Search

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate (CH), chloral hydrate and promethazine (CH + P) and chloral hydrate and hydroxyzine (CH + H) in electroencephalography (EEG) sedation., Methods: In a parallel single-blinded randomized clinical trial, ninety 1-7 y-old uncooperative kids who were referred to Pediatric Neurology Clinic of Shahid Sadoughi University, Yazd, Iran from April through August 2012, were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate or 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate and 1 mg/kg of promethazine or 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate and 2 mg/kg of hydroxyzine. The primary endpoint was efficacy in sufficient sedation (obtaining four Ramsay sedation score) and successful completion of EEG. Secondary endpoint was clinical adverse events., Results: Thirty nine girls (43.3 %) and 51 boys (56.7 %) with mean age of 3.34 ± 1.47 y were assessed. Sufficient sedation and completion of EEG were achieved in 70 % (N = 21) of chloral hydrate group, in 83.3 % (N = 25) of CH + H group and in 96.7 % (N = 29) of CH + P group (p = 0.02). Mild clinical adverse events including vomiting [16.7 % (N = 5) in CH, 6.7 % (N = 2) in CH + P, 6.7 % (N = 2) in CH + H], agitation in 3.3 % of CH + P (N = 1) group and mild transient hypotension in 3.3 % of CH + H (N = 1) group occurred. Safety of these three sedation regimens was not statistically significant different (p = 0.14)., Conclusions: Combination of chloral hydrate-antihistamines can be used as the most effective and safe sedation regimen in drug induced sleep electroencephalography of kids.

We conducted this single blind randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of oral chloral hydrate and intranasal midazolam for induction of sedation for computerized tomography scan of brain in children. Participants aged 1-10 years (n=60) were randomized to receive 100 mg/kg chloral hydrate orally with intra nasal normal saline OR intranasal midazolam 0.2 mg/kg with oral normal saline. Adequate sedation (Ramsay sedation score of four) was obtained and CT scan completed successfully in 76.7% of chloral hydrate group and in 40% of midazolam group (P=0.004). No significant difference was seen for side effects frequency between the two drugs (10% in chloral hydrate, 3.3% in midazolam group; P=0.34). We conclude that oral chloral hydrate can be considered as a safe and effective drug for sedation in children undergoing CT scan of brain.

Objective Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful diagnostic tool for the evaluation of congenital or acquired brain lesions. But, in all of less than 8-year-old children, pharmacological agents and procedural sedation should be used to induce motionless conditions for imaging studies. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of combination of chloral hydrate-hydroxyzine (CH+H) and chloral hydrate-midazolam (CH+M) in pediatric MRI sedation. Materials & Methods In a parallel single-blinded randomized clinical trial, sixty 1-7-year-old children who underwent brain MRI, were randomly assigned to receive chloral hydrate in a minimum dosage of 40 mg/kg in combination with either 2 mg/kg of hydroxyzine or 0.5 mg/kg of midazolam. The primary outcomes were efficacy of adequate sedation (Ramsay sedation score of five) and completion of MRI examination. The secondary outcome was clinical side-effects. Results Twenty-eight girls (46.7%) and 32 boys (53.3%) with the mean age of 2.72±1.58 years were studied. Adequate sedation and completion of MRI were achieved in 76.7% of CH+H group. Mild and transient clinical side-effects, such as vomiting of one child in each group and agitation in 2 (6.6 %) children of CH+M group, were also seen. The adverse events were more frequent in CH+M group. Conclusion Combinations of chloral hydrate-hydroxyzine and chloral hydrate-midazolam were effective in pediatric MRI sedation; however, chloral hydrate-hydroxyzine was safer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of oral chloral hydrate (CH) and promethazine (PZ) for sedation during electroencephalography (EEG) in children.Methods: In a parallel single-blinded randomized clinical trial, sixty 1-10 year old children referred to EEGUnit of Shahid Sadoughi Hospital from January 2010 to February 2011 in Yazd, Iran, were evaluated. They were randomized to receive orally 70 mg/kg chloral hydrate or promethazine 1 mg/kg. The primary outcome was efficacy in adequate sedation and successful recording of EEG. Secondary outcome included clinical side effects, time from administration of the drug to adequate sedation, caregiver’s satisfaction on a Likert scale,and total stay time in EEG Unit.Findings: Twenty four cases with mean age 2.9±1.9 years were evaluated. Adequate sedation (Ramsay sedation score of four) was obtained in 43.3% of PZ and 100% of CH group (P=0.00001). Also in 70% of PZ and 96.7% of CH group, EEG was successfully recorded (P=0.006). So, CH was a more effective drug. In CH group, EEG was performed in shorter time after taking the drug (32.82±9.6 vs 52.14±22.88 minutes, P<0.001)and the parents waited less in the EEG unit (1.29±0.54 vs 2.6±0.59 hours, P<0.001). They were also more satisfied (4.6±0.6 scores vs 3.1±1.4 scores, P=0.001). Mild side effects such as vomiting in 20% of CH (n=6)and agitation in 6.6% of PZ group (n=2) were seen. No significant difference was seen from viewpoint of side effects frequency between the two drugs.Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that chloral hydrate can be considered as a safe and more effective drug in sedation induction for sleep EEG in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]