OBJECTIVES: To investigate the benefits and risks of using midazolam for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in older persons. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: A 304-bed geriatric university hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty-five geriatric inpatients (mean age 84 +/- 7) undergoing gastroscopy. INTERVENTION: Sedation with either midazolam (30 microg/kg IV) or saline (placebo). All patients received supplemental oxygen during the procedure (2 L/minute). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Patients' recall of their tolerance to the exam (categorical scale) and pain score were significantly in favor of midazolam at 2 and 24 hours. Multivariate analysis at 2 hours showed that midazolam increased the probability of good tolerance (odds ratio (OR) = 19.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-170.4, P = .008). Circumstantial amnesia occurred at 24 hours in 84% (midazolam) versus 27% (placebo) (P < .001). With midazolam, mean sedation time was 83 +/- 13 minutes and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was about 10 mm Hg lower without clinically significant hypotension. Hypoxemia (SaO2 < 92%) was more frequent in the midazolam group after endoscopy (44% vs. 18%, P = .033), but no major desaturation was observed. Cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Exam, MMSE) was similar before and 2 and 24 hours after the exam in both groups. Acute confusion was observed in two patients (1 midazolam, 1 placebo). In multivariate analysis, midazolam was associated with a higher risk of hypoxemia after endoscopy (OR = 3.5; 95% CI 1.1-10.8, P = .029) but not of confusion. CONCLUSIONS: Under adequate surveillance, the benefits in terms of tolerance to the procedure of low-dose midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation outweigh the risks in older people.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christe et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: