A comparison of oral diazepam versus midazolam, administered with intravenous meperidine, as premedication to sedation for pediatric endoscopy

Jose L. Martinez, Kimberly A. Sutters, Steven Waite, Judy Davis, Elizabeth Medina, Nancy Montano, David Merzel, Carol Marquez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study was performed to compare the effects of oral midazolam and oral diazepam, administered with intravenous (IV) meperidine, on pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural sedation and recovery in children undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy. The costs of pre-procedure sedation were compared for the two benzodiazepines. Methods: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 154 children (mean age 96.73 ± 59.34 months, 53% male) undergoing endoscopy. Oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, maximum dose of 20 mg) or oral diazepam (0.3 mg/kg, maximum dose of 10 mg) was given before IV insertion, and with IV meperidine (2 mg/kg, maximum dose of 100 mg) given to all patients just before upper endoscopy. Further "rescue" midazolam doses (to a maximum cumulative dose of 5 mg) were given as needed to achieve a pre-procedure sedation score of ≥2. All patients received intravenous propofol for procedural sedation. Patients were evaluated for the efficacy and safety of pre-procedural sedation, sedation during upper endoscopy, and recovery following completion of the procedure. Results: There were no significant differences between study groups for level of pre-procedural sedation, need for midazolam rescue in endoscopy, effectiveness of procedural sedation, occurrence of adverse events, and recovery parameters. Conclusions: Oral midazolam and diazepam, in conjunction with IV administration of meperidine, provide comparable, effective, and safe premedication for children undergoing upper endoscopy. The cost of midazolam was substantially higher than diazepam.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)51-58
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition
Volume35
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meperidine
diazepam
Premedication
endoscopy
Midazolam
sedation
Diazepam
Endoscopy
mouth
Pediatrics
dosage
Costs and Cost Analysis
Propofol
Benzodiazepines
Double-Blind Method
benzodiazepines
Intravenous Administration
intravenous injection
Safety

Keywords

  • Children
  • Endoscopy
  • Sedation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Histology
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Food Science
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

A comparison of oral diazepam versus midazolam, administered with intravenous meperidine, as premedication to sedation for pediatric endoscopy. / Martinez, Jose L.; Sutters, Kimberly A.; Waite, Steven; Davis, Judy; Medina, Elizabeth; Montano, Nancy; Merzel, David; Marquez, Carol.

In: Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2002, p. 51-58.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Martinez, Jose L. ; Sutters, Kimberly A. ; Waite, Steven ; Davis, Judy ; Medina, Elizabeth ; Montano, Nancy ; Merzel, David ; Marquez, Carol. / A comparison of oral diazepam versus midazolam, administered with intravenous meperidine, as premedication to sedation for pediatric endoscopy. In: Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 2002 ; Vol. 35, No. 1. pp. 51-58.
@article{29b7264408f3467895ff3117d9dffea2,
title = "A comparison of oral diazepam versus midazolam, administered with intravenous meperidine, as premedication to sedation for pediatric endoscopy",
abstract = "Objectives: This study was performed to compare the effects of oral midazolam and oral diazepam, administered with intravenous (IV) meperidine, on pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural sedation and recovery in children undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy. The costs of pre-procedure sedation were compared for the two benzodiazepines. Methods: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 154 children (mean age 96.73 ± 59.34 months, 53{\%} male) undergoing endoscopy. Oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, maximum dose of 20 mg) or oral diazepam (0.3 mg/kg, maximum dose of 10 mg) was given before IV insertion, and with IV meperidine (2 mg/kg, maximum dose of 100 mg) given to all patients just before upper endoscopy. Further {"}rescue{"} midazolam doses (to a maximum cumulative dose of 5 mg) were given as needed to achieve a pre-procedure sedation score of ≥2. All patients received intravenous propofol for procedural sedation. Patients were evaluated for the efficacy and safety of pre-procedural sedation, sedation during upper endoscopy, and recovery following completion of the procedure. Results: There were no significant differences between study groups for level of pre-procedural sedation, need for midazolam rescue in endoscopy, effectiveness of procedural sedation, occurrence of adverse events, and recovery parameters. Conclusions: Oral midazolam and diazepam, in conjunction with IV administration of meperidine, provide comparable, effective, and safe premedication for children undergoing upper endoscopy. The cost of midazolam was substantially higher than diazepam.",
keywords = "Children, Endoscopy, Sedation",
author = "Martinez, {Jose L.} and Sutters, {Kimberly A.} and Steven Waite and Judy Davis and Elizabeth Medina and Nancy Montano and David Merzel and Carol Marquez",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1097/00005176-200207000-00012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "51--58",
journal = "Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition",
issn = "0277-2116",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of oral diazepam versus midazolam, administered with intravenous meperidine, as premedication to sedation for pediatric endoscopy

AU - Martinez, Jose L.

AU - Sutters, Kimberly A.

AU - Waite, Steven

AU - Davis, Judy

AU - Medina, Elizabeth

AU - Montano, Nancy

AU - Merzel, David

AU - Marquez, Carol

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Objectives: This study was performed to compare the effects of oral midazolam and oral diazepam, administered with intravenous (IV) meperidine, on pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural sedation and recovery in children undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy. The costs of pre-procedure sedation were compared for the two benzodiazepines. Methods: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 154 children (mean age 96.73 ± 59.34 months, 53% male) undergoing endoscopy. Oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, maximum dose of 20 mg) or oral diazepam (0.3 mg/kg, maximum dose of 10 mg) was given before IV insertion, and with IV meperidine (2 mg/kg, maximum dose of 100 mg) given to all patients just before upper endoscopy. Further "rescue" midazolam doses (to a maximum cumulative dose of 5 mg) were given as needed to achieve a pre-procedure sedation score of ≥2. All patients received intravenous propofol for procedural sedation. Patients were evaluated for the efficacy and safety of pre-procedural sedation, sedation during upper endoscopy, and recovery following completion of the procedure. Results: There were no significant differences between study groups for level of pre-procedural sedation, need for midazolam rescue in endoscopy, effectiveness of procedural sedation, occurrence of adverse events, and recovery parameters. Conclusions: Oral midazolam and diazepam, in conjunction with IV administration of meperidine, provide comparable, effective, and safe premedication for children undergoing upper endoscopy. The cost of midazolam was substantially higher than diazepam.

AB - Objectives: This study was performed to compare the effects of oral midazolam and oral diazepam, administered with intravenous (IV) meperidine, on pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural sedation and recovery in children undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy. The costs of pre-procedure sedation were compared for the two benzodiazepines. Methods: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 154 children (mean age 96.73 ± 59.34 months, 53% male) undergoing endoscopy. Oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, maximum dose of 20 mg) or oral diazepam (0.3 mg/kg, maximum dose of 10 mg) was given before IV insertion, and with IV meperidine (2 mg/kg, maximum dose of 100 mg) given to all patients just before upper endoscopy. Further "rescue" midazolam doses (to a maximum cumulative dose of 5 mg) were given as needed to achieve a pre-procedure sedation score of ≥2. All patients received intravenous propofol for procedural sedation. Patients were evaluated for the efficacy and safety of pre-procedural sedation, sedation during upper endoscopy, and recovery following completion of the procedure. Results: There were no significant differences between study groups for level of pre-procedural sedation, need for midazolam rescue in endoscopy, effectiveness of procedural sedation, occurrence of adverse events, and recovery parameters. Conclusions: Oral midazolam and diazepam, in conjunction with IV administration of meperidine, provide comparable, effective, and safe premedication for children undergoing upper endoscopy. The cost of midazolam was substantially higher than diazepam.

KW - Children

KW - Endoscopy

KW - Sedation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036063895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036063895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00005176-200207000-00012

DO - 10.1097/00005176-200207000-00012

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 51

EP - 58

JO - Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition

JF - Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition

SN - 0277-2116

IS - 1

ER -