Hospital pediatrics · 2024
Evaluation of Intranasal Fentanyl and Midazolam Among Inpatient Pediatric Patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Jampana Sriya, Harrison Laura C, McCall Jessica, Ferrante Rebecca R, Winer Jeffery C, Kink Rudy John, Rogers Nathaniel G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The use of intranasal (IN) analgesics and sedatives has been studied among pediatrics patients in the emergency department and outpatient settings. However, less is known about their usage in inpatient settings. This study aims to evaluate the indications and safety profile for IN fentanyl and midazolam usage in pediatric patients admitted to a large tertiary care children's hospital.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of admitted patients receiving IN fentanyl and/or midazolam over a 6-year period. Indications for medication use, medication dosages, patient characteristics, and any serious adverse drug reactions were recorded. Reported serious adverse outcomes include use of reversal agents as well as any documented respiratory depression, hypotension, or need for escalation of care.
RESULTS: Of 156 patients included, 119 (76%) received IN midazolam alone, 20 (13%) patients received IN fentanyl alone, and 17 (11%) patients received both medications. The most common applications for IN medication administration were nasogastric tube placements (n = 62), peripheral intravenous line insertions (n = 30), peripherally-inserted central catheter placements (n = 23), and lumbar punctures (n = 16). No serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that IN fentanyl and midazolam were administered to pediatric inpatients undergoing routine procedures without serious adverse drug reactions being reported. Although these findings are encouraging, more prospective studies are needed before wider implementation of IN fentanyl and midazolam administration in pediatric inpatients.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of admitted patients receiving IN fentanyl and/or midazolam over a 6-year period. Indications for medication use, medication dosages, patient characteristics, and any serious adverse drug reactions were recorded. Reported serious adverse outcomes include use of reversal agents as well as any documented respiratory depression, hypotension, or need for escalation of care.
RESULTS: Of 156 patients included, 119 (76%) received IN midazolam alone, 20 (13%) patients received IN fentanyl alone, and 17 (11%) patients received both medications. The most common applications for IN medication administration were nasogastric tube placements (n = 62), peripheral intravenous line insertions (n = 30), peripherally-inserted central catheter placements (n = 23), and lumbar punctures (n = 16). No serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that IN fentanyl and midazolam were administered to pediatric inpatients undergoing routine procedures without serious adverse drug reactions being reported. Although these findings are encouraging, more prospective studies are needed before wider implementation of IN fentanyl and midazolam administration in pediatric inpatients.