Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회지)

Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of Behavioral Response between Intranasal and Submucosal Midazolam Adminstration

소아 진정 치료 시 구강 점막 하와 비점막 Midazolam 투여의 행동 반응 비교

  • Kim, Yun-Hee (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Ewha Womans University Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry) ;
  • Jung, Sang-Hyuk (Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Baek, Kwang-Woo (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Ewha Womans University Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry)
  • 김윤희 (이화여자대학교 목동병원 소아치과학교실) ;
  • 정상혁 (이화여자대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 백광우 (이화여자대학교 목동병원 소아치과학교실)
  • Published : 2008.08.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose. The objective of this study was to evaluate the behavioral response and assess the effectiveness of additional intranasal (IN) and submucosal (SM) administration of midazolam during pediatric sedation for dental procedure. Material and methods. Thirty-three cases of healthy (ASAⅠ), uncooperative children aged from 24 to 72 month old at pediatric dental clinic of Ewha Womans University Hospital were selected for this study. Children received oral chloral hydrate 50 mg/kg with hydroxyzine 1.0 mg/kg. After waiting for 45 minutes, midazolam 0.2 mg/kg was administrated via IN route and via SM route randomly maintaining 50% of $N_2O$. A pulse oximeter and a capnograph were used for measuring vital signs ($SpO_2$, PR, RR, $EtCO_2$) throughout the sedation. Behavioral response was evaluated as Quiet (Q), Crying (C), Movement (M) or Struggling (S) in every 2 minutes for 40 minutes. Results. There were also no statistically significant differences in vital signs of the two groups. The behavioral response for the first ten minutes during sedation was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between the two groups. After the first ten minutes, it was revealed that there was no significant difference. Conclusion. This study demonstrated that the addition of IN midazolam to the combination of oral chloral hydrate with hydroxyzine and nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation is as safe and effective as that of SM midazolam in pediatric sedation for dental procedure.

진정법을 이용한 소아환자의 치과치료 시 chloral hydrate와 hydroxyzine을 복용 후 추가로 midazolam을 비점막내로 분무하는 것과 구강 점막 하로 주사했을 때 행동 반응과 진정 효과에 대해 비교하고자 하였다. 미국 마취과학회 신체등급 I급 (ASAI)이며, 협조가 안 되는 24-72 개월 소아 환자 중 진정법을 통해 2개 치아 이상의 보존 치료 및 발치 치료를 받은 33명을 대상으로 하였다. 모든 환자는 chloral hydrate 50 mg/kg 와 hydroxyzine 1 mg/kg 복용하였다. 45분 후 한 군은 비강내로 midazolam 0.2 mg/kg 을 추가 투여하였고 다른 군은 구강 점막 하 midazolam 0.2mg/kg 을 주사하였다. 치료하는 동안 두 군 모두 50 % nitrous oxide 를 유지하였다. 맥박 산소 계측기와 호기말 이산화탄소 분압 측정기를 이용하여 산소 포화도, 맥박수, 호흡수, 호기말 이산화탄소 분압을 기록하였다. 행동 반응은 Quiet(Q), Crying(C), Movement(M) 그리고 Struggling(S)를 이용하여 총 40분 동안 매 2분마다 기록하고 모든 진정 치료 과정은 비디오로 촬영하였다. 모든 자료는 chi-sqaure test와 two sample independent t-test를 사용하여 분석하였다. 두 군간의 평균 도입 시간과 최대 치료 시간은 통계학적으로 유의한 차이가 없었다. 또한 활력 생징후도 모두 정상 범위이며 두 군 사이에 통계학적으로 유의한 차이가 없었다. 행동 반응 비교에서는 치료 시작 10분 동안 비강내 투여 군이 점막 하 투여 군보다 개선된 행동 반응을 보였다(P<0.05). 치료 시작 10분 이후에는 두 군사이의 행동 반응에서 유의한 차이가 없었다. 이 연구는 chloral hydrate 와 hydroxyzine 복용 후 nitrous oxide 50%로 유지하는 진정법에 비강내로 midazolam을 추가 투여하는 것은 점막 하로 추가 투여와 유사한 진정 효과를 가진다. 또한 비강내 midazolam 추가 투여하는 것은 구강 점막 하로 추가 투여의 장점을 가지면서도 비침습적이고 상대적으로 통증이 적다는 이점이 있다. 그러므로 비강내 midazolam 추가 투여는 침습적인 구강 점막 하 추가 투여를 대체할 만한 방법이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Nathan JE, West MS : Comparison of chloral hydrate- hydroxyzine with and without meperidine for management of the difficult pediatric patient. ASDC J Dent Child, 54:437-44, 1987.
  2. Wilson S, Easton J, Lamb K, et al. : A retrospective study of chloral hydrate, meperidine, hydroxyzine, and midazolam regimens used to sedate children for dental care. Pediatr Dent, 22:107-12, 2000.
  3. Dallman JA, Ignelzi MA Jr., Briskie DM : Comparing the safety, efficacy and recovery of intranasal midazolam vs. oral chloral hydrate and promethazine. Pediatr Dent, 23:424-30, 2001.
  4. Primosch RE, Bender F : Factors associated with administration route when using midazolam for pediatric conscious sedation. ASDC J Dent Child, 68:233-8, 2001.
  5. Needleman HL, Joshi A, Griffith DG : Conscious sedation of pediatric dental patients using chloral hydrate, hydroxyzine, and nitrous oxide-a retrospective study of 382 sedations. Pediatr Dent, 17:424-31, 1995.
  6. Nathan JE : Management of the difficult child: a survey of pediatric dentists' use of restraints, sedation and general anesthesia. ASDC J Dent Child, 56:293-301, 1989.
  7. Houpt M : Project USAP 2000-use of sedative agents by pediatric dentists: a 15-year follow-up survey. Pediatr Dent, 24:289-94, 2002.
  8. Moore PA : Therapeutic assessment of chloral hydrate premedication for pediatric dentistry. Anesth Prog, 31:191-6, 1984.
  9. Kupietzky A, Houpt MI : Midazolam : a review of its use for conscious sedation of children. Pediatr Dent, 15:237-41, 1993.
  10. Kupietzky A, Holan G, Shapira J : Intranasal midazolam better at effecting amnesia after sedation than oral hydroxyzine: a pilot study. Pediatr Dent, 18:32-4, 1996.
  11. Wilton NC, Leigh J, Rosen DR, et al. : Preanesthetic sedation of preschool children using intranasal midazolam. Anesthesiology, 69:972-5, 1998.
  12. Hartgraves PM, Primosch RE : An evaluation of oral and nasal midazolam for pediatric dental sedation. ASDC J Dent Child, 61:175-81, 1994.
  13. Fuks AB, Kaufman E, Ram D, et al. : Assessment of two doses of intranasal midazolam for sedation of young pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent, 16:301-5, 1994.
  14. Myers GR, Maestrello CL, Mourino AP, et al. : Effect of submucosal midazolam on behavior and physiologic response when combined with oral chloral hydrate and nitrous oxide sedation. Pediatr Dent, 26:37-43, 2004.
  15. Lee YE, Park MK, Kim YH, et al. : The sedative effects of submucosal midazolam in children. J Korean Dent Soc Anesth, 5:101-6, 2005.
  16. Lee YE, Park MK, Kim SY, et al. : Sedation evaluation of using bispectral index assessment with and without the added submucosal midazolam. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 34:91-7, 2007.
  17. Kim KH, Kim JS, Kim SO : A study on the effects of sedation and related variables for pediatric dental patients. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 34:234-45, 2007.
  18. De Boer AG, De Leede LG, Breimer DD : Drug absorption by sublingual and rectal routes. Br J Anaesth, 56:69-82, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/56.1.69
  19. Hussain AA : Mechanism of nasal absorption of drugs. Prog Clin Biol Res, 292:261-72, 1989.
  20. Walbergh EJ, Wills RJ, Eckhert J : Plasma concentrations of midazolam in children following intranasal administration. Anesthesiology, 74:233-5, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199102000-00007
  21. Schwagmeier R, Alincic S, Striebel HW : Midazolam pharmacokinetics following intravenous and buccal administration. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 46:203-6, 1998.
  22. Sayany Z, Nazif MM, Burckart GJ, et al. : Plasma levels of intranasal midazolam at 0.4 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg doses. Pediatr Dent, 18:320-1, 1996.
  23. Caudill WA, Zazif MM, Ruffalo RC, et al. : Absorption rates of alphaprodine from the buccal and intravenous routes. Pediatr Dent, 4:168-70, 1982.
  24. Flankl SN, Fogels HR : Should the parent remain in the operatory? J Dent Child, 29:150-63, 1962.
  25. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry : Guideline on the elective use of minimal, moderate, and deep sedation and general anesthesia for pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent, 27:110-8, 2005.
  26. MacDonald RE AD, Dean JA : Dentistry for the child and adolescent. 8th Ed, Mosby, St.Louis, pp.292, 2003.
  27. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Tait AR : Adverse events and risk factors associated with the sedation of children by nonanesthesiologists. Anesth Analg, 85:1207-13, 1997.
  28. Cote CJ, Ntterman DA, Weinberg JA, et al. : Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: analysis of medications used for sedation. Pediatrics, 106: 633-44, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.106.4.633
  29. Moody EH Jr., Mourino AP, Campbell RL : The therapeutic effectiveness of nitrous oxide and chloral hydrate administered orally, rectally, and combined with hydroxyzine for pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child, 53:425-9, 1986.
  30. Chen JW, Seybold SV, Yazdi H : Assessment of the effects of 2 sedation regimens on cardiopulmonary parameters in pediatric dental patients: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent, 28:350-6, 2006.
  31. Alfonzo-Echeverri E, Troutman KC, George W : Absorption and elimination of midazolam by submucosal and intramuscular routes. Anesth Prog, 37:277-81, 1990.
  32. Fukuta O, Braham RL, Yanase H, et al. : Intranasal administration of midazolam: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and sedative potential. ASDC J Dent Child, 64:89-98, 1997.
  33. Primosch RE, Guelmann M : Comparison of drops versus spray administration of intranasal midazolam in two- and three-year-old children for dental sedation. Pediatr Dent, 27:401-8, 2005.
  34. Karl HW, Rosenberger JL, Larach MG, et al. : Transmucosal administration of midazolam for premedication of pediatric patients. Comparison of the nasal and sublingual routes. Anesthesiology, 78:885-91, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199305000-00013
  35. Lee-Kim SJ, Fadavi S, Punwani I, et al. : Nasal versus oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. J Dent Child (Chic), 71:126-30, 2004.
  36. Abernethy DR, Greenblatt DJ : Drug disposition in obese humans. Clin Pharmacokinet, 11:199-213, 1986. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-198611030-00002
  37. Blouin RA, Kolpek JH, Mann HJ : Influence of obesity on drug disposition. Clin Pharm, 6:706-14, 1987.
  38. Baker S, Yagiela JA : Obesity : a complicating factor for sedation in children. Pediatr Dent, 28:487-93, 2006.
  39. Park HJ, Baek KW, Jung SH : The comparison of behavioral response of additional submucosal midazolam with oral chloral hydrate, hydroxyzine and nitrous oxide for pediatric conscious sedation. J Korean Dent Soc Anesth, 7:6-12, 2007.