首页> 外文期刊>Acta neurologica Scandinavica. >Buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam for treatment of residential adult patients with serial seizures or status epilepticus.
【24h】

Buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam for treatment of residential adult patients with serial seizures or status epilepticus.

机译:颊咪达唑仑或直肠地西epa用于治疗患有系列惊厥或癫痫持续状态的成年成人患者。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam as emergency treatment in residential adults with convulsive or non-convulsive serial seizures or status epilepticus (SE), and ascertain the preference between the two treatment options among the patients and the nursing staff. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The nursing staff of our residential epilepsy centre treated 80 episodes of serial seizures or SE lasting more than 5 min alternating with rectal diazepam or buccal midazolam. The dose of each study drug was tailored individually. The primary outcome measure was defined as cessation of seizure activity within 10 min without seizure relapse within 2 h. RESULTS: Convulsive SE was treated promptly, after a mean of 6.2 min, and terminated faster with buccal midazolam than with rectal diazepam; i.e. after a mean of 2.8 vs 5.0 min, respectively (n = 0.012). The other subcategories of emergency situations were treated after a mean of 25.0 min, and the seizure activity ceased after a mean of 7.4 min in the diazepam group and 7.6 min in the midazolam group (NS). The success rate was 83.3% in the diazepam group and 74.4% in the midazolam group (NS). The difference was mostly due to slightly more seizure relapses during the first 2 h in the midazolam group. Both treatment options were well tolerated, temporary tiredness being the most frequently occurring adverse effect. All the nursing staff and six of the seven patients who gained experience with both treatment options favoured the buccal route. CONCLUSIONS: Buccal midazolam appeared to be at least as effective as rectal diazepam with little or no side effects. The buccal administration was easy to handle and socially more acceptable than the rectal route.
机译:目的:比较颊咪达唑仑与直肠地西epa在有惊厥或非惊厥性系列惊厥或癫痫持续状态(SE)的居住成人中的紧急治疗的疗效和耐受性,并确定患者和护理人员在这两种治疗方案之间的偏好员工。材料与方法:我们住宅癫痫中心的护理人员与直肠地西epa或颊咪达唑仑交替治疗80发作,发作持续5秒钟以上,持续时间超过5分钟。每种研究药物的剂量分别调整。主要结果指标定义为在10分钟内停止癫痫发作活动,且在2小时内没有癫痫发作复发。结果:平均6.2分钟后,迅速治疗惊厥性SE,颊咪达唑仑比直肠地西epa止痛更快。即分别在2.8和5.0分钟的平均值之后(n = 0.012)。其他紧急情况子类别在平均25.0分钟后得到治疗,地西epa组平均7.4分钟后和咪达唑仑组(NS)平均7.6分钟后癫痫发作停止。地西epa组的成功率为83.3%,咪达唑仑组(NS)的成功率为74.4%。差异主要是由于咪达唑仑组在最初2小时内癫痫发作复发略多。两种治疗方案的耐受性都很好,暂时的疲倦是最常见的不良反应。所有的护理人员和在这两种治疗方案中都有经验的7名患者中的6名都倾向于颊颊途径。结论:颊面咪达唑仑似乎至少与直肠地西epa一样有效,几乎没有副作用。口腔给药比直肠给药更容易操作并且在社会上更容易接受。

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