Machine Learning in Medicine - a Complete Overview

T. Cleophas,A. Zwinderman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15195-3

2015-03-28

Cambridge International Law Journal

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The prophylactic effectiveness of amantadine hydrochloride in an epidemic of Hong Kong influenza in Leningrad in 1969.

A. A. Smorodintsev,Karpuhin Gi,D. M. Zlydnikov,Malyseva Am,Svecova Eg,Burova Sa,Hramcova Lm,J. A. Romanov,Taros Lj,Ivannikov Jg,Novoselov Sd

IF: 13.831

Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Abstract:The effectiveness of amantadine hydrochloride as a prophylactic against influenza was studied during an epidemic caused by viruses related to influenza A2/Hong Kong/1968 variants in Leningrad, USSR, early in 1969. In all, 8169 subjects, assigned to amantadine-dosed, placebo-dosed, internal control and external control groups, were assessed. The index of effectiveness of the prophylactic medication, based on clinical diagnosis, in subjects who took amantadine regularly was 1.95. When the clinical diagnoses were confirmed serologically the index of effectiveness for the amantadine compared with the placebo group increased to 2.7. A comparison of the medicated group with the non-medicated, non-isolated internal control group showed an index of effectiveness of 5.34. A daily dose of 100 mg of amantadine was associated with an increase of 1.14% in complaints of sleep disturbances but these had no effect on the working capacity of subjects.
Sedative and behavioral effects of atomized intranasal midazolam in comparison with nebulized midazolam for children undergoing dental treatment: A randomized clinical trial

Amira Abdelhafeez Elkhatib,Yousr Nader Mowafy,Tamer A M Ghoneim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.13261

2024-09-10

Abstract:Background: Fear and anxiet are significant barriers of dental care in children. Sedation emerged as a valuable behaviour guidance technique to manage uncooperative children. Aim: To evaluate the sedative and behavioral effectiveness of midazolam administered via nebulizer in comparison with intranasal atomizer in the behavior management of anxious children during dental treatment. Study design: Two-arm randomized clinical trial with 68 children (3-5 years) assigned to receive nebulized midazolam (NEB MDZ) and atomized intranasal midazolam (AIN MDZ) during dental treatment. The onset time, sedation levels, and behavior of children were documented. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Significant differences between the two groups in terms of onset time, sedation level, and behavior of children during the dental treatment. AIN MDZ was associated with a significantly faster onset time compared with NEB MD, (p < .001). Children who received NEB MDZ exhibited deeper levels of sedation compared with AIN MDZ group (p = .02). During the administration of local anesthesia, notable statistical differences were observed between the behavior of the two groups (p = .02). Conclusions: Midazolam administered via either nebulizer or intranasal atomizer was the effective route of administration and proved effective in the management of anxious children undergoing dental treatment. AIN MDZ, however, exhibited a faster onset time, whereas children receiving NEB MDZ demonstrated superior behavior compared with those receiving AIN MDZ.
Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

Juan Nie,Chanchan Chen,Jing Xie,Guicong Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02289-5

2023-10-10

Abstract:Background: Moderate to deep sedation is required for dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. Midazolam is the most commonly used sedative, whereas intranasal dexmedetomidine is increasingly used in pediatric sedation. Objective: The aim of this trial was to compare the sedative efficacy of oral midazolam alone with that of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam during dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. Design: In total, 83 children (aged 3-12 years) scheduled to undergo dental sedation were randomized to receive oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal placebo, or oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) plus intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg). The primary outcome was the rate of successful sedation for dental treatment. Secondary outcomes were the onset time and adverse events during and after treatment. Data analyses involved descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests. Results: The rate of successful sedation was significantly higher in combination group (P = 0.007), although the sedation onset time was significantly longer in combination group (17.5 ± 2.4 min) than in monotherapy group (15.7 ± 1.8) (P = 0.003). No children required medical intervention or oxygen therapy for hemodynamic disturbances, and the incidences of adverse events had no significant difference between groups (P = 0.660). Conclusion: Combined treatment with oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) is more significantly effective for managing the behavior of non-cooperative children during dental treatment, compared to oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) alone. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100042300) TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2100042300, Clinical trial first registration date: 17/01/2021.
Comparison of intranasal ketamine with intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine combination in pediatric dental patients for procedural sedation: A crossover study

Bibhav Dubey,Neerja Singh,Santosh Kumar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_153_24

2024-07-01

Abstract:Background: The main goal of the pediatric dentist is to address and reduce children's fear and anxiety during the dental treatment, especially when conventional behavior-guiding strategies fail. In such cases, the use of pharmacological agents becomes an essential factor to consider. Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal ketamine (INK) with the combination of intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine (INMzD) in pediatric dental patients for the procedural sedation. Patients and methods: Forty-seven children aged 3-9 years who required dental procedures such as extractions, pulpectomy, and restorations were randomly distributed into two groups using the envelope drawing method. Group INK received 7 mg/kg INK, whereas Group INMzD received a combination of midazolam spray (0.3 mg/kg) and atomized dexmedetomidine (3 μg/kg). Results: INK showed faster onset, faster recovery, and shorter discharge time than INMzD. Both groups had acceptable physiological parameters and no postoperative complications. INK was more accepted by the patients than INMzD. Conclusions: In terms of efficacy, safety, and acceptability, INK outperformed the combination of INMzD for the procedural sedation.
The effect of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine on behavior of uncooperative pediatric dental patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Sara Hassan El-Rouby,Yasmi O Crystal,Ahmed M Elshafie,Nadia A Wahba,Magda M El-Tekeya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2024-0057

2024-09-20

Abstract:Objective: Uncooperative behavior in pediatric dentistry is one of the most common manifestations of dental anxiety. Managing anxious patients can be attained by moderate sedation. This study aimed to compare the effect of sedation by dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination (DEX-KET) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) on behavior of uncooperative pediatric dental patients. Methodology: In total, 56 uncooperative healthy children (3-5 years old) requiring dental treatment were divided randomly into two groups: Group I (study group), which received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg), and Group II (control group), which received only buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg). Drugs effects were assessed in terms of hemodynamic parameters, patient's drug acceptance, child behavior, postoperative effect of sedation, amnesic effect, incidence of adverse events, as well as procedural induced stress measured by salivary secretory immunoglobulin A (s-IgA). Results: Hemodynamic results did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two study groups (P>0.05). There was a significant difference in patient's acceptance to sedative drug between both groups, favoring DEX (p=0.005). Children who received DEX-KET showed significantly better behavior than those who received DEX for local anesthesia (p=0.017) and during operative procedure (p=0.037). Adverse events, post-operative and amnesic effects of drugs were comparable in both groups (p>0.05). Moreover, the mean difference in the salivary s-IgA levels between initial and final value was not statistically significant between both groups (p=0.556). Conclusion: Both DEX-KET combination and DEX alone are effective in providing hemodynamic stability. DEX-KET combination significantly improved the behavior of sedated children compared to DEX alone but the drug acceptance was decreased in the DEX-KET group. Both regimens did not have a negative effect on postoperative behavior of children and had comparable amnesic effect with no significant adverse events. Salivary s-IgA is not considered a potential stress biomarker in sedated children.
Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam As Intranasal Premedication for Intravenous Deep Sedation in Pediatric Dental Treatment

Tong Cheng,Yun Liu,Bing-Hua Li,Xiao-Ran Wu,Bin Xia,Xu-Dong Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2023.04.009

IF: 3.719

2023-01-01

Journal of Dental Sciences

Abstract:Background/purpose: Optimal sedation management for pediatric dental treatment demands special focus as it's tubeless and shares a same oral space. The study was to evaluate dexmedetomidine compared to midazolam for intranasal premedication in pediatric dental treatment under intravenous deep sedation. Materials and methods: A hundred children aged 3-7 years scheduled for elective dental treatment under intravenous deep sedation anesthesia were enrolled, of whom 50 children (Group D) were intranasally premedicated with 2.0 mu g/kg dexmedetomidine and the remaining 50 children (Group M) received traditional 0.2 mg/kg midazolam. Acceptance rate of venipuncture was regarded as the primary endpoint. Results: The acceptance rate of venipuncture in Group D and Group M were 76% versus 52%, respectively (P = 0.021). More children in Group M complained about bitter/sour taste than Group D (62% vs. 8%, P < 0.001). Intraoperatively, children in Group M were found to have more choking cough than Group D (30% vs. 9%, P = 0.003), and patients in Group M required more suction (18 [36%] in Group M vs. 4 [8%] in Group D, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidences of temporal hypoxemia (SpO(2) <= 90%), however, two children in Group M experienced hypoxemia over 10 s. Conclusion: Compared to the 0.2 mg/kg midazolam, children premedicated with 2.0 mu g/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine showed superior venipuncture acceptance, had less intraoperative choking cough and required fewer suction. It seems to be a good alternative to midazolam as premedication for deep sedation in pediatric dental treatment.
Comparison of dexmedetomidine and a dexmedetomidine-esketamine combination for reducing dental anxiety in preschool children undergoing dental treatment under general anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial

Fei Xing,Tong-Tong Zhang,Zhihu Yang,Mingcui Qu,Xiaoshan Shi,Yanna Li,Yan Li,Wei Zhang,Zhongyu Wang,Na Xing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.12.011

IF: 6.533

2023-12-15

Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract:Background Dental anxiety is a widespread complication occurring in pediatric patients during dental visits and may lead to undesirable complications. Esketamine may be effective in anxiety. Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of premedication with a dexmedetomidine-esketamine combination compared with dexmedetomidine alone on dental anxiety in preschool children undergoing dental treatment under general anesthesia. Methods This is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial . A total of 84 patients were scheduled for elective outpatient dental caries treatment under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine (group D) or intranasal dexmedetomidine-esketamine (group DS). The primary outcome was the level of dental anxiety assessed by the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (MCDAS) at 2 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included level of dental anxiety at 1 day and 7 days after surgery, the incidence of dental anxiety at 2 h, 1 day, and 7 days after surgery, sedation onset time, overall success of sedation, acceptance of mask induction, postoperative pain intensity, incidence of emergence agitation in PACU , adverse reactions, HR, and SpO2 before premedication (baseline) and at 10, 20, and 30 min after the end of study drug delivery. Results The dental anxiety in group DS was lower than that in group D at 2 h, 1 day, and 7 days postoperatively ( P = 0.04, 0.004, and 0.006, respectively). The incidences of dental anxiety in group DS were lower than those in group D at 2 h (53 % vs 76 %, P = 0.03), 1 day (47 % vs 71 %, P = 0.04), and 7 days (44 % vs 71 %, P = 0.02) after surgery. Group DS had a higher success rate of sedation ( P = 0.03) but showed a lower MAS score ( P = 0.005) and smoother hemodynamics ( P < 0.01) after drug administration than group D. Group DS showed a significantly lower incidence rate of emergence agitation ( P = 0.03) and postoperative pain intensity ( P = 0.006) than that in group D during the anesthesia recovery time. The occurrence of adverse reactions was similar in both groups ( P > 0.05). Limitations We did not analyze and correct for the learning effect caused by repeated applications of the MCDAS and MCDAS scores on the 1 day after surgery were obtained by telephone follow-up. Conclusions Compared to premedication with dexmedetomidine alone, premedication with intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with esketamine could significantly improve dental anxiety in preschool children undergoing dental treatment under general anesthesia.

psychiatry,clinical neurology
Comparison of sedative effects of oral midazolam/chloral hydrate and midazolam/promethazine in pediatric dentistry

Majid Mehran,Ghassem Ansari,Mojtaba Vahid Golpayegani,Shahnaz Shayeghi,Leila Shafiei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.034

2018-09-26

Abstract:Background. The aim of this investigation was to compare the sedative effects of oral midazolam/chloral hydrate and midazolam/promethazine combinations on fearful children needing dental treatment. Methods. This crossover double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 30 children aged 2‒6 years, who had at least two similar teeth needing pulp treatment. Standard vital signs were recorded before and after premedication. Wilson sedation scale was used to judge the level of sedation. Cases were divided into two groups based on the sequence of medication received. This was to overcome the sequence effect. Group I received oral midazolam (0.4 mg/kg/chloral hydrate (50 mg/kg) at the first visit while they received midazolam (0.4 mg/kg)/promethazine (5 mg/kg) in their second visit. Group II received the premedication in the opposite sequence. The operator and child were blinded to the medication administered. Sedative efficacy of the two combinations were assessed and judged by two independent pediatric dentists based on the Wilson scale. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and paired t-test. Results. Only 10% of children who received chloral hydrate with midazolam exhibited high improvement in their behavior while 53% showed reasonable positive changes and 12% had no change or even deterioration of behavior. The difference between the effect of the two combination drugs was statistically significant (P<0.05) in favor of the chloral hydrate group. Conclusion. The results showed a significant difference in the sedation level induced between the two groups. Midazolam/chloral hydrate combination more effectively improved the co-operation for dental treatment.
Comparing Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam for Sedation of Children While Undergoing Computerized Tomography Imaging

Reza Azizkhani,Farhad Heydari,Mohammadreza Ghazavi,Maryam Riahinezhad,Mohammadreza Habibzadeh,Ali Bigdeli,Keihan Golshani,Saeid Majidinejad,Abolfazl Mohammadbeigi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jpn.JPN_107_19

Abstract:Background: Pediatric anxiety and restlessness may create issues and difficulties in performing accurate diagnostic studies even noninvasive ones, such as radiological imaging. There are some agents that will help to get this goal. This study aimed to compare the intranasal effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MID) for sedation parameters of children undergoing computerized tomography (CT) imaging. Materials and methods: A double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 162 eligible children who underwent CT imaging. These patients were divided into two groups including MID (n = 81) with dose of 0.3 mg.kg and DEX (n = 81) with dose of 3 μg.kg, which was consumed intranasally. The mean blood pressure (MBP), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (O2Sat) in children were recorded. Then, time of initiation, level of sedation, and duration effect of medication were measured at 0, 10, 20, and 30 min. Parents and clinician satisfaction score was asked. All data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software by t test and chi-square test. Results: Decreasing in MBP and HR was higher in DEX group than MID group (P < 0.001), whereas decrease of O2Sat in MID group was higher than DEX group (0.009). Starting time of sedation (22.72 ± 11.64 vs. 33.38 ± 10.17, P = 0.001) was lower in DEX group. Parents (P < 0.001) and physician (P < 0.001) satisfaction score was higher in DEX group than the MID group. Conclusion: Using 3 μg/kg intranasal DEX for sedation of 1-6-year-old children was a suitable method to undergo noninvasive studies such as CT imaging. Intranasal DEX is superior to MID due to higher sedation satisfactory, faster starting effect of sedation, and lower side effects and complications. Nevertheless, in children with hemodynamic instability DEX is not an appropriate choice.
Personality Traits and Conduct of Institutionalized Delinquents

A. Horsch,R. Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1137045

1938-07-01

Abstract:This study attempts to determine the relationship between certain personality traits and conduct of institutionalized delinquents. The Bernreuter Personality Inventory was administered to 152 State Industrial School and 181 State Reformatory inmates in Colorado.2 Although industrial school inmates range from 10 to 18 years of age, only those 15 years and over at the time of testing are used since these are fairly comparable with the high school population. The median for this group is 16 years and 4 months whereas reformatory inmates range from 16 to 25 years with a median of 20 years and one month. The period of institutionalization in the industrial school is dependent upon the conduct of inmates while in the institution. A definite number of credit points must be earned before the inmate is eligible for parole. The average number of credits earned per month was not considered a satisfactory index of conduct, however, since points were awarded for duties not directly related to conduct. For example, a bonus of 25 credits per month was given for kitchen duty. Since a certain number of credits was subtracted for infraction of rules from the number allotted regularly each monththe number depending upon the seriousness of the offense-the average number of credit losses per month has been used as the index for judging misconduct while in the institution. Throughout the study comparisons are made on the basis of the traits arbitrarily termed positive. These traits are emotional stability, extroversion, self-confidence, dominance, self-sufficiency, and sociability. An individual who largely lacks these positive traits will possess to a high degree the corresponding negative traits, namely, emotional instability, introversion, feelings of inferiority, submission, social dependence, and unsociability.
The earliest stages of follicular development: follicle formation and activation.

J. E. Fortune,M. Y. Yang,W. Muruvi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7313/UPO9781907284991.018

2010-12-01

Abstract:The formation of primordial follicles to establish a reservoir of resting follicles and the gradual depletion of that reservoir to provide a succession of growing follicles are key to female fertility, but little is known about the regulation of these early stages of follicular development. This review summarizes the efforts of our laboratory to elucidate these critical processes in cattle. Primordial follicles first appear in fetal ovaries around the end of the first trimester of pregnancy (Day 90), during a decline in fetal ovarian production of estradiol and progesterone. In ovarian cortical pieces from 90 to 120-day-old fetuses, follicles form in vitro and estradiol or progesterone inhibits follicle formation, whereas the non-aromatizable androgen 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) does not. Newly formed bovine follicles are not capable of activating within 2 days in vitro, but they can acquire the capacity to activate during a longer culture; estradiol and progesterone inhibit the acquisition of their capacity to activate. When primordial follicles first form in cattle, their oocytes are not yet in meiotic arrest and acquisition of competence to activate is correlated with their progression to meiotic arrest at the diplotene stage of first prophase. After they acquire the competence to activate, bovine primordial follicles can be stimulated to activate in vitro by insulin or kit ligand, whereas anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is inhibitory. Although few follicles progress to the secondary stage in vitro, addition of testosterone or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) dramatically increased the incidence of that transition. Regulation of the earliest stages of follicular development is complex and far from understood; better understanding could lead to new interventions to enhance fertility.
Evaluation of Efficacy of Oral Ketamine and Midazolam Combination Drug in Different Doses in Different Groups Used for Moderate Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry Randomized-comparative Trial

Seema Thakur,Kalpana Verma,Parul Singhal,Deepak Chauhan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2096

2022-02-01

International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Abstract:Background: Dental phobia and apprehension in children lead to difficulty with behavior management. During dental procedure if a child had a bad experience, he will develop greater apprehension, which makes further treatment difficult.Aim and objective: The aim and objective of the present study is to assess and compare the sedation and wake-up behavior status of oral combinations of three different doses of ketamine and midazolam drugs in three different groups mixed in 1 mL of honey.Methodology: This study was a randomized, clinical study that included patients ranging from 3 to 9 years of age with American Society of Anesthesiologists-I status with carious teeth, were randomly allocated among three groups where group (A) received 0.2 mg/kg of oral midazolam and 5 mg/kg oral ketamine combination drugs, group (B) received 0.3 mg/kg of oral midazolam with 3 mg/kg of oral ketamine combination drugs and group (C) received 0.4 mg/kg of oral midazolam with 2 mg/kg of oral ketamine combination drugs mixed in 1 mL of honey.Child patient's who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation was recorded from starting of the treatment until discharged from the monitoring room. Ease of treatment completion was evaluated according to the Houpt scale, patients' behavior, sedation, and wake-up behavior status were evaluated with modified observer assessment of alertness and sedation scale (MOAAS).Results: In the study, various doses of ketamine-midazolam combination drugs in three different groups resulted in a clement increase in heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) during the procedure but variations among the groups were not significant. As per MOAAS, the sedation success rate in group B (83.3%) was more than group A (66.6%) and group C (66.6%).All the three groups equally showed the same i.e., (91.6%), behavior score during treatment. Ease of treatment completion was excellent in group B (83.3%) followed by group A and group C [i.e.], (66.7%). Whereas, wake-up behavior score as per MOAAS scale was found to be calm and cooperative in group B (91.7%) followed by group C (88.9%) and group A (83.3%).Conclusion: In the present study oral ketamine-midazolam combination drugs can be used without harm and effectively as moderate sedation in an uncooperative pediatric patient.How to cite this article: Thakur S, Verma K, Singhal P, <i>et al.</i> Evaluation of Efficacy of Oral Ketamine and Midazolam Combination Drug in Different Doses in Different Groups Used for Moderate Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry Randomized-comparative Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(S-2):S151-S156.
Effect of Dexmedetomidine with or without Midazolam during procedural dental sedation in children: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Amira A. ElKhatib,Tamer A. M. Ghoneim,Karin M. L. Dowidar,Nadia A. Wahba

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04992-2

2024-10-27

BMC Oral Health

Abstract:Dental anxiety is a global problem in the realm of pediatric dentistry. The use of procedural sedation is recommended to avoid substandard or unsafe dental treatment in preschoolers. This study aimed to compare the effect sedation with Dexmedetomidine with or without Midazolam in terms of sedation level, analgesic effect and ease of treatment completion in preschool children.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Comparison of the Effects of Oral Midazolam and Intranasal Dexmedetomidine on Preoperative Sedation and Anesthesia Induction in Children Undergoing Surgeries

Yu-Hang Cai,Cheng-Yu Wang,Yang Li,Jia Chen,Jun Li,Junzheng Wu,Hua-Cheng Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.648699

IF: 5.6

2021-12-15

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background and Purpose: Premedication with either oral midazolam or intranasal dexmedetomidine prior to surgery remains less than ideal. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of those two drug regimens would have any beneficial effects on the preoperative sedation and the children’s compliance during anesthesia inhalation induction. Experimental Approach: One hundred thirty-eight children aged 2–6 years were randomly allocated into three groups: Group M with oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg −1 , Group D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg −1 , and Group M + D with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg −1 plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg −1 . The primary outcome was the children’s compliance during inhalation induction with sevoflurane. The secondary outcomes included the preoperative sedative effects, behavior scores, parental separation anxiety scores, and the postoperative incidence of emergence agitation and recovery time. Results: Subjects in Group M + D showed higher satisfaction scores of compliance ( p = 0.0049) and mask acceptance (MAS) ( p = 0.0049) during anesthesia inhalation induction. Subjects in Group M + D had a significantly shorter time than those in Groups M and D to achieve the desired sedation level ( p < 0.001) and remained at a higher sedation score in the holding area and up to the anesthesia induction after drug administration ( p < 0.001). Conclusion and Implications: We conclude that pediatric patients premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg −1 plus oral midazolam 0.5 mg kg −1 had significantly improved anesthesia induction compliance, and quicker onset to achieve and maintain a satisfactory level of sedation than those premedicated separately with two drugs. Therefore, the combined premed regimen is a greater choice when we are expecting a higher quality of sedation and a smoother anesthesia induction in children undergoing the surgeries.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate as sedatives for pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jun Wang,Yong Li,Shuna Xiao,Buyun Shi,Zhi Xia,Chengjiao Huang,Hui Xu,Na Li,Wen Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-2021-002038

2022-01-01

Journal of Investigative Medicine

Abstract:This study was designed to review published literature to determine the efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate (CH) for sedation in pediatric patients based on qualified studies. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for qualified studies published before March 2021. For each study, we analyzed the relative risk or weighted mean difference combined with a 95% CI. Fourteen studies including 3749 pediatric patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with oral CH, intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly increased the success rate of sedation and decreased the duration and latency of sedation, time of recovery from sedation, and total sedation time. Compared with oral CH, intranasal dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the incidence of adverse events, including vomiting, but increased the incidence of bradycardia. In conclusion, intranasal dexmedetomidine provides better sedation than oral CH for pediatric patients with good safety; however, the incidence of bradycardia is increased.
Sedative and Behavioral Effects of Intranasal Midazolam in Comparison with Other Administrative Routes in Children Undergoing Dental Treatment - A Systematic Review

Neethu Ann Preethy,Sujatha Somasundaram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_470_20

Abstract:Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically identify and evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of intranasal midazolam sedation compared with midazolam administered through other routes in the sedation and behavior management of children during dental treatment. Materials and methods: The search was done using electronic databases such as PubMed Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS, ScienceDirect, and SIGLE. All studies comparing the sedative effect and behavior management effectiveness of intranasal midazolam with midazolam administered through other routes in children were included. Results: Electronic database search identified 163 articles, out of which 143 were excluded after reading titles and removing duplication. The remaining 20 studies were evaluated in detail. A final of 13 studies were included based on the inclusion criteria. Among the 13 studies included in the present review, a high risk of bias was noted in all the 13 articles. There was no adequate blinding of personnel and participants in the study, allocation concealment was improper and presence of inadequate blinding of the outcome assessment. . Statistically, no significant difference was observed between intranasal midazolam and other midazolam routes on behavior and sedation level in the studies included in this review. Conclusion: Limited studies are available pertaining to the sedative and behavioral effects of intranasal midazolam, and thus, this review recommends need for more research evaluating the sedative effect of intranasal midazolam in comparison with midazolam administered through other routes in the behavior management of children during dental treatment.
Effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine and ketamine combination in paediatric dental sedation: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Sara H. El‐Rouby,Yasmi O. Crystal,Ahmed M. Elshafie,Nadia A. Wahba,Magda M. El‐Tekeya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.13238

IF: 3.264

2024-07-18

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry

Abstract:Background Pain and anxiety can be considerable obstacles while treating paediatric dental patients. Moderate sedation is needed to treat uncooperative patients. Aim This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine–ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine. Design Fifty‐six uncooperative children were randomly assigned into two groups: Group I received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg) (DEX–KET), whereas Group II received buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg) (DEX). The effects of drugs were evaluated based on changes in vital signs, onset and duration of sedation, sedation level, analgesia, ease of treatment and procedural adverse effects. Results There were no significant differences in vital signs or sedation onset between the two groups. DEX–KET group showed shorter recovery time than DEX group (p

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine,pediatrics
Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs. oral midazolam for premedication in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guangxuan Zhang,Li Xin,Qingtang Yin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2023.1264081

IF: 3.569

2023-11-08

Frontiers in Pediatrics

Abstract:Objective: To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis. Methods: Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intranasal Dex vs. oral midazolam in pediatric premedication were collected. Stata 15.0 statistical software was used to analyze the collected data. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect sizes. Results: A total of 11 studies with 824 children were included, containing 415 patients in the Dex group and 409 patients in the midazolam group. Compared with the oral midazolam group, the intranasal Dex group had a better preoperative sedation effect at parent-child separation (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14–1.64) and anesthesia induction (RR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03–4.22). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of analgesia remedy (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36–1.00) the acceptance of anesthesia masks (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83–1.12), and incidence of adverse events between (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06–1.13, P = 0.072) between the intranasal Dex and oral midazolam groups. Conclusion: Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex has better sedative effects of parent-child separation and anesthesia induction in pediatric premedication, but there was no difference in the incidence of anesthesia remedy, anesthesia mask acceptance, and incidence of adverse events. Therefore, compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex is a better choice for premedication in children.

pediatrics
Comparison of the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine versus intranasal atomised ketamine as a premedication for sedation and anxiolysis in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Chethan Hebbar K,Ashwini Reddy,Ankur Luthra,Rajeev Chauhan,Shyam C Meena,Manjul Tripathi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001936

2024-04-01

Abstract:Background: Preoperative anxiety leads to adverse clinical outcomes and long-term maladaptive behavioural changes. The role of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine and atomised ketamine as premedication to produce sedation and anxiolysis in paediatric neurosurgical patients has not been extensively studied. Objective: To study the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine and intranasal atomised ketamine as premedication in producing sedation and facilitating smooth induction in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery. Design: A prospective randomised double-blind trial. Setting: A tertiary teaching hospital. Patients: Sixty-four children aged 1 to 10 years undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery. Methods: Children were randomised to receive intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine 2.5 μg kg -1 (Group D, n = 32) and intranasal atomised ketamine 5 mg kg -1 (Group K, n = 32) 30 min before surgery. Outcomes measured: The primary outcome was to compare the level of sedation in both groups using the University of Michigan Sedation Score (UMSS). The secondary outcomes included an assessment of the ease of parental separation, intravenous cannulation and satisfactory mask acceptance along with perioperative vitals (heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation). The incidence of emergence agitation and time to discharge were also noted. Results: The degree of sedation was significantly better in Group D as compared to Group K at 20 min (UMSS, 1.55 ± 0.51 versus 1.13 ± 0.34, difference, -0.406; 95% CI, -0.621 to -0.191; P = 0.0001) and 30 min (2.32 ± 0.6 versus 1.94 ± 0.50, difference, -0.374; 95% CI, -0.650 to -0.100; P = 0.007). The ease of parental separation, venous cannulation and mask acceptance ( P = 0.83, 0.418 and 0.100 respectively) were comparable in both groups. The heart rate was lower in group D at 10, 20 and 30 min post-drug administration but was clinically insignificant. The incidence of emergence agitation and time to discharge was also similar with no adverse events reported. Conclusion: Intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine produces greater sedation as compared to intranasal atomised ketamine with comparable ease of parental separation, venous cannulation and mask acceptance with no adverse effects.
Preoperative anxiety in preschool children: A randomized clinical trial comparing midazolam, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine

Åsa Bromfalk,Tomi Myrberg,Jakob Walldén,Åsa Engström,Magnus Hultin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14279

2021-08-26

Pediatric Anesthesia

Abstract:BackgroundAnxiety in pediatric patients may challenge perioperative anesthesiology management and worsen postoperative outcomes. Sedative drugs aimed to reducing anxiety are available with different pharmacologic profiles, and there is no consensus on their effect or the best option for preschool children. AimIn this study, we aimed to compare the effect of three different premedications on anxiety before anesthesia induction in preschool children aged 2−6 years scheduled for elective surgery. The secondary outcomes comprised distress during peripheral catheter (PVC) insertion, compliance at anesthesia induction, and level of sedation. MethodsIn this double-blinded randomized clinical trial, we enrolled 90 participants aged 2−6 years, who were scheduled for elective ear-, nose-and-throat surgery. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: those who were administered 0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam, 4 µg/kg oral clonidine, or 2 µg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine. Anxiety, distress during PVC insertion, compliance with mask during preoxygenation, and sedation were measured using the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale, Behavioral Distress Scale, Induction Compliance Checklist, and Ramsay Sedation Scale, respectively. ResultsSix children who refused premedication were excluded, leaving 84 enrolled patients. At baseline, all groups had similar levels of preoperative anxiety and distress. During anesthesia preparation, anxiety was increased in the children who received clonidine and dexmedetomidine; however, it remained unaltered in the midazolam group. There were no differences in distress during PVC insertion or compliance at induction between the groups. The children in the clonidine and dexmedetomidine groups developed higher levels of sedation than those in the midazolam group. ConclusionsIn preschool children, midazolam resulted in a more effective anxiolysis and less sedation compared to clonidine and dexmedetomidine.

pediatrics,anesthesiology

Machine Learning in Medicine - a Complete Overview

The prophylactic effectiveness of amantadine hydrochloride in an epidemic of Hong Kong influenza in Leningrad in 1969.

Sedative and behavioral effects of atomized intranasal midazolam in comparison with nebulized midazolam for children undergoing dental treatment: A randomized clinical trial

Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

Comparison of intranasal ketamine with intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine combination in pediatric dental patients for procedural sedation: A crossover study

The effect of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine on behavior of uncooperative pediatric dental patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam As Intranasal Premedication for Intravenous Deep Sedation in Pediatric Dental Treatment

Comparison of dexmedetomidine and a dexmedetomidine-esketamine combination for reducing dental anxiety in preschool children undergoing dental treatment under general anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial

Comparison of sedative effects of oral midazolam/chloral hydrate and midazolam/promethazine in pediatric dentistry

Comparing Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam for Sedation of Children While Undergoing Computerized Tomography Imaging

Personality Traits and Conduct of Institutionalized Delinquents

The earliest stages of follicular development: follicle formation and activation.

Evaluation of Efficacy of Oral Ketamine and Midazolam Combination Drug in Different Doses in Different Groups Used for Moderate Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry Randomized-comparative Trial

Effect of Dexmedetomidine with or without Midazolam during procedural dental sedation in children: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Comparison of the Effects of Oral Midazolam and Intranasal Dexmedetomidine on Preoperative Sedation and Anesthesia Induction in Children Undergoing Surgeries

Efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate as sedatives for pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sedative and Behavioral Effects of Intranasal Midazolam in Comparison with Other Administrative Routes in Children Undergoing Dental Treatment - A Systematic Review

Effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine and ketamine combination in paediatric dental sedation: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs. oral midazolam for premedication in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of the efficacy of intranasal atomised dexmedetomidine versus intranasal atomised ketamine as a premedication for sedation and anxiolysis in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Preoperative anxiety in preschool children: A randomized clinical trial comparing midazolam, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine