting dose of either 0.25 or 0.5 microg/kg/h) with intermittent morphine, as needed. The efficacy of sedation was assessed using the Ramsay sedation scale, pediatric intensive care unit sedation score, and the tracheal suctioning score as well as bispectral monitoring. RESULTS: There were 10 patients in each group. Sedation as assessed by the clinical sedation scores and the bispectral index was equivalent in the 3 groups. There were 36 morphine boluses administered to the midazolam group versus 29 and 20 morphine boluses administered respectively to the 0.25 and 0.5 microg/kg/h dexmedetomidine groups (P = 0.02 for midazolam versus 0.5 microg/kg/h dexmedetomidine). Total morphine use (mg/kg/24 h) was 0.74 +/- 0.5, 0.55 +/- 0.38, and 0.28 +/- 0.12 in the midazolam and the two dexmedetomidine groups respectively (P = not significant for midazolam versus 0.25 dexmedetomidine, P = 0.01 for midazolam versus 0.5 dexmedetomidine). In the two dexmedetomidine groups, 5 of 6 patients who at some point had a Ramsay score of 1 were less than 12 months of age while only 1 was more than 12 months of age (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At a dose of 0.25 microg/kg/h, dexmedetomidine was approximately equivalent to midazolam at 0.22 mg/kg/h. At 0.5 microg/kg/h, dexmedetomidine provided more effective sedation as demonstrated by the need for fewer bolus doses of morphine, a decrease in the 24-hour requirements for supplemental morphine, as well as a decrease in the total number of assessment points with a Ramsay score of 1 (inadequate sedation) and the number of patients who had a Ramsay score of 1.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2001

In-vivo phenotyping for CYP3A by a single-point determination of midazolam plasma concentration.

We investigated whether a single plasma midazolam concentration could serve as an accurate predictor of total midazolam clearance, an established in-vivo probe measure of cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) activity. In a retrospective analysis of data from 224 healthy volunteers, non-compartmental pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated from plasma concentration-time curves following intravenous (IV) and/or oral administration. Based on statistical moment theory, the concentration at the mean residence time (MRT) should be the best predictor of the total area under the curve (AUC). Following IV or oral midazolam administration, the average MRT was found to be approximately 3.5 h, suggesting that the optimal single sampling time to predict AUC was between 3 and 4 h. Since a 4-h data point was common to all studies incorporated into this analysis, we selected this time point for further investigation. The concentrations of midazolam measured 4 h after an IV or oral dose explained 80 and 91% of the constitutive interindividual variability in midazolam AUC, respectively. The 4-h midazolam measurement was also an excellent predictor of drug-drug interactions involving CYP3A induction and inhibition. Compared with baseline values, the direction and magnitude of change in midazolam AUC and the 4-h concentration were completely concordant for all study subjects. We conclude that a single 4-h midazolam concentration following IV or oral administration represents an accurate marker of CYP3A phenotype under constitutive and modified states. Moreover, the single-point approach offers an efficient means to phenotype and identify individuals with important genetic polymorphisms that affect CYP3A activity.

Administration, Oral↗