首页> 外文期刊>Chinese Journal of Contemporary Neurology and Neurosurgery >Efficacy and safety of non-intravenous midazolam for the treatment of status epilepticus in children: a Meta-analysis
【24h】

Efficacy and safety of non-intravenous midazolam for the treatment of status epilepticus in children: a Meta-analysis

机译:非静脉使用咪达唑仑治疗儿童癫痫持续状态的疗效和安全性的荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of non-intravenous midazolam for treating status epilepticus (SE) in children. Methods Taking midazolam, status epilepticus and children both in Chinese and English as search terms, retrieve in databases such as PubMed, ScienceDirect, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and Wanfang Data, assisted by manual searching and Google Scholar, in order to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about non-intravenous midazolam for treating SE in children from January 2000 to January 2015. Jadad Scale was used to evaluate the quality of literatures. Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results There were a total of 258 records after preliminary searching, and 6 RCTs involving 766 episodes were finally included after excluding duplicate ones and those which did not meet the inclusion criteria. The results were as follows: 1) midazolam via intranasal administration was as effective as intravenous diazepam in achieving seizure control in children ( RD = -0.070, 95%CI: -0.200—0.060, P = 0.290). However, non-intravenous (intranasal or buccal) midazolam showed better effects on seizure control than rectal diazepam ( RD = 0.170, 95% CI: 0.030—0.320; P = 0.020). 2) The mean time from arrival at hospital to cessation was not significantly different between intranasal midazolam and intravenous diazepam ( SMD = -1.570, 95%CI: -3.280—0.140; P = 0.070). 3) There was no statistical difference between intranasal midazolam and intravenous diazepam for the time from giving drug to cessation ( SMD = 0.240, 95%CI: -0.110—0.590; P = 0.170). 4) There was no?statistical difference on the occurrence rate of adverse drug reactions between non-intravenous midazolam and intravenous or non-intravenous diazepam ( RD = -0.010, 95% CI: -0.030—0.200; P = 0.500). Conclusions Non-intravenous midazolam is safe and effective in the treatment for status epilepticus in children. However, the conclusion still needs to be further vertified by more high-quality multi-center large-sample RCTs. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-6731.2016.02.004
机译:目的评价非静脉使用咪达唑仑治疗儿童癫痫持续状态(SE)的临床疗效和安全性。方法以中,英文的咪达唑仑,癫痫持续状态和儿童作为检索词,在PubMed,ScienceDirect,中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI),VIP和万方数据等数据库中进行检索,并辅以人工搜索和Google Scholar。收集2000年1月至2015年1月关于非静脉使用咪达唑仑治疗儿童SE的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用Jadad量表评估文献的质量。使用RevMan 5.3软件进行荟萃分析。结果初步检索后共有258条记录,排除重复和不符合纳入标准的6篇随机对照试验,共766例。结果如下:1)经鼻内给药的咪达唑仑在控制儿童癫痫发作方面与静脉注射地西epa一样有效(RD = -0.070,95%CI:-0.200-0.060,P = 0.290)。然而,非静脉(鼻内或颊侧)咪达唑仑对癫痫发作的控制效果优于直肠地西epa(RD = 0.170,95%CI:0.030-0.320; P = 0.020)。 2)鼻内咪达唑仑和静脉注射地西epa之间的平均住院时间无明显差异(SMD = -1.570,95%CI:-3.280-0.140; P = 0.070)。 3)从给药到停止用药的时间,鼻内咪达唑仑和静脉注射地西epa之间无统计学差异(SMD = 0.240,95%CI:-0.110-0.590; P = 0.170)。 4)非静脉使用咪达唑仑与静脉或非静脉注射地西epa之间的不良药物反应发生率没有统计学差异(RD = -0.010,95%CI:-0.030-0.200; P = 0.500)。结论非静脉使用咪达唑仑治疗儿童癫痫持续状态安全,有效。但是,该结论仍需要通过更多高质量的多中心大样本RCT来进一步证实。 DOI:10.3969 / j.issn.1672-6731.2016.02.004

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号