首页> 外文OA文献 >Midazolam Versus Diazepam for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus in Children and Young Adults: A Meta-analysis
【2h】

Midazolam Versus Diazepam for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus in Children and Young Adults: A Meta-analysis

机译:咪达唑仑与地西泮治疗儿童和青少年癫痫持续状态:meta分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Rapid treatment of status epilepticus (SE) is associated with better outcomes. Diazepam and midazolam are commonly used, but the optimal agent and administration route is unclear.The objective was to determine by systematic review if nonintravenous (non-IV) midazolam is as effective as diazepam, by any route, in terminating SE seizures in children and adults. Time to seizure cessation and respiratory complications was examined.We performed a search of PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for studies published January 1, 1950, through July 4, 2009. English language quasi-experimental or randomized controlled trials comparing midazolam and diazepam as first-line treatment for SE, and meeting the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-based quality measures, were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted outcomes data. Administration routes were stratified as non-IV (buccal, intranasal, intramuscular, rectal) or IV. Fixed-effects models generated pooled statistics.Six studies with 774 subjects were included. For seizure cessation, midazolam, by any route, was superior to diazepam, by any route (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27 to 1.82). Non-IV midazolam is as effective as IV diazepam (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.19 to 3.36), and buccal midazolam is superior to rectal diazepam in achieving seizure control (RR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.29 to 1.85). Midazolam was administered faster than diazepam (mean difference = 2.46 minutes; 95% CI = 1.52 to 3.39 minutes) and had similar times between drug administration and seizure cessation. Respiratory complications requiring intervention were similar, regardless of administration route (RR = 1.49; 95% CI = 0.25 to 8.72).Non-IV midazolam, compared to non-IV or IV diazepam, is safe and effective in treating SE. Comparison to lorazepam, evaluation in adults, and prospective confirmation of safety and efficacy is needed.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:575–582 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
机译:快速治疗癫痫持续状态(SE)与改善预后有关。地西p和咪达唑仑是常用药,但最佳药物和给药途径尚不清楚。目的是通过系统评估来确定非静脉(非IV)咪达唑仑在任何方面是否都可与地西epa一样有效地终止儿童的SE发作和大人。检查了癫痫发作停止和呼吸系统并发症的时间。我们进行了PubMed,知识网,Embase,Cochrane系统评价数据库,效果评价摘要数据库,美国内科医师学院学报俱乐部,Cochrane中央对照试验注册数据库的搜索,护理和相关健康文献的累积索引以及1950年1月1日至2009年7月4日发表的国际药物摘要研究。比较拟用咪达唑仑和地西epa作为SE的一线治疗的英语准实验或随机对照试验,并且符合基于合并报告标准(CONSORT)的质量度量标准。两位审稿人独立筛选了纳入研究并提取结果数据的研究。给药途径分为非静脉注射(颊,鼻内,肌内,直肠)或静脉注射。固定效应模型产生了汇总统计数据,其中包括774名受试者的6项研究。对于癫痫发作停止,无论哪种途径,咪达唑仑都比任何地西superior都要好(相对危险度[RR] = 1.52; 95%置信区间[CI] = 1.81.27至1.82)。非IV咪达唑仑与IV地西epa一样有效(RR = 0.79; 95%CI = 0.19至3.36),颊咪达唑仑在控制癫痫发作方面优于直肠地西epa(RR = 1.54; 95%CI = 1.29至1.85)。咪达唑仑的给药速度比地西epa快(平均差= 2.46分钟; 95%CI = 1.52至3.39分钟),并且给药与停止癫痫发作的时间相似。不论给药途径如何,需要干预的呼吸系统并发症均相似(RR = 1.49; 95%CI = 0.25〜8.72)。与非IV或IV地西epa相比,非IV咪达唑仑在治疗SE中是安全有效的。需要与劳拉西m进行比较,对成年人进行评估以及对安全性和有效性进行前瞻性确认。《 ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010》; 17:575–582©2010年学术急诊医学协会

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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