A re-evaluation of the anxiolytic properties of intramuscular midazolam

Comparison of the effects of cranial electrotherapy stimulation and midazolam as preoperative treatment in geriatric patients: A CONSORT-compliant randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although midazolam is widely administered as an anxiolytic premedication, it may cause over-sedation and hypoxia in geriatric patients. Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is a nonpharmacological device with anxiolytic effect. This study compared the effects of CES and midazolam as a preoperative treatment in geriatric patients.

METHODS

Eighty patients, under the age of 65 to 79 years, undergoing general anesthesia were randomly assigned into midazolam premedication group (M group, n = 40) or CES pretreatment group (CES group, n = 40). The patients in the M group were intramuscularly injected with midazolam (0.07 mg/kg) 30 minutes before receiving general anesthesia. The patients in the CES group received 20 minutes of CES pretreatment on the day before and on the morning of the surgery.

RESULTS

In the preoperative holding area, the anxiety score (P = .02) and the sedation score (P < .001) were significantly lower in the CES group compared with those in the M group. The oxygen saturations at the preoperative holding area and the operating room were significantly higher in the CES group than those in the M group (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

CES pretreatment relieved preoperative anxiety with less risk of over-sedation and respiratory depression than midazolam premedication in geriatric patients.

Premedication for anxiety in adult day surgery

BACKGROUND

Since the early 1980s, it has become more and more common to carry out surgical procedures on a day case basis. Many patients are anxious before surgery yet there is sometimes a reluctance to provide sedative medication because it is believed to delay discharge from hospital.This is an updated version of the review first published in 2000 (previous updates 2003; 2006).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of anxiolytic premedication on time to discharge in adult patients undergoing day case surgery under general anaesthesia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified trials by computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2009 Issue 1 ); MEDLINE (1980 to January 2009); EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We also checked the reference lists of trials and review articles and handsearched three main anaesthesia journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all identified randomized controlled trials comparing anxiolytic drug(s) with placebo before general anaesthesia in adult day case surgical patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected data on anaesthetic drugs used; results of psychomotor function tests where these were used to assess residual effect of premedication; and on times from end of anaesthesia to ability to walk unaided or readiness for discharge from hospital. Formal statistical synthesis of individual trials was not performed in view of the variety of drugs studied.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies. Methodological quality of included studies was poor. Of these 17, only seven studies specifically addressed the discharge question; none found any delay in premedicated patients. Two other studies used clinical criteria to assess fitness for discharge, though times were not given. Again, there was no difference from placebo. Eleven studies used tests of psychomotor function with or without clinical measures as indicators of recovery from anaesthesia. In none of these studies did the premedication appear to delay discharge, although performance on tests of psychomotor function was sometimes still impaired. Three studies showed no impairment in psychomotor function, six showed some impairment which had resolved by three hours or time of discharge and two showed significant impairment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a difference in time to discharge from hospital, assessed by clinical criteria, in patients who received anxiolytic premedication. However, in view of the age and variety of anaesthetic techniques used and clinical heterogeneity between studies, inferences for current day case practice should be made with caution.

Premedication for anxiety in adult day surgery

BACKGROUND

Since the early 1980's it has become more and more common to carry out surgical procedures on a day case basis. Many patients are anxious before surgery yet there is sometimes a reluctance to provide sedative medication because it is believed to delay discharge from hospital.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of anxiolytic premedication on time to discharge in adult patients undergoing day case surgery under general anaesthesia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by computerized searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE (1980 to April 2002), EMBASE (from 1974 onwards), by checking the reference lists of trials and review articles, by hand-searching three main anaesthesia journals and by contacting five researchers active in the field and the Product Information Departments of the manufacturers of five commonly used premedicants.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials comparing an anxiolytic drug(s) with placebo before general anaesthesia in adult day case surgical patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected data on anaesthetic drugs used, results of tests of psychomotor function where these were used to assess residual effect of premedication, and on times from end of anaesthesia to ability to walk unaided or readiness for discharge from hospital. Formal statistical synthesis of individual trials was not performed in view of the variety of drugs studied.

MAIN RESULTS

Searching identified thirty-one reports; fifteen studies, with data from 1313 patients, were considered eligible for analysis. Only three studies specifically addressed the discharge question; both found no delay in premedicated patients. Three other studies used clinical criteria to assess fitness for discharge, though times were not given. Again, there was no difference from placebo. Four studies used both clinical measures and tests of psychomotor function as tests of recovery from anaesthesia. In none of these studies did the premedication appear to delay discharge, although performance on tests of psychomotor function was sometimes still impaired. Of the four studies which used tests of psychomotor function to assess recovery, three showed impaired recovery (after midazolam 7.5mg, midazolam 15mg or diazepam 15mg) which might possibly interfere with discharge from hospital. Seven studies used either clinical criteria alone or in combination with psychomotor tests; none showed discharge delay.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We have found no evidence of a difference in time to discharge from hospital, as assessed by clinical criteria, in patients who received anxiolytic premedication. However, in view of the age and variety of anaesthetic techniques used, inferences for currant day case practice should be made with caution.

Oral premedication one hour before minor gynaecological surgery--does it have any effect? A comparison between ketobemidone, lorazepam, propranolol and placebo

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of oral premedication with ketobemidone 5 mg, lorazepam 1 mg, propranolol 40 mg or placebo, given about an hour prior to anaesthesia, in a prospective randomized double-blind fashion. One hundred and twenty ASA I female patients scheduled for elective laparoscopy were randomly prescribed one of the study drugs. Patient evaluation of anxiety, nurse evaluation of premedication, induction and postoperative course were studied. Ninety-three of the 120 patients (78%) experienced no change or a decrease in anxiety, regardless of type of active drug or placebo administered. Eighty-eight of the patients (73%) were considered adequately premedicated by the nurse observer, with no differences between the groups. Pre induction pulse rate, blood pressure and amount of induction agent needed was also similar between the four groups of patients. No major differences could be seen during the postoperative course. We found no major effects of any of the active drugs studied compared to placebo. Routine use of small doses of oral premedication one hour before elective surgery among low anxiety patients could probably be omitted.

A comparison of propranolol and diazepam for preoperative anxiolysis

The effectiveness of propranolol, a nonsedating anxiolytic premedication, was studied by monitoring preoperative anxiety and postoperative recovery of cognitive function in 92 healthy ASA physical status I females aged 15-42 yr undergoing outpatient dilatation and curettage (D&C) for therapeutic abortion. In a randomized double-blind design, patients received one of the following oral medications 1-1.5 hr preoperatively: (1) diazepam 10 mg (n = 31); (2) propranolol 80 mg (n = 31); (3) placebo (n = 30). Anxiety throughout the hospital stay was monitored using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Postoperative cognitive recovery was assessed using the digit span and Trieger tests. STAI anxiety levels were recorded on admission to hospital, immediately before entering the operating room, and two hours postoperatively. There was no difference among the anxiolytic properties of the three medications and all three patient groups showed a significant decrease in anxiety levels after administration of the medication. Tests of cognitive function after anaesthesia showed the fastest return to baseline status in patients receiving propranolol, possibly because beta adrenergic blockade blunted the autonomic signs of light anaesthesia and less anaesthetic was administered. None of the study premedications was demonstrated to have an anxiolytic advantage, but propranolol did offer a faster return of cognitive function in the postoperative period.

A comparison of oral midazolam solution with temazepam as a day case premedicant

Seventy-five women undergoing elective day case gynaecological surgery were randomised into one of three groups to receive an oral formulation of midazolam IV solution 10 mg, temazepam 20 mg or placebo for premedication. The two treatment groups showed a significant reduction in anxiety score compared with placebo (P less than 0.002 and P less than 0.04 for placebo compared with temazepam and midazolam respectively). Similarly the treatment groups showed a significantly greater sedation score compared with placebo. Recovery as assessed by letter deletion and memory tests was no worse for the treatment groups than for placebo. Patient acceptance of the two treatment groups was significantly greater than that of placebo. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with respect to anxiolysis, sedation or recovery. As a day case premedicant, midazolam IV solution 10 mg orally was found to be as effective as temazepam 20 mg and superior to placebo, in terms of anxiolysis and sedation, but did not offer any clinical advantage over temazepam in this setting.

Midazolam-droperidol premedication for cardiac surgery. A comparison with papaveretum and hyoscine

A combination of midazolam and droperidol given intramuscularly was compared with papaveretum and hyoscine for premedication of patients about to undergo cardiac surgery. Midazolam and droperidol proved to be a very satisfactory combination, producing superior sedation and anxiolysis with good cardiovascular stability.

[Does flumazenil, a benzodiazepine antagonist used during the anesthesia recovery period, have an anxiogenic effect?]

The goal of this study was to assess the degree of postoperative anxiety flumazenil might provide in patients when used to reverse the sedation induced by midazolam. Twenty-four patients, aged 18 to 60 yrs, and scheduled for elective orthopaedic surgery of the upper limb, were included in the study Regional anaesthesia (brachial plexus block) was carried out 20 min after the patient had been premedicated with 0.15 mg.kg-1 intramuscular midazolam. When the block was clinically complete, 0.12 mg.kg-1 midazolam was given intravenously. Sedation was maintained throughout surgery using 0.03 mg.kg-1 midazolam every quarter of an hour (mean total dose 0.206 mg.kg-1). At the end of the procedure, the patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups: A+, the patients were given 0.1 mg intravenous flumazenil repeated every min until the patient was fully awake (mean 4.5 +/- 2.6 micrograms.kg-1); and A-, the patients were allowed to recover spontaneously. A wakefulness, and a determination just before premedication (E1, P1, H1 respectively). The degree of recovery was assessed in both groups, and, when the value of the wakefulness test had returned to that of E1 (E2) (E2 = E1), P2 and H2 were carried out. There were no statistically significant differences between P1 and P2, and between H1 and H2, and this for either group of patients. So, the doses of flumazenil used, which awoke all the patients within 3 min, did not create any anxiety. In accordance with most of the recently published studies, flumazenil can be safely used to reverse benzodiazepine induced sedation.

Placebo controlled comparison of midazolam, triazolam and diazepam as oral premedicants for outpatient anaesthesia

Two short-acting benzodiazepines, midazolam 15 mg and triazolam 0.25 mg, were compared with diazepam 10 mg and placebo as oral premedicants in 120 patients presenting for minor urological surgery. Midazolam was found to produce the greatest degree of amnesia and sedation at the time of anaesthetic induction and triazolam was found to have the greatest degree of residual sedation at the time of discharge, four hours postoperatively. These effects are consistent with the greater potency and more rapid onset of action of midazolam at this dose compared with triazolam. The relative merits of the compounds as anxiolytics varied depending upon the observer, time and method of assessment. It was considered that the doses of midazolam and triazolam used were excessive for routine day case anaesthesia.