Comparing the safety, efficacy and recovery of intranasal midazolam vs. oral chloral hydrate and promethazine.

摘要: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy and recovery time intranasal midazolam spray administered using an atomizer orally chloral hydrate promethazine for sedation pediatric dental patients. Methods: A randomized double-blind crossover design utilized in which 31 patients (mean age 41.8 months, range 26-58 months) underwent two restorative appointments. At one appointment, subjects received 0.2 mg/kg midazolam; at other appointment 62.5 mg/ kg with 12.5 mg promethazine. Administered each 25% – 50% N 2 0/0 . Physiologic parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory oxygen saturation) behavior assessments (crying, movement, sleep) Houpt Sedation Rating Scale were recorded baseline every five minutes during treatment. Overall assessed end Following treatment, a modified Vancouver Recovery used determine length it took subject meet established discharge criteria. Results: There no clinically significant differences physiologic parameters, however statistically decrease systolic diastolic pressure observed sedated hydrate/promethazine. between groups. Patients slept less recovered quicker than oral Conclusions: Intranasal is as safe (as by parameters) effective ratings) hydrate/promethazine conscious (Pediatr Dent 23: 424-430,2001)