A randomized controlled trial of oral chloral hydrate vs intranasal dexmedetomidine plus buccal midazolam for auditory brainstem response testing in children. Issue 11 (3rd October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Bi L.; Yuen, Vivian M.; Zhou, Jia L.; Zhang, Na; Huang, Jun X.; Tian, Hang; Song, Xing R.
• Is Part Of: Paediatric anaesthesia. Volume 28:Issue 11(2018:Nov.)
• Page Start: 1022
• Page End: 1028
• Publication Date: 2018-10-03
• Subjects: chloral hydrate -- dexmedetomidine -- intranasal -- midazolam -- pediatric -- sedation; Pediatric anesthesia -- Periodicals; 617.96798
• DOI: 10.1111/pan.13498
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1155-5645

Abstract

Summary: Background: Moderate to deep sedation is required for an auditory brainstem response test when high‐intensity stimulation is used. Chloral hydrate is the most commonly used sedative, whereas intranasal dexmedetomidine is increasingly used in pediatric non‐painful procedural sedations. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the sedation success rate after oral chloral hydrate at 50 mg kg −1 and intranasal dexmedetomidine at 3 μg kg −1 plus buccal midazolam at 0.1 mg kg −1 for an auditory brainstem response test. Methods: Children who required an auditory brainstem response test were recruited and randomly assigned to receive oral chloral hydrate at 50 mg kg −1 and intranasal placebo, or intranasal dexmedetomidine at 3 μg kg −1 with buccal midazolam 0.1 mg kg −1 . The primary outcome was the rate of successful sedation for auditory brainstem response tests. Results: Fifty‐seven out of 82 (69.5%) were successfully sedated after chloral hydrate, while 70 out of 78 (89.7%) children were successfully sedated with dexmedetomidine plus midazolam combination, with the odd ratio (95% CI) for successful sedation between dexmedetomidine plus midazolam combination and chloral hydrate estimated to be 3.84 (1.61‐9.16), P = 0.002. Dexmedetomidine plus midazolam was associated with quicker onset with median onset time 15 (IQR 11.0‐19.8) for dexmedetomidine plus midazolam and 20 (IQR 15.0‐27.0) for chloral hydrate respectively, with difference between median (95% CI) of 5 [3‐8], P < 0.0001). The behavior observed during drug administration of intranasal dexmedetomidine and buccal midazolam was better that of the children who had oral chloral hydrate. No children required oxygen therapy or medical intervention for hemodynamic disturbances in this study and the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was similar. Conclusion: Intranasal dexmedetomidine plus buccal midazolam was associated with higher sedation success with deeper level of sedation, with similar discharge time and adverse event rate when compared to chloral hydrate.