2012
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2011-301116
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Question 1 Chloral hydrate or midazolam: which is better for sedating children for painless diagnostic imaging?: Table 1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Chloral hydrate has been widely used as sedative in children undergoing clinical procedures. Its prescription in pediatrics is recommended for certain diagnostic procedures such as neurological imaging, echocardiography, and auditory brainstem response testing when the patients do not respond to other agents …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chloral hydrate has been widely used as sedative in children undergoing clinical procedures. Its prescription in pediatrics is recommended for certain diagnostic procedures such as neurological imaging, echocardiography, and auditory brainstem response testing when the patients do not respond to other agents …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have shown that midazolam is as effective if not more effective than chloral hydrate for various procedures [21,22]. Other studies have shown chloral hydrate resulted in better sedation than other sedation medications in pediatric patients [23,24]. However, due the potential severe adverse effects from chloral hydrate, we recommend alternative agents to chloral hydrate be used in pediatric patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the average latency time by midazolam is 117 ± 5 minute and sedation duration is about 45 ± 12 minutes. 34,38 Compared with midazolam, CH has shown more profound and long-lasting sedation 39 In clinical use, other studies reported that chloral hydrate was more effective than midazolam in facilitating the completion of painless imaging studies, although it has a longer onset and duration, and reported minimal adverse events 30,40 Moreover, the reports on midazolam were not always positive despite his rapid action onset and short duration of action which does not encourage the health care provider shift from the old CH to the new midazolam as a sedative agent. 34,41 CH syrup remains consequently cheaper and even more effective than the rectal midazolam, given its short latency time to cause sedation of children.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%