Show simple item record

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

dc.contributor.authorMcmullan, Jasonen_US
dc.contributor.authorSasson, Comillaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPancioli, Arthur M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSilbergleit, Roberten_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-31T17:30:43Z
dc.date.available2011-08-02T18:19:15Zen_US
dc.date.issued2010-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationMcmullan, Jason; Sasson, Comilla; Pancioli, Arthur; Silbergleit, Robert; (2010). "Midazolam Versus Diazepam for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus in Children and Young Adults: A Meta-analysis." Academic Emergency Medicine 17(6): 575-582. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79121>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1069-6563en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-2712en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79121
dc.description.abstractRapid 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 Medicineen_US
dc.format.extent223731 bytes
dc.format.extent3106 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.subject.otherStatus Epilepticusen_US
dc.subject.otherSeizuresen_US
dc.subject.otherBenzodiazepinesen_US
dc.subject.otherMidazolamen_US
dc.subject.otherDiazepamen_US
dc.titleMidazolam Versus Diazepam for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus in Children and Young Adults: A Meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid20624136en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79121/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00751.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00751.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceAcademic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.