Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

CHAMBERLAIN JAMES M. MD; ALTIERI, MICHAEL A. MD; FUTTERMAN, CRAIG MD; YOUNG, GRACE M. MD; OCHSENSCHLAGER, DANIEL W. MD; WAISMAN, YEHESKEL MD
Pediatric Emergency Care: April 1997
Original Articles: PDF Only
Buy

Objective: To compare treatment of ongoing seizures using intramuscular (IM) midazolam versus intravenous (IV) diazepam

Design: Controlled clinical trial

Patients: Children with motor seizures of at least 10 minutes' duration

Main outcome measures: Time to cessation of seizures

Results: Twenty-four patients were enrolled (13 midazolam, 11 diazepam). Initial treatment with either midazolam or diazepam was successful in 22 of the 24 patients. One patient in each group failed therapy and eventually required endotracheal intubation and general anesthesia for convulsive status epilepticus lasting more than one hour. Patients in the midazolam group received medication sooner (3.3 ± 2.0 vs 7.8 ± 3.2 minutes, P=0.001) and had more rapid cessation of their seizures (7.8 ± 4.1 vs 11.2 ± 3.6, P=0.047) than patients randomized to receive diazepam

Conclusions: IM midazolam is an effective anticonvulsant for children with motor seizures. Compared to IV diazepam, IM midazolam results in more rapid cessation of seizures because of more rapid administration. The IM route of administration may be particularly useful in physicians' offices, in the prehospital setting, and for children with difficult IV access

© Lippincott-Raven Publishers.