A Comparative Study on Intranasal Versus Intravenous Lorazepam in the Management of Acute Seizure in Children.

INTRODUCTION

The acute seizure in childhood is a medical emergency which is usually managed by benzodiazepines used as a first line of therapy. There are no strict guidelines of using intranasal lorazepam in India. Many paediatricians use it in an emergency situation as it is inexpensive, easy to administer and even treatment can be started at home. Very few studies are available to compare efficacy and safety of intravenous lorazepam with intranasal lorazepam in childhood seizure, though both routes have comparable pharmacokinetic profile. Intravenous lorazepam (0.1 mg/kg) is already recommended as a first-line treatment of acute childhood seizures in India. There are very few studies regarding the usefulness of intranasal lorazepam. With this background, we compared intranasal lorazepam with the more widely accepted intravenous lorazepam for control of acute seizure.

AIM: To compare effectiveness and safety of intranasal and intravenous lorazepam in acute seizure in children aged 5-12 years.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

This is an analytical observational cross-sectional study involving patients with acute seizure who received lorazepam via either the intravenous or intranasal route. Formulation and dosage of lorazepam were the same in both routes.

RESULTS

Distributions of patient groups according to sex, age, and weight were statistically not significant (p=0.42, p=0.391, and p=0.605, respectively). Time to control seizure within 10 min and persistent cessation of seizure activity were similar in both groups. Safety parameters showed no differences statistically.

CONCLUSIONS

Though intravenous lorazepam is recommended as first-line treatment, intranasal lorazepam may be a good alternative choice in a convulsing child.