Perioperative changes in anxiety and comfort in third molar extraction patients sedated with midazolam

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze changes in anxiety and comfort levels at each perioperative stage during third molar extraction under single-agent intravenous midazolam sedation, and to clarify how these conditions at each perioperative stage affect postoperative satisfaction.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

115 who requested extraction of 1 ~ 4 third molars under single-agent intravenous midazolam sedation were targeted. These patients were administered a questionnaire survey one week after surgery. The questionnaire's five items (Anxiety before surgery, Comfort during surgery, Comfort after surgery, Amnesia, and Satisfaction) were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). We investigated the correlation between each of the eight parameters which added age, operation time, and total amount of midazolam, to the VAS score. Furthermore, we compared each eight parameters according to the number of extracted wisdom teeth and sex differences.

RESULTS

Regarding the correlation among each parameter, low preoperative anxiety were weak and positively correlated with reduced operation time reduced midazolam dosage, and an increase in postoperative comfort. All parameters influenced the patient's satisfaction level. Those levels were significantly affected by preoperative reassurance (r = 0.4402, p < 0.01), postoperative comfort (r = 0.5522, p < 0.01) amnesia (r = 0.5741, p < 0.01), and intraoperative comfort (r = 0.7578, p < 0.01). Each parameter had no significant difference depending on the number of teeth extracted. In comparison between men and women, only preoperative reassurance was significantly lower in women than in men (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

This sedation effectively managed preoperative anxiety and improved postoperative satisfaction. To obtain good sedative condition, Preoperative anxiolytics are recommended. This sedation is considered particularly effective in women.

Safety and Satisfaction Analysis of Intravenous and Inhalational Conscious Sedation in a Geriatric Population Undergoing Oral Surgery

Aim: The objective of this research was to compare two methods of conscious sedation (midazolam vs. sevoflurane) used for performing oral surgical procedures in the older adult population by analyzing dental treatment-related anxiety levels, the quality of sedation, and potential hemodynamic changes during the interventions, as well as post-recovery symptoms and patient satisfaction levels. Methods: A total of 104 patients underwent oral surgery with intravenous (age: 84.00 ± 8.410; 17 men and 36 women) and inhalation conscious sedation (age: 82.73 ± 8.809; 18 men and 33 women). Anxiety levels were recorded using the Modified Corah Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS) and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS). During the intervention, the heart rate, systolic/diastolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation, episodes of hypoxia (<90%SpO2), sedation duration, and Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) values were monitored. Upon completion of their treatment, all patients completed three questionnaires which evaluated their recall of the intervention, postoperative symptoms, and recommendation of the sedation method used. Results: Anxiety levels were slightly higher in the midazolam group (MDAS score: 9.60 ± 5.849; HARS score: 27.19 ± 6.802) compared to the sevoflurane group (MDAS score: 8.37 ± 5.063; HARS score: 24.92 ± 5.199), with no statistical significance (MDAS, p = 0.453/HARS, p = 0.065). No significant differences in the analyzed hemodynamic parameters were observed between the two groups. However, SAS values were significantly higher in the sevoflurane group (p = 0.006), while the sedation duration was longer in the midazolam group (p = 0.000). Postoperative symptoms, particularly gastrointestinal disturbances and dry mouth, were significantly more prevalent in the midazolam group, while there were no differences in neurological symptoms between the two groups. The majority of patients expressed a preference for either of these sedation methods. Conclusions: Sedation with agents such as midazolam and sevoflurane appears to be quite safe, given the absence of relevant hemodynamic changes. Midazolam has been shown to be effective for a longer duration, as well as to have a lower risk of developing greater digestive problems during the postoperative period. On the contrary, sevoflurane produced a greater sensation of dry mouth. Both sedative agents are perceived by the older adult population as satisfactory, recommending their use.

Sedation of Adults with Orally Administered Midazolam in Dentistry - A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The use of midazolam (MZ) has increased in dentistry, but the effect in adults is sparsely studied. The aim of this study was to investigate doses, effects, and side effects of orally administered MZ as a sedative for adults in a dental care organization.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective record review was performed including all adult patients in the dental care organization ≥20 years receiving MZ, identified through a logbook for addictive drugs, during 2020. From patients' records, the following data were extracted: age, gender, medical history, reason for sedation, performed treatments, doses, effects, and side effects of MZ.  Results: In total, 265 patients on 418 occasions had been sedated, which constituted 2.3 sedations per 1,000 visits and 3.3 sedations per 1,000 treated patients. Mean age was 40.8 years and 67.7% were females. The most common reason for sedation was anxiety. Mean dose in primary dental clinics was 7.9 mg and in specialist clinics, 6.8 mg (p < 0.001). Older patients (>70 years) had lower doses than younger (p < 0.001), while no difference was found between ages 55-70 years and those who were younger. Dental treatment was completed in 91.9% of occasions, and side effects were registered in 2.2%. Successful dental treatment was related to type of treatment performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation is rarely used, particularly in primary dental care, and the use varies widely between clinics. MZ administered by dentists seems to be safe and effective. A sedation record should be used to make patient data such as weight and medical conditions available.

Combined use of intranasal Dexmedetomidine and an oral novel formulation of Midazolam for sedation of young children during brain MRI examination: a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different dosages of intranasal Dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with oral midazolam for sedation of young children during brain MRI examination.

METHODS

Included in this prospective single-blind randomized controlled trial were 156 children aged from 3 months to 6 years and weighing from 4 to 20 Kg with ASA I-II who underwent brain MRI examination between March 2021 and February 2022. Using the random number table method, they were divided into group A (using 3 ug/kg intranasal DEX plus 0.2 mg/Kg oral midazolam) and group B (using 2 ug/kg intranasal DEX plus 0.2 mg/Kg oral Midazolam). The one-time success rate of sedation, sedation onset time, recovery time, overall sedation time, and occurrence of adverse reactions during MRI examination were compared between the two groups. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and percutaneous SpO₂before and after drug administration were observed in both groups. Differences in sedation scores between the two groups were compared before intranasal drug administration (T0), 10 min after drug administration (T1), at the time of falling asleep (T2), at the end of examination (T3), and at the time of recovery (T4).

RESULTS

The one-time success rate of sedation in group A and B was 88.31% and 79.75% respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The sedation onset time in group A was 24.97±16.94 min versus 27.92±15.83 min in group B, and the recovery time was 61.88±22.18 min versus 61.16±28.16 min, both showing no significance difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Children in both groups exhibited good drug tolerance without presenting nausea and vomiting, hypoxia, or bradycardia and hypotension that needed clinical interventions. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of abnormal HR, MAP or other adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

3 ug/kg or 2 ug/kg intranasal DEX in combination with 0.2 mg/kg oral Midazolam both are safe and effective for sedation of children undergoing MRI examination with the advantages of fast-acting and easy application.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

It was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1800015038 ) on 02/03/2018.

A comparative study of propofol alone and propofol combined with midazolam for dental treatments in special needs patients

Although dental treatment with sedation is performed increasingly in special needs patients, data on adding midazolam to intravenous propofol sedation are very limited for this group. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors and procedure time associated with the use of intravenous sedation with propofol alone or propofol combined with midazolam in dental patients with special needs.This was a retrospective data analysis. The sedation medications and relevant covariates, including demographic parameters, disability levels, oral health conditions, dental procedures, treatment time, and side effects, of 718 patients with special needs were collected between April 2013 and September 2014. The unfavorable side effects by sedation types were reported. Factors associated with procedure time and the sedation medications were assessed with multiple logistic regression analyses.Of 718 patients, 8 patients experienced unfavorable side effects (vomiting, sleepiness, or emotional disturbance) after the dental procedures; the rate was 0.6% in the 509 patients who received propofol only. In 209 patients who received propofol and midazolam, 2.4% experienced the side effects. Sedation time was associated with body mass index (BMI) < 25 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-2.04) and the performance of multiple dental procedures (aOR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.06-1.97) but not associated with the sedation types. A significant odds ratio for the combined use of propofol and midazolam was shown for adolescents (aOR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.28-3.86), men (aOR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.41-2.98), patients with cognitive impairment (aOR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.21-3.29), and patients undergoing scaling procedures (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.13-2.39).With the acceptable side effects of the use of propofol alone and propofol combined with midazolam, multiple dental procedures increase the sedation time and the factors associated with the combined use of propofol and midazolam are younger age, male sex, recognition problems, and the type dental procedure in the dental treatment of patients with special needs.

Intranasal midazolam for the sedation of geriatric patients with care-resistant behaviour during essential dental treatment: An observational study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the efficacy and safety of intranasal midazolam for sedation during essential dental treatment of geriatric patients with major neurocognitive disorder (MND) and care-resistant behaviour (CRB).

BACKGROUND

Dental treatment is often impossible in geriatric MND patients with CRB. Intranasal midazolam may provide a non-invasive sedation method, but there is currently no information on its use in geriatric patients.

METHODS

In this observational study, we included geriatric patients with severe MND and CRB needing urgent dental treatment. Each patient received 5 mg midazolam intranasally. Agitation/sedation levels, heart rate, respiration rate and oxygen saturation were recorded at 5-minute intervals.

RESULTS

Thirty two patients were included. Mean age was 84 (±7) years. Mean (SD) time to treatment start was 13 (±5) minutes, and mean time to maximum sedation 17 (±11) minutes. Sedation was sufficient to enable dental treatment to be completed in 31 (97%) patients. Anxiolysis/light sedation occurred in 16 (50%) patients, and moderate to deep sedation occurred in 16 (50%) patients. No patients suffered from apnoea, although 3 patients required a chin-lift manoeuvre. Hypoxaemia occurred in 1 of these patients and in 2 other patients without airway obstruction. All patients recovered uneventfully. In a regression model, age, weight and other sedative medication use were found not to be associated with maximum sedation depth.

CONCLUSIONS

Of 5 mg intranasal midazolam facilitates treatment of geriatric patients with MND in the comfort of their own environment. More information is needed to guide titration to balance the desired sedation level and patient safety.

Tolerability of Midazolam to treat acute agitation in elderly demented patients: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Behavioural disorders are difficult to manage in elderly demented patients because of the lack of appropriate drugs or difficulties surrounding the route of administration. The tolerability of Midazolam is well described in the emergency management of agitation for young patients, when administered intramuscularly or intravenously. However, very little data are available on the use of oral Midazolam for this indication and in the elderly population.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted, and studies were included if involving adults, receiving Midazolam, alone or in combination, whatever the route, dosage or indication and if they reported adverse events related to the use of Midazolam.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forty-one articles were included. Eleven different adverse events were identified from the studies. Hypotension and desaturation were the two most frequent adverse events reported. Adverse reactions appear to be more common in older patients but also when Midazolam was used in combination with other drugs. The frequency of these adverse effects was lower than those reported for neuroleptic drugs.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The oral route appears to be appropriate to provide a rapid and well-tolerated response. Further studies will be needed to confirm the good tolerance of oral Midazolam in the management of acute agitation in elderly demented patients.