Why the study?
Does chloral hydrate improve sedation quality compared to oral midazolam in children undergoing echocardiography?
Does chloral hydrate improve sedation quality compared to oral midazolam in children undergoing echocardiography?
Chloral hydrate provides deeper sedation and facilitates more comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation in children compared to oral midazolam, despite a longer recovery time.
Chloral hydrate may be favored for comprehensive pediatric echocardiography; extends RCT evidence of deeper sedation over midazolam despite longer recovery.
The objective of this prospective, randomized, and blinded study was to compare the use of chloral hydrate versus oral midazolam sedation in children undergoing echocardiography. No adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, paradoxical agitation, or significant deviations from baseline vital signs) were noted with either medication. No differences were noted in onset of sedation between the 2 groups, however, the time to complete recovery was significantly shorter with midazolam than with chloral hydrate. The children in the chloral hydrate group had a significantly deeper level of sedation and were more likely to receive a more nearly comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wheeler et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: