Abstract
We conducted this single blind randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of oral chloral hydrate and intranasal midazolam for induction of sedation for computerized tomography scan of brain in children. Participants aged 1–10 years (n=60) were randomized to receive 100 mg/kg chloral hydrate orally with intra nasal normal saline OR intranasal midazolam 0.2 mg/kg with oral normal saline. Adequate sedation (Ramsay sedation score of four) was obtained and CT scan completed successfully in 76.7% of chloral hydrate group and in 40% of midazolam group (P=0.004). No significant difference was seen for side effects frequency between the two drugs (10% in chloral hydrate, 3.3% in midazolam group; P= 0.34). We conclude that oral chloral hydrate can be considered as a safe and effective drug for sedation in children undergoing CT scan of brain.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Wachtel RE, Dexter F, Dow AJ. Growth rates in pediatric diagnostic imaging and sedation. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1616–1621.
Avlonitou E, Balatsouras DG, Margaritis E, Giannakopoulos P, Douniadakis D, Tsakanikos M. Use of chloral hydrate as a sedative for auditory brainstem response testing in a pediatric population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;75:760–763.
Haselkorn T, Whittemore AS, Udaltsova N, Friedman GD. Short-term chloral hydrate administration and cancer in humans. Drug Saf. 2006;29:67–77.
Chiaretti A, Barone G, Rigante D, Ruggiero A, Pierri F, Barbi E, et al. Intranasal lidocaine and midazolam for procedural sedation in children. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96:160–163.
Singh R, Kumar N, Vajifdar H. Midazolam as a sole sedative for computed tomography imaging in pediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19:899–904.
Klein EJ, Brown JC, Kobayashi A, Osincup D, Seidel K. A randomized clinical trial comparing oral, aerosolized intranasal, and aerosolized buccal midazolam. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58:323–329.
Dallman JA, Ignelzi MA Jr, Briskie DM. Comparing the safety, efficacy and recovery of intranasal midazolam vs. oral chloral hydrate and promethazine. Pediatr Dent. 2001;23:424–430.
Cote CJ, Wilson S. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update. Pediatrics. 2006;118: 2587–2602.
Ramsay MA, Savege TM, Simpson BR, Goodwin R. Controlled sedation with alphaxalone-alphadolone. Br Med J. 1974;2:656–659.
Layangool T, Sangtawesin C, Kirawittaya T, Prompan W, Attachoo A, Pechdamrongsakul A, et al. A comparison of oral chloral hydrate and sublingual midazolam sedation for echocardiogram in children. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91:S45–S52.
D’Agostino J, Terndrup TE. Chloral hydrate versus midazolam for sedation of children for neuroimaging: a randomized clinical trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2000;16:1–4.
Schulte-Uentrop L, Goepfert MS. Anaesthesia or sedation for MRI in children. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23:513–517.
Mazaheri R, Eshghi A, Bashardoost N, Kavyani N. Assessment of intranasal midazolam administration with a dose of 0.5 mg/kg in behavior management of uncooperative children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;32:95–99.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fallah, R., Nakhaei, M.H.A., Behdad, S. et al. Oral chloral hydrate vs. intranasal midazolam for sedation during computerized tomography. Indian Pediatr 50, 233–235 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-013-0065-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-013-0065-5