MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/s0196-0644(94)70274-8

Медицинская библиотека · Annals of emergency medicine · 1994

A comparison of intranasal sufentanil and midazolam to intramuscular meperidine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine for conscious sedation in children.

Bates B A, Schutzman S A, Fleisher G R

Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To compare intranasal sufentanil and midazolam (IN-SM) with intramuscular meperidine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine (IM-MPC) for sedation in children.

DESIGN

Single-blind, randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

Urban children's emergency department.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of children aged 1 to 4 years requiring suturing.

INTERVENTIONS: IN-SM or IM-MPC.

RESULTS

Vital signs, O2 saturation, and anxiety and pain scores were recorded. A 6-point scale was used to assess response to medication, and a 12-point recovery score was used to determine readiness for discharge. Both groups were similar in age and sex distribution. There were no significant adverse effects in either group. Patients tolerated the IN regimen better than the IM regimen. Behavioral scores were lower during repair than at baseline within each group; however, they were not different between groups. Time to discharge was longer and recovery scores were lower (worse) among the IM-MPC group.

CONCLUSION

IN-SM is as effective as IM-MPC for sedation in children.

Для цитирования: Bates B A, Schutzman S A, Fleisher G R. A comparison of intranasal sufentanil and midazolam to intramuscular meperidine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine for conscious sedation in children.. Annals of emergency medicine. 1994. DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(94)70274-8.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.