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 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources

Midazolam: a review of therapeutic uses and toxicity.

Midazolam is a familiar agent commonly used in the emergency department to provide sedation prior to procedures such as laceration repair and reduction of dislocations. Midazolam is also effective in the treatment of generalized seizures, status epilepticus, and behavioral emergencies, particularly when intravenous access is not available. Midazolam is often employed as an induction agent for rapid sequence endotracheal intubation. Midazolam has a rapid onset of action following intravenous, intramuscular, oral, nasal, and rectal administration. Only 50% of an orally administered dose reaches the systemic circulation due to extensive first-pass metabolism. Midazolam is metabolized by the cytochrome P450 enzyme system to several metabolites including an active metabolite, alpha-hydroxymidazolam. Cytochrome P450 inhibitors such as cimetidine can profoundly reduce the metabolism of midazolam. Midazolam has a half-life of approximately 1 h, but this half-life may be prolonged in patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction. Midazolam has been associated with respiratory depression and cardiac arrest when used in combination with an opioid, particularly in the elderly, although all ages are at risk for respiratory depression. Midazolam is relatively free of side effects when used alone and offers several advantages over traditional pharmacological agents such as chloral hydrate and the combination of meperidine, chlorpromazine, and promethazine. Hiccups, cough, nausea, and vomiting are the most commonly reported adverse effects. Many of the adverse effects associated with midazolam can be reversed rapidly by the administration of flumazenil, a competitive benzodiazepine receptor antagonist. Midazolam is a safe and effective agent for providing sedation in the emergency department.

Procedural Sedation↗

The effects of midazolam and flumazenil on psychomotor function.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of midazolam and its antagonism with flumazenil on psychomotor function as assessed by the perceptive accuracy test (PAT) and choice reaction time (CRT). DESIGN: Double-blind, cross-over, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden. SUBJECTS: 11 healthy volunteers (6 females, 5 males, mean age 32 years). INTERVENTIONS: Midazolam 0.1 mg/kg (Group MH), midazolam 0.035 mg/kg (Group ML), or placebo (Group PL) were injected intravenously (IV) in a cross-over design. Flumazenil 0.5 mg was injected after 60 minutes. Plasma concentrations of midazolam were measured at 3, 30, 60 and 75 minutes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline values were first obtained on psychomotor tests including the PAT and CRT. These tests were then repeated 30 and 60 minutes after the IV injection of midazolam or placebo, and repeated 15 and 30 minutes following the injection of flumazenil. A dose-dependent effect of midazolam was seen on the PAT and CRT. Flumazenil completely reversed the psychomotor effects of midazolam in Group ML at 60 minutes but not in Group MH, and this action was clearly detected by the PAT. Psychomotor tests had returned to baseline values when the plasma concentration of midazolam was below 33 ng/ml. A marked inter-individual variation was seen on the PAT, CRT, and in the correlation between the plasma concentration and the results on the PAT. CONCLUSIONS: There was a dose-dependent deterioration in psychomotor performance in subjects given midazolam. The PAT was sensitive in the detection of these residual effects, but a large inter-individual variation in the psychomotor effects of midazolam was evident that could be due to pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic variability between individuals. Flumazenil in a dose of 0.5 mg IV completely reversed the effects of low-dose, but not high-dose, midazolam.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

Correlation between midazolam and lignocaine pharmacokinetics and MEGX formation in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: The objectives of the present investigation were: (a) to determine the correlation between lignocaine and midazolam pharmacokinetics following intravenous administration in healthy volunteers, (b) to determine the effects of treatment with an inhibitor of CYP3A4 (erythromycin) on this correlation and (c) to assess the precision of the MEGX-test as a sole predictor of lignocaine and midazolam pharmacokinetics. METHODS: The study was conducted in four male and four female healthy volunteers, aged between 21 and 26 years, who received 1 mg kg-1 lignocaine HCl i.v. on days 1, 3, 5, 9 and 10 of the investigation. On days 5 and 10 they also received midazolam, 0.075 mg kg-1 i.v. and from days 6-10 they took erythromycin 500 mg orally, four times daily. Following administration of lignocaine and midazolam, frequent venous blood samples were obtained for determination of the concentrations of lignocaine, MEGX and midazolam. RESULTS: In the absence of erythromycin a statistically significant linear correlation was observed between the clearance of lignocaine and midazolam (CL(midazolam)= 0.41 x CL(lignocaine)+ 1.2; r(2) = 0.857; P < 0.001). Erythromycin cotreatment resulted in a loss of the correlation between the two clearances (r(2) = 0.39; P = 0.1). Erythromycin caused a statistically significant reduction in midazolam clearance from the original value of 3.8 to 2.5 (95% CI for the difference -2.27, -0.35) ml kg-1 min-1. Interestingly there was no significant change in the clearance of lignocaine (6.4 vs 5.8 (95% CI for the difference -2.74, -1.51) ml kg-1 min-1). Furthermore no correlation at all was observed between the MEGX-test and lignocaine or midazolam clearances. Considering the data on day 1, 3 and 5 the intra-individual coefficient of variation in the MEGX-test was 45.3% at 15 min and 23.5% at 30 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that there is a significant correlation between lignocaine and midazolam clearances but this correlation is lost after CYP3A4 inhibition by erythromycin. The MEGX-test is of no value in assessing intra- and inter-individual variability in midazolam clearance.

Adult↗

Spinal and supraspinal midazolam potentiates antinociceptive effects of isoflurane.

The effects of lumbar intrathecal (i.t.) and intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) midazolam on nociception during isoflurane anaesthesia were studied in rats using the tail-flick test. Rats received i.t. midazolam 2 and 4 microg or i.c.v. midazolam 4 and 8 microg during 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3% isoflurane or without isoflurane. Neither i.t. nor i.c.v. midazolam alone at doses studied influenced nociceptive responses. 1.1% isoflurane showed a minimum antinociceptive effect which was not influenced by i.t. or i.c.v. midazolam. 1.2 and 1.3% isoflurane produced moderate antinociception which was markedly potentiated by both i.t. and i.c.v. midazolam. The effects of midazolam shown in the present study are different from the reported effects of midazolam on opioid-induced antinociception; where spinally administered midazolam potentiates and supraspinal midazolam inhibits the antinociceptive effects of morphine. The present results suggest that midazolam potentiates isoflurane-induced antinociception at doses where no effect is seen alone.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

The effects of midazolam on propofol-induced anesthesia: propofol dose requirements, mood profiles, and perioperative dreams.

UNLABELLED: This study examined the effects of midazolam on the doses of propofol required for the induction of hypnosis and the maintenance of propofol/nitrous oxide anesthesia. In addition, the effects of midazolam on the time to patient recovery, perioperative mood profiles, incidence of perioperative dreams, patient satisfaction scores, and requirement for postoperative analgesics were assessed. This investigation was a prospective, randomized, and double-blind study of female patients undergoing dilatation and curettage. Patients received midazolam (30 microg/kg, n = 30) or an equal volume of placebo (n = 30) immediately before the induction of anesthesia. Recall of dreams was assessed immediately postoperatively, in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and on the day after surgery using a questionnaire designed for surgical patients. Mood profiles were quantified using the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised, which was completed preoperatively and 1 h postoperatively. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8, an eight-item self-administered version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, was used to assess patient satisfaction on the day after surgery. Our results indicate that although the time to the loss of the lid reflex was significantly shorter in patients receiving midazolam (43.8 +/- 2.7 vs 74.7 +/- 7.6 s, P < 0.0003), there was no significant difference in the dose of propofol required to induce hypnosis or maintain anesthesia. There were no group differences in postoperative sedation and orientation scores, perioperative mood profiles, incidence of dreams, and patient satisfaction scores. More patients who received midazolam requested analgesics in the PACU (11 vs 4, P < 0.05). In conclusion, midazolam did not reduce the anesthetic dose requirement of propofol in patients undergoing anesthesia with nitrous oxide, nor did it accelerate patient recovery. Our results call into question the benefit of coinducing anesthesia with propofol and midazolam. IMPLICATIONS: Midazolam, administered immediately before anesthetic induction with propofol, did not decrease the dose of propofol necessary for hypnosis, nor the maintenance of surgical anesthesia, in female patients undergoing diagnostic dilatation and curettage. In addition, midazolam did not alter patient recovery characteristics, postoperative mood, incidence of perioperative dreams, or patient satisfaction. The use of midazolam was associated with an increased need for postoperative analgesics. Our study calls into question the benefit of administering midazolam immediately before anesthetic induction with propofol.

Affect↗

Serum and cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of midazolam after epidural administration in dogs.

UNLABELLED: The epidural administration of midazolam has analgesic effects that might be mediated by gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptors in the spinal cord. In this study, we examined both serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of midazolam after epidural administration to investigate the possibility of midazolam entering CSF directly from the epidural space. Five male mongrel dogs had catheters inserted in a femoral artery, the epidural space at L3-4, and the intrathecal space at the atlanto-occipital region under general anesthesia. Midazolam 1 mg/kg was epidurally administered, and arterial blood and CSF samples were collected until 240 min after the midazolam administration to measure midazolam concentration. Serum midazolam concentration increased and reached a peak at 30 min after the administration (224.8 +/- 30.5 ng/mL) and then decreased to 25.8 +/- 6.0 ng/mL at 240 min. Midazolam concentration in the CSF was less than the detection limit at 5 min, reached a peak at 30 min after the administration (7.2 +/- 4.7 ng/mL), and decreased to 3.6 +/- 3.3 ng/mL at 240 min. In conclusion, epidurally administered midazolam enters CSF, but CSF concentrations are only 3% of those in the systemic circulation. IMPLICATIONS: Midazolam, which has spinally mediated analgesic potency, was epidurally administered in dogs, and serum and cerebrospinal fluid concentrations were measured. Epidurally administered midazolam enters the cerebrospinal fluid, but concentrations are only 3% of those in the systemic circulation.

Animals↗

Effect of midazolam on propofol-induced positive affective state assessed by place conditioning in rats.

BACKGROUND: The effect of either midazolam or the combination of midazolam and propofol on the affective state was assessed in rats at subanesthetic doses and at recovery from anesthesia. METHODS: The putative drug(s)-induced affective states were repeatedly paired with one of two distinguishable compartments of an experimental cage, whereas the vehicle(s)-induced effect was repeatedly paired with the other compartment. During a subsequent choice test for one compartment over the other, the rats' preference for the drug(s)-paired compartment over the vehicle(s)-paired compartment is indicative of a pleasant state induced by the drug(s). In experiment 1, rats were conditioned with different doses of midazolam either at subanesthetic states or at recovery from anesthesia. In experiment 2, groups of rats were conditioned with different combinations of midazolam and propofol either at subanesthetic states or at recovery from anesthesia induced jointly by midazolam (10 mg/kg) and propofol (60 mg/kg). Experiment 3 was conducted in the same way as experiment 2, except that midazolam was paired with both compartments. In addition, these groups were tested not only in an undrugged state but also in a drugged (with midazolam) state. RESULTS: In experiment 1, rats exhibited a place preference for the environment previously associated with midazolam, at subanesthetic and anesthetic doses. Experiment 2 showed that a propofol-induced place preference was found to be dose-dependently suppressed by midazolam. Experiment 3 replicated the findings of experiment 2 and extended them to the mechanism by which midazolam blocked a propofol-induced place preference. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam administered before propofol blocked the expression of a propofol-induced pleasant state.

Affect↗

A double-blind, randomized comparison of i.v. lorazepam versus midazolam for sedation of ICU patients via a pharmacologic model.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam and midazolam, are frequently administered to surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients for postoperative sedation. To date, the pharmacology of lorazepam in critically ill patients has not been described. The aim of the current study was to characterize and compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lorazepam and midazolam administered as continuous intravenous infusions for postoperative sedation of surgical ICU patients. METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, 24 consenting adult surgical patients were given either lorazepam or midazolam in a double-blind fashion (together with either intravenous fentanyl or epidural morphine for analgesia) through target-controlled intravenous infusions titrated to maintain a moderate level of sedation for 12-72 h postoperatively. Moderate sedation was defined as a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 3 or 4. Sedation scores were measured, together with benzodiazepine plasma concentrations. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were estimated using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. RESULTS: A two-compartment model best described the pharmacokinetics of both lorazepam and midazolam. The pharmacodynamic model predicted depth of sedation for both midazolam and lorazepam with 76% accuracy. The estimated sedative potency of lorazepam was twice that of midazolam. The predicted C50,ss (plasma benzodiazepine concentrations where P(Sedation > or = ss) = 50%) values for midazolam (sedation score [SS] > or = n, where n = a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2, 3, ... 6) were 68, 101, 208, 304, and 375 ng/ml. The corresponding predicted C50,ss values for lorazepam were 34, 51, 104, 152, and 188 ng/ml, respectively. Age, fentanyl administration, and the resolving effects of surgery and anesthesia were significant covariates of benzodiazepine sedation. The relative amnestic potency of lorazepam to midazolam was 4 (observed). The predicted emergence times from sedation after a 72-h benzodiazepine infusion for light (SS = 3) and deep (SS = 5) sedation in a typical patient were 3.6 and 14.9 h for midazolam infusions and 11.9 and 31.1 h for lorazepam infusions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacology of intravenous infusions of lorazepam differs significantly from that of midazolam in critically ill patients. This results in significant delays in emergence from sedation with lorazepam as compared with midazolam when administered for ICU sedation.

Adolescent↗

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam and metabolites in nonventilated infants after craniofacial surgery.

BACKGROUND: Because information on the optimal dose of midazolam for sedation of nonventilated infants after major surgery is scant, a population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model is developed for this specific group. METHODS: Twenty-four of the 53 evaluated infants (aged 3-24 months) admitted to the Pediatric Surgery Intensive Care Unit, who required sedation judged necessary on the basis of the COMFORT-Behavior score and were randomly assigned to receive midazolam, were included in the analysis. Bispectral Index values were recorded concordantly. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling was performed using NONMEM V (GloboMax LLC, Hanover, MD). RESULTS: For midazolam, total clearance was 0.157 l/min, central volume was 3.8 l, peripheral volume was 30.2 l, and intercompartmental clearance was 0.30 l/min. Assuming 60% conversion of midazolam to 1-OH-midazolam, the volume of distribution for 1-OH-midazolam and 1-OH-midazolamglucuronide was 6.7 and 1.7 l, and clearance was 0.21 and 0.047 l/min, respectively. Depth of sedation using COMFORT-Behavior could adequately be described by a baseline, postanesthesia effect (Emax model) and midazolam effect (Emax model).The midazolam concentration at half maximum effect was 0.58 mum with a high interindividual variability of 89%. Using the Bispectral Index, in 57% of the infants the effect of midazolam could not be characterized. CONCLUSION: In nonventilated infants after major surgery, midazolam clearance is two to five times higher than in ventilated children. From the model presented, the recommended initial dosage is a loading dose of 1 mg followed by a continuous infusion of 0.5 mg/h during the night for a COMFORT-Behavior of 12-14 in infants aged 1 yr. Large interindividual variability warrants individual titration of midazolam in these children.

Aging↗

Continuous intravenous infusions of lorazepam versus midazolam for sedation during mechanical ventilatory support: a prospective, randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous infusions of lorazepam vs. midazolam for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Large, urban university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty adult medical ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilatory support. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either lorazepam or midazolam. The infusion rate was adjusted at the bedside by the ICU nurse according to a standardized study protocol to achieve and maintain sedation at Ramsay's sedation level 2 or 3. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten patients were randomized to receive lorazepam and ten to receive midazolam. The groups were similar in demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores, ICU admission diagnosis, underlying disease processes, and supplemental analgesic administration. The mean time to achieve initial adequate sedation was 124 mins for lorazepam and 105 mins for midazolam. The mean infusion rate at the point of initial sedation was 0.06 mg/kg/hr for lorazepam and 0.15 mg/kg/hr for midazolam. The maximum and mean infusion rates for the entire study period were 0.1 and 0.06 mg/kg/hr, respectively, for lorazepam and 0.29 and 0.24 mg/kg/hr, respectively, for midazolam. The number of infusion rate adjustments per day was 1.9 mg/kg/hr for lorazepam and 3.6 mg/kg/hr for midazolam. Of the surviving patients, the mean time to return to baseline mental status after discontinuation of the benzodiazepine infusion was 261 mins for lorazepam and 1815 mins for midazolam. The mean volume of fluid per day required to deliver the maximum dose of benzodiazepine was 1.2 L for lorazepam (maximum 2.4 L) and 1.3 L for midazolam (maximum 3.6 L). CONCLUSIONS: While there was a tendency to a longer time required for return to baseline mental status in patients receiving midazolam, this was not statistically significant. Findings of interest concerning both midazolam and lorazepam were: a) time to achieve sedation in medical ICU patients is often prolonged; b) actual dose requirements necessary to maintain sedation in this patient population are larger than the current literature describes; c) time to awaken after discontinuation of the infusion was occasionally delayed for > 24 hrs; d) large volumes of fluid were required to deliver these doses of drug via this route of administration.

Adult↗

Midazolam therapeutic drug monitoring in intensive care sedation: a 5-year survey.

During a 5-year period, 1997 to 2002, therapeutic drug monitoring of midazolam plasma concentrations in combination with the level of sedation as assessed by the Ramsay sedation scale was performed in 648 critically ill patients requiring artificial ventilation. In a subgroup of 189 patients sepsis-related organ failure assessment procedure was additionally performed. A total number of 3354 samples were analyzed. Significantly reduced clearance of midazolam was observed within the first 4 days of midazolam treatment of critically ill patients. As a result, accumulation of midazolam and its metabolites occurred within the first week of treatment. In contrast, parameters such as serum bilirubin or creatinine, which are commonly used to adapt drug therapy to organ dysfunction, showed significant changes with a delay of more than 10 days as compared with the findings of midazolam monitoring. Midazolam plasma concentrations showed a good correlation with the sedative capacity of the drug (r2 = 0.906). However, a great variability of the drug effect between patients could be demonstrated, which, as a consequence, may complicate the development of dosing strategies based on midazolam plasma concentrations to better control sedation in critically ill patients. Furthermore, patient age seems to be an important factor for the considerable variability of the sedative effect of midazolam. To achieve a certain levels of sedation, significantly lower midazolam infusion rates as well as plasma concentrations were required as the patients age increased. No significant sex-related differences could be observed for any pharmacologic parameter obtained in this study. Our findings suggest that midazolam therapeutic drug monitoring might be a useful tool to individualize midazolam therapy, especially in critically ill patients developing organ dysfunction and requiring long-term sedation to minimize the risk of drug accumulation and excessive sedation.

Adult↗

Discriminative-stimulus effects of triazolam and midazolam in rhesus monkeys.

The present study characterized the discriminative-stimulus effects of triazolam and midazolam in rhesus monkeys. Six monkeys discriminated 0.1 mg/kg of triazolam from vehicle under a fixed-ratio 5 (FR 5) schedule of stimulus-shock termination (SST). Four monkeys subsequently discriminated 0.56 mg/kg of midazolam from vehicle under the same schedule of reinforcement. Benzodiazepine (BDZ) agonists midazolam and diazepam, and the barbiturate pentobarbital, substituted for triazolam, and the non-competitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist ketamine did not. Triazolam, diazepam, lorazepam, flunitrazepam, as well as the barbiturates amobarbital and pentobarbital, substituted for midazolam, and ketamine did not. The BDZ antagonist flumazenil antagonized both the triazolam and midazolam discriminative stimuli. Bretazenil, a low-efficacy BDZ agonist, did not substitute for the midazolam discriminative stimulus in three of the monkeys and shifted the midazolam dose-effect curve to the right; in a fourth monkey, bretazenil substituted for midazolam and shifted the midazolam dose-effect curve to the left. Schild analyses with flumazenil or bretazenil, in combination with midazolam, yielded slopes that deviated significantly from unity. While clearly supporting the notion that BDZ agonists produce stimulus effects by acting at the gamma-aminobutyric acidA (GABA(A)) receptor complex, these data also suggest that the discriminative-stimulus effects of midazolam might be mediated by more than one BDZ receptor subtype.

Animals↗

Pharmacokinetics and preliminary observations of behavioral changes following administration of midazolam to dogs.

The pharmacokinetics of midazolam were investigated following intravenous and intramuscular administration of 0.5 mg of midazolam hydrochloride/kg of body weight to five healthy mixed-breed dogs. One dog also received the same dose of midazolam by oral and rectal routes. The disposition of midazolam following intravenous administration was characterized by very rapid and relatively extensive distribution followed by rapid elimination. Mean (+/- SD) apparent volume of distribution was 3.0 +/- 0.9 l/kg, mean elimination half-life was 77 +/- 18 min, and clearance was 27 +/- 3 ml/kg/min. Following intramuscular administration, absorption was rapid and complete. A mean peak midazolam concentration of 549 +/- 121 ng/ml was reached within 15 min, and systemic availability was over 90% in each dog. Oral administration to one dog resulted in peak midazolam concentrations within 10 min and a systemic availability of 69%. Rectal administration to the same dog yielded very low systemic availability. Midazolam was extensively bound to canine plasma proteins, with the unbound fraction representing less than 4% of the total plasma midazolam concentration. Plasma samples were also assayed for the presence of the major metabolites, 1-OH and 4-OH midazolam. Neither metabolite were detected, probably as a result of rapid elimination of these compounds by hepatic glucuronidation. Behavioral responses to administration of midazolam included initial signs of profound weakness, ataxia and transient agitation followed by a period of quiesence. A normal behavior pattern returned within 2 h of midazolam administration.

Absorption↗

Oral midazolam in children: effect of time and adjunctive therapy.

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of timing and concomitant administration of atropine and/or meperidine on the perioperative effects of oral midazolam in children. In 154 healthy children, 1-8 yr old, we studied six oral preanesthetic medication regimens according to a randomized, double-blind protocol. Group A (placebo) received 5 mL of apple juice. The other five groups received medication with apple juice to a total volume of 5 mL, 20-60 min before induction of anesthesia. Group B received atropine (0.02 mg/kg); group C received midazolam (0.5 mg/kg); group D received midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and atropine (0.02 mg/kg); group E received meperidine (1.5 mg/kg) and atropine (0.02 mg/kg); and group F received meperidine (1.5 mg/kg), atropine (0.02 mg/kg), and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg). The sedative effect of midazolam was maximal 30 min after oral administration. Ninety-five percent of the children who were separated from their parents within 45 min after oral midazolam administration (with or without atropine) had satisfactory separation scores (vs 66% of those separated after 45 min; P less than 0.02). Midazolam-treated patients were more cooperative with a mask induction of anesthesia compared with non-midazolam-treated children (83% vs 56%). Neither atropine nor meperidine appeared to significantly improve the effectiveness of oral midazolam. No preoperative changes in heart rate, respiratory rate, or hemoglobin oxygen saturation were noted in any of the treatment groups. Finally, oral midazolam did not prolong recovery even after outpatient procedures lasting less than 30 min. In conclusion, midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) given orally 30-45 min before induction of anesthesia is safe and effective without delaying recovery after ambulatory surgery.

Administration, Oral↗

[Continuous infusion of ketamine and midazolam for prolonged sedation in the intensive care unit].

The clinical effects and pharmacokinetics of ketamine and midazolam, administered continuously for prolonged sedation were studied in 7 critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation. Initially ketamine 1 mg.kg-1 and midazolam 0.1 mg.kg-1 were administered intravenously and these were followed by infusion at a rate of 1.0 mg.kg-1.hr-1 of ketamine and 0.05 mg.kg-1.hr-1 of midazolam. The infusion rate was changed every 30 minute with increments of 0.5 mg.kg-1.hr-1 of ketamine and 0.05 mg.kg-1.hr-1 of midazolam until the sedative score by Ramsy RAE reached rank 4 (i.e. slow response to loud verbal commands). The plasma concentrations of ketamine were analyzed using high performance liquid chromatography and those of midazolam using gas chromatography. The mean maintenance doses of ketamine and midazolam were 2.25 +/- 0.61 mg.kg-1.hr-1 and 0.11 +/- 0.05 mg.kg-1.hr-1 (mean +/- SD), respectively. There were no significant changes in blood pressure or heart rate before and after the injection of ketamine and midazolam in all the patients. The plasma concentrations of ketamine and midazolam were 2.98 +/- 0.20 micrograms.ml-1 and 494.1 +/- 66.7 ng.ml-1, respectively. The time to clear response to verbal commands after cessation of the continuous infusion was 168 +/- 109 min. The plasma concentrations of ketamine and midazolam decreased rapidly, and plasma half-life of ketamine was about 1 hour and for midazolam less than 2 hours. In conclusion, continuous infusion of ketamine and midazolam was very useful to sedate critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation, with minimal effect on the cardiovascular system and rapid recovery of consciousness.

Adult↗

[Pharmacokinetic studies following intravenous and rectal administration of midazolam in children].

UNLABELLED: In children, rectal midazolam is being used increasingly for premedication, as this substance is reported to have a short half-life and rapid action. Above all it is the only known diazepam derivative with a good correlation of plasma concentration and clinical action despite its receptor binding capacity. As pharmacokinetic data in children are lacking and different dose regimens for rectal premedication exist, we studied plasma concentrations in 3 groups of children. METHODS. After obtaining informed parental consent we studied children aged 3-7 years (15-30 kg body weight) ASA I status scheduled for minor elective surgery. Group 1 (n = 6) received 0.1 mg/kg midazolam i.v. for induction of anesthesia. Group 2 (n = 10) was premedicated with 0.35 mg/kg midazolam, instilled just behind the anal sphincter; group 3 (n = 5) received 0.5 mg/kg midazolam rectally. Blood samples were drawn up to 120 min after application. The anesthesia technique consisted of N2O/O2, enflurane, intubation and the use of muscle relaxants, if necessary. Midazolam plasma levels were measured by HPLC. RESULTS. There were no differences with respect to age or body weight. Group 1: half-life in children was shorter than in adults, Vdss was smaller and clearance identical. Group 2: Rectal midazolam 0.35 mg/kg has a remarkably short onset of action with peak plasma concentrations (71 ng/ml) in the range of sedative levels in adults occurring in 7.5 min. After 2 h they reached levels of 30 ng/ml. Group 3 patients had peak levels of midazolam of 246 ng/ml after 12.5 min, falling to an average concentration of 120 ng/ml after 2 h. The bioavailability of rectal midazolam, comparing the area under the median curves, is 4.7% in group 2 and 16.1% in group 3. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics of midazolam in our patients showed a shorter half-life, probably due to the higher hepatic clearance based on the high CI in children, as midazolam is known to have a first-pass effect of 30-70%. The increased metabolic transformation and the smaller amount of fatty tissue accounts for the smaller Vdss in children compared to adults. Rectal midazolam has a remarkably short onset and especially in a dose of 0.5 mg/kg prolonged action due to ongoing resorption from the rectum as demonstrated by the clinically relevant plasma concentrations. This fact must be taken into consideration in the overall anesthesia management.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Administration, Rectal↗

Azithromycin does not increase plasma concentrations of oral midazolam.

Interaction between azithromycin and midazolam was investigated in a double-blind, randomized crossover study of 2 phases. Ten healthy volunteers were given azithromycin (500 mg on day 1 and 250 mg on days 2-5) or placebo pretreatments. On day 5 they ingested 15 mg midazolam. Plasma samples were collected and psychomotor performance measured for 17 h. Azithromycin treatment increased the median (range) concentration peak time of midazolam from 1.0 (0.5-2) h to 1.25 (0.5-5) h and decreased plasma concentrations of midazolam during initial 3 hours after the intake of midazolam (p < 0.05). Mean +/- SE mean peak concentration of midazolam was decreased from 86 +/- 17 ng ml-1 to 57 +/- 9 ng ml-1 (p < 0.05). Azithromycin did neither increase the total area under concentration-time curve nor change the elimination half-life of midazolam. In Maddox wing test the maximum effects of midazolam were reached later during azithromycin phase, but no other changes were observed in pharmacodynamics of midazolam. Azithromycin may delay the absorption of midazolam, which can postpone the onset of action of midazolam.

Administration, Oral↗

Stability of midazolam hydrochloride in extemporaneously prepared flavored gelatin.

The stability of midazolam hydrochloride in flavored gelatin was evaluated after storage at 4 degrees C for 14 days and at -20 degrees C for 28 days. A flavored liquid gelatin mixture was prepared and mixed with midazolam hydrochloride injection in final concentrations of midazolam 1 and 2 mg/mL. Gelatin cups containing 5 and 15 mg of midazolam were prepared by measuring appropriate volumes of the gelatin stock solutions and were stored in a refrigerator at 4 degrees C or in a freezer at -20 degrees C. Immediately after preparation and at 7 and 14 days, three refrigerated and three frozen gelatin samples of each midazolam concentration were visually inspected, tested for pH, and assayed for midazolam concentration by high-performance liquid chromatography. The frozen gelatin samples were also evaluated at 21 and 28 days; three whole and three partial gelatin samples were assayed for midazolam content to determine the uniformity of drug distribution within each sample. All samples maintained greater than 96% of the initial midazolam concentration throughout the study. There was no appreciable change in color, odor, or pH. The midazolam content of the gelatin in the cups was uniform. An extemporaneously compounded preparation of midazolam hydrochloride in flavored gelatin was stable when stored for 14 days at 4 degrees C and for 28 days at -20 degrees C. Distribution of midazolam hydrochloride in the gelatin was uniform.

Drug Stability↗