Indian journal of pediatrics · 2005
Intramuscular midazolam vs intravenous diazepam for acute seizures.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shah Ira, Deshmukh C T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine effectiveness of intramuscular midazolam to control acute seizures in children as compared to intravenous diazepam.
METHODS: 115 children in the age group of 1 month to 12 years who presented with acute convulsions were enrolled in the study. Patients who already had an intravenous access present were treated intravenous diazepam. Patients without an i.v. access at the time of convulsions were randomised into 2 groups and treated with either intramuscular midazolam or intravenous diazepam for control of seizures. Time interval from administration of drug to cessation of seizures was compared. Effectiveness of i.m. midazolam in various age groups, types of convulsions and etiology of convulsions was analyzed. Side effects of both drugs were evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean interval to cessation of convulsions with i.m. midazolam was 97.22 seconds whereas in diazepam group without prior i.v. access it was 250.35 seconds and in diazepam group with prior i.v. access it was 119.4 seconds. i.m. midazolam acted faster in all age groups and in patients with febrile convulsions, which was statistically significant. i.m. midazolam was equally effective in various types of convulsions be it GTC or focal convulsions. 7 patients (10.8%) had thrombophlebitis associated with i.v. diazepam administration whereas none of the patients in the midazolam group had any side effects, which was statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: i.m. midazolam is an effective agent for controlling acute convulsions in children especially in children with febrile convulsions. It has relatively no side effects as compared to Intravenous diazepam and can be used as a first line agent for treatment of acute convulsions in patients with difficult intravenous access.
METHODS: 115 children in the age group of 1 month to 12 years who presented with acute convulsions were enrolled in the study. Patients who already had an intravenous access present were treated intravenous diazepam. Patients without an i.v. access at the time of convulsions were randomised into 2 groups and treated with either intramuscular midazolam or intravenous diazepam for control of seizures. Time interval from administration of drug to cessation of seizures was compared. Effectiveness of i.m. midazolam in various age groups, types of convulsions and etiology of convulsions was analyzed. Side effects of both drugs were evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean interval to cessation of convulsions with i.m. midazolam was 97.22 seconds whereas in diazepam group without prior i.v. access it was 250.35 seconds and in diazepam group with prior i.v. access it was 119.4 seconds. i.m. midazolam acted faster in all age groups and in patients with febrile convulsions, which was statistically significant. i.m. midazolam was equally effective in various types of convulsions be it GTC or focal convulsions. 7 patients (10.8%) had thrombophlebitis associated with i.v. diazepam administration whereas none of the patients in the midazolam group had any side effects, which was statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: i.m. midazolam is an effective agent for controlling acute convulsions in children especially in children with febrile convulsions. It has relatively no side effects as compared to Intravenous diazepam and can be used as a first line agent for treatment of acute convulsions in patients with difficult intravenous access.