Original Article

Sedation During Mechanical Ventilation in Infants and Children: Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam

Authors: Joseph D. Tobias, MD, John W. Berkenbosch, MD

Abstract

Background: We sought to compare the efficacy of midazolam versus dexmedetomidine for sedation during mechanical ventilation in infants and children.


Methods: We performed a prospective, randomized trial in a pediatric intensive care unit in a tertiary care center. Infants and children requiring mechanical ventilation underwent a continuous infusion of either midazolam (starting dose of 0.1 mg/kg/h) or dexmedetomidine (starting dose of either 0.25 or 0.5 μg/kg/h) with intermittent morphine, as needed. The efficacy of sedation was assessed using the Ramsay sedation scale, pediatric intensive care unit sedation score, and the tracheal suctioning score as well as bispectral monitoring.


Results: There were 10 patients in each group. Sedation as assessed by the clinical sedation scores and the bispectral index was equivalent in the 3 groups. There were 36 morphine boluses administered to the midazolam group versus 29 and 20 morphine boluses administered respectively to the 0.25 and 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine groups (P = 0.02 for midazolam versus 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine). Total morphine use (mg/kg/24 h) was 0.74 ± 0.5, 0.55 ± 0.38, and 0.28 ± 0.12 in the midazolam and the two dexmedetomidine groups respectively (P = not significant for midazolam versus 0.25 dexmedetomidine, P = 0.01 for midazolam versus 0.5 dexmedetomidine). In the two dexmedetomidine groups, 5 of 6 patients who at some point had a Ramsay score of 1 were less than 12 months of age while only 1 was more than 12 months of age (P < 0.05).


Conclusions: At a dose of 0.25 μg/kg/h, dexmedetomidine was approximately equivalent to midazolam at 0.22 mg/kg/h. At 0.5 μg/kg/h, dexmedetomidine provided more effective sedation as demonstrated by the need for fewer bolus doses of morphine, a decrease in the 24-hour requirements for supplemental morphine, as well as a decrease in the total number of assessment points with a Ramsay score of 1 (inadequate sedation) and the number of patients who had a Ramsay score of 1.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Venn RM, Bradshaw CJ, Spencer R, et al. Preliminary UK experience of dexmedetomidine, a novel agent for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit. Anaesthesia 1999;54:1136–1142.
 
2. Martin E, Ramsay G, Mantz J, et al. The role of the α2 adrenoceptor agonist dexmedetomidine in post-surgical sedation. J Intensive Care Med 2003;18:29–41.
 
3. Tobias JD, Berkenbosch JW. Initial experience with dexmedetomidine in paediatric-aged patients.Paediatr Anaesth 2002;12:171–175.
 
4. Tobias JD, Berkenbosch JW, Russo P. Additional experience with dexmedetomidine in pediatric patients. South Med J 2003;96:871–875.
 
5. Berkenbosch JW, Tobias JD. Development of bradycardia during sedation with dexmedetomidine in an infant concurrently receiving digoxin. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2003;4:203–205.
 
6. Virtanen R, Savola JM, Saano V, et al. Characterization of the selectivity, specificity and potency of medetomidine as an adrenoceptor α2 agonist. Eur J Pharmacol 1988;150:9–14.
 
7. Correa-Sales C, Reid K, Maze M. Pertussis toxin-mediated ribosylation of G proteins blocks the hypnotic response to an α2-agonist in the locus coeruleus of the rat. Pharmacol Biochem Behav1992;43:723–727.
 
8. Correa-Sales C, Nacif-Coelho C, Reid K, et al. Inhibition of adenylate cyclase in the locus coeruleus mediates the hypnotic response to an α2 agonist in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1992;263:1046–1049.
 
9. Nacif-Coelho C, Correa-Sales C, Chang LL, et al. Perturbation of ion channel conductance alters the hypnotic response to the α2-adrenergic agonist dexmedetomidine in the locus coeruleus of the rat.Anesthesiology 1994;81:1527–1534.
 
10. Sculptoreanu A, Scheuer T, Catterall WA. Voltage-dependent potentiation of L-type Ca2+ channels due to phosphorylation by cAMP-dependent protein kinase. Nature 1993;364:240–243 (letter).
 
11. Correa-Sales C, Rabin BC, Maze M. A hypnotic response to dexmedetomidine, an α2 agonist, is mediated in the locus coeruleus in rats. Anesthesiology 1992;76:948–952.
 
12. Doze VA, Chen BX, Maze M. Dexmedetomidine produces a hypnotic-anesthetic action in rats via activation of central α2 adrenoceptors. Anesthesiology 1989;71:75–79.
 
13. Nelson LE, Lu J, Guo T, et al. The α2-adrenoceptor agonist dexmedetomidine converges on an endogenous sleep-promoting pathway to exert its sedative effects. Anesthesiology 2003;98:428–436.
 
14. Talke P, Chen R, Thomas B, et al. The hemodynamic and adrenergic effects of perioperative dexmedetomidine infusion after vascular surgery. Anesth Analg 2000;90:834–839.
 
15. Peden CJ, Cloote AH, Stratford N, et al. The effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine premedication on the dose requirement of propofol to induce loss of consciousness in patients receiving alfentanil.Anaesthesia 2001;56:408–413.
 
16. Bloor BC, Ward DS, Belleville JP, et al. Effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine in humans: Part II—Hemodynamic changes. Anesthesiology 1992;77:1134–1142.
 
17. Belleville JP, Ward DS, Bloor BC, et al. Effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine in humans: Part I—Sedation, ventilation, and metabolic rate. Anesthesiology 1992;77:1125–1133.
 
18. Hall JE, Uhrich TD, Barney JA, et al. Sedative, amnestic, and analgesic properties of small-dose dexmedetomidine infusions. Anesth Analg 2000;90:699–705.