Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Oct;58(4):323-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.05.016.

A randomized clinical trial comparing oral, aerosolized intranasal, and aerosolized buccal midazolam

Eileen J Klein  1 , Julie C Brown, Ana Kobayashi, Daniel Osincup, Kristy Seidel
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomized clinical trial comparing oral, aerosolized intranasal, and aerosolized buccal midazolam

Eileen J Klein et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Oct.

Abstract

Study objective: We determine whether aerosolized intranasal or buccal midazolam reduces the distress of pediatric laceration repair compared with oral midazolam.

Methods: Children aged 0.5 to 7 years and needing nonparenteral sedation for laceration repair were randomized to receive oral, aerosolized intranasal, or aerosolized buccal midazolam. Patient distress was rated by blinded review of videotapes, using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Score. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, sedation adequacy, sedation onset, satisfaction, and adverse events.

Results: For the 169 subjects (median age 3.1 years) evaluated for the primary outcome, we found significantly less distress in the buccal midazolam group compared with the oral route group (P=.04; difference -2; 95% confidence interval -4 to 0) and a corresponding nonsignificant trend for the intranasal route (P=.08; difference -1; 95% confidence interval -3 to 1). Secondary outcomes (177 subjects) favored the intranasal group, including a greater proportion of patients with an optimal activity score (74%), a greater proportion of parents wanting this sedation in the future, and faster sedation onset. Intranasal was the route least tolerated at administration. Adverse events were similar between groups.

Conclusion: When comparing the administration of midazolam by 3 routes to facilitate pediatric laceration repair, we observed slightly less distress in the aerosolized buccal group. The intranasal route demonstrated a greater proportion of patients with optimal activity scores, greater proportions of parents wanting similar sedation in the future, and faster onset but was also the most poorly tolerated at administration. Aerosolized buccal or intranasal midazolam represents an effective and useful alternative to oral midazolam for sedation for laceration repair.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Enrollment flow diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distress score (CHEOPS) at start of procedure for midazolam treatment groups
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier curve showing time to adequate sedation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fatovich DM, Jacobs IG. A randomized, controlled trial of oral midazolam and buffered lidocaine for suturing lacerations in children (the SLIC Trial) Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1995;25(2):209–214. - PubMed
    1. Hennes HM, Wagner V, Bonadio WA, et al. The effect of oral midazolam on anxiety of preschool children during laceration repair. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1990;19(9):1006–1009. - PubMed
    1. Klein EJ, Diekema DS, Paris CA, et al. A randomized, clinical trial of oral midazolam plus placebo versus oral midazolam plus oral transmucosal fentanyl for sedation during laceration repair. Pediatrics. 2002;109(5):894–897. - PubMed
    1. Silver T, Wilson C, Webb M. Evaluation of two dosages of oral midazolam as a conscious sedation for physically and neurologically compromised pediatric dental patients. Pediatric Dentistry. 1994;16(5):350–359. - PubMed
    1. Davies FC, Waters M. Oral midazolam for conscious sedation of children during minor procedures. Emergency Medicine Journal. 1998;15(4):244–248. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types