Midazolam Versus Diazepam for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus in Children and Young Adults: A Meta‐analysis
Open Access
- 2 June 2010
- journal article
- conference paper
- Published by Wiley in Academic Emergency Medicine
- Vol. 17 (6), 575-582
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00751.x
Abstract
Background: Rapid 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. Objectives: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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 MedicineKeywords
This publication has 59 references indexed in Scilit:
- Efficacy of buccal midazolam compared to intravenous diazepam in controlling convulsions in children: A randomized controlled trialBrain & Development, 2009
- Evidence based medicine - The case of the misleading funnel plotBMJ, 2006
- Intranasal Midazolam vs Rectal Diazepam in Acute Childhood SeizuresPediatric Neurology, 2006
- EFNS guideline on the management of status epilepticusEuropean Journal of Neurology, 2006
- Susceptibility of immature and adult brains to seizure effectsThe Lancet Neurology, 2004
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Pharmacokinetic Optimisation of Benzodiazepine Therapy for Acute SeizuresClinical Pharmacokinetics, 1999
- A prospective, randomized study comparing intramuscular midazolam with intravenous diazepam for the treatment of seizures in childrenPediatric Emergency Care, 1997
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986