Search

Objective: Midazolam sedation during elective endoscopy is widely performed and flumazenil is frequently administered after endoscopy to reverse sedation in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of flumazenil injections after elective endoscopy under midazolam sedation., Methods: Participants who underwent an upper endoscopy under midazolam sedation were randomly divided into two groups. In group I, flumazenil was administered i.v. 10 min after the patient's transfer to the recovery room, and no antidote was injected in group II. The time of stay in the recovery room and adverse events were reviewed through the nursing records. We asked the patients about their pain and degree of satisfaction according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), their memory of the procedure, mental status and the presence of uncomfortable symptoms on the day of the procedure and the day afterwards., Results: The length of stay in recovery was significantly shorter in group I than in group II. No significant differences were found in the number of patients with pain (VAS ≥1), adverse events and discomfort between the two groups. Additionally, there were no differences in the patients' memory of the procedure, satisfaction with sedation, willingness to repeat the endoscopy and mental status., Conclusions: The time in the recovery room after flumazenil administration was significantly shortened, and the use of the drug did not increase the risk of adverse events or discomfort. The use of flumazenil for reversing midazolam sedation seems to be safe and effective., (© 2018 Chinese Medical Association Shanghai Branch, Chinese Society of Gastroenterology, Renji Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: TEE is a semi-invasive tool broadly used and its utilization associated to sedatives drugs might to affect the procedure safety., Objective: to analyze aspects of TEE safety associated to the use of Midazolan (MZ) and Flumazenil (FL) and the influence of the clinical variables on the event rate., Method: prospective study with 137 patients that underwent TEE with MZ associated to moderate sedation. We analyzed the following events: complications related with the topical anesthesia, with MZ use and with the procedure. Uni- and multivariate analyses were used to test the influence of the clinical variables: age, sex, stroke, myocardiopathy (MP), duration of the test, mitral regurgitation (MR) and the MZ dose., Results: All patients (65+/-16 yrs; 58% males) finished the examination. The mean doses of MZ and FL were 4.3+/-1.9 mg and 0.28+/-0.2 mg, respectively. The duration of the examination and the mean ejection fraction (EF) were 16.4+/-6.1 minutes and 60+/-9%, respectively. Mild hypoxia (SO2<90%) was the most common event (11 patients); 3 patients (2%) presented transient hypoxia due to upper airway obstruction by probe introduction and 8 (5.8%) due to hypoxia caused by MZ use. Transient hypotension (SAP<90mmHg) occurred in 1 patient (0.7%). The multivariate analysis showed that severe MR, MP (EF<45%) and high doses of MZ (>5mg) were associated with events (p<0.001). The EF was 40%, in the group with MP and 44% in the group with severe MR and it can be a factor associated with clinical events in the last group., Conclusion: TEE with sedation presents a low rate of events. There were no severe events and there was no need to interrupt the examinations.

Objectives: (a) To compare the use of high dose intramuscular midazolam with and without intranasal flumazenil in children after suturing. (b) To compare the use of high dose intramuscular midazolam with low dose intramuscular ketamine in children before suturing., Methods: 87 children, aged between 1 and 7 years, presenting with simple wounds needing sedation, were studied. Children considered combative (n=47) were given ketamine (2.5 mg/kg intramuscularly). The remaining 40 children were given midazolam (0.4 mg/kg intramuscularly) with and without flumazenil (25 microg/kg, intranasally)., Results: The median oxygen saturation was 97% in both midazolam groups. Flumazenil significantly reduced the amount of agitation during recovery (p=0.048) and also the time at which children were ready for discharge (median 55 versus 95 minutes, p value <0.001). After discharge both midazolam groups had an unsteady gait (75%) and there was no significant difference in the duration. As expected because of the deliberate selection of combative children into the ketamine group, the pre-sedation behaviour was slightly more disturbed compared with the midazolam group (p=0.10). However, the ketamine group was less agitated during local anaesthetic and suturing p<0.001., Conclusion: Intramuscular midazolam (0.4 mg/kg) did not effectively sedate the children, in that a significant number still had to be restrained. However, none could remember the suturing. Intranasal flumazenil seems to be effective in shortening the time to discharge. If midazolam is to be used then a dose high enough to produce full amnesia should be used, there seems to be no advantage in increasing the dose further. Low dose intramuscular ketamine remains the drug of choice.

Objectives: To evaluate the cardiovascular response and acute stress reaction after arousal induced by a benzodiazepine antagonist, flumazenil, in patients sedated with midazolam., Design: Prospective study., Setting: Emergency center in a university hospital., Patients: A total of 12 patients were ventilated mechanically under sedation with midazolam., Interventions: We monitored the consciousness level, heart rate, systemic blood pressure, pulmonary artery pressure, and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure before and after a bolus injection of 0.5 mg of flumazenil. The score for the consciousness level represents the sum of the scores for eye opening and best motor response, as determined by the Glasgow Coma Scale. We measured the cardiac output, concentrations of norepinephrine, epinephrine, and 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylethyleneglycol in plasma, and concentration of cortisol in serum. We calculated the left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, pressure-rate product, systemic oxygen delivery, and systemic oxygen consumption at 0, 10, 30, and 60 mins after injection of flumazenil., Measurements and Main Results: The serum benzodiazepine's receptor binding activity in serum was in the range from 50 to 1000 ng/mL before injection of flumazenil. Flumazenil improved the consciousness level from 6.7+/-2.0 to 8.9+/-1.6 and induced transient elevations in heart rate, blood pressure, systolic pulmonary artery pressure, and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. Left ventricular ejection fraction, oxygen delivery index, and pressure-rate product increased significantly, from 61%+/-8%, 640+/-170 mL/min/m2, and 13,300+/-2600 mm Hg/min at 0 mins to 67% +/-5%, 710+/-220 mL/min/m2, and 16,500+/-4400 mm Hg/min at 10 mins, respectively. Concentrations of norepinephrine and epinephrine in plasma increased significantly, from 890+/-840 pg/mL and 220+/-360 pg/mL, respectively, at 0 mins to 990+/-850 pg/mL and 270+/-300 pg/mL, respectively, at 10 mins. There were no significant changes in the plasma concentration of 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylethyleneglycol, the serum concentration of cortisol after the administration of flumazenil., Conclusions: Flumazenil did not result in a significant acute stress reaction in midazolam-sedated patients, but it increased myocardial oxygen consumption by enhancing sympathetic nervous activity or antagonizing cardiovascular depression induced by midazolam.

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of flumazenil vs placebo in reversing fentanyl and midazolam-induced conscious sedation in ED patients undergoing a short, painful procedure., Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 9 university-affiliated teaching hospitals. Patients > 18 years of age requiring conscious sedation for a painful procedure expected to last < 20 minutes were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients received 2 micrograms/kg of fentanyl, followed by midazolam titrated to the desired level of sedation. Patients were then randomized to receive either flumazenil or placebo in a 3:1 ratio (flumazenil:placebo). Vital signs, O2 saturation, and alertness were recorded at regular intervals. Prior to ED release, patients were asked to rate the amount of discomfort they experienced and the level of relaxation achieved on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). They also were questioned about their recall for the procedure and satisfaction with the drug regimen. Physicians also rated their satisfaction with the drug regimen on a 10-cm VAS., Results: Overall, 133 patients received flumazenil and 46 patients received placebo. Patients in the 2 groups received similar doses of midazolam. The patients who received flumazenil returned to baseline alertness earlier (11.1 min vs 24.8 min, p < 0.001) and at a faster rate than did the patients given placebo. Actual intervals from procedure completion until release from the ED did not differ between the 2 groups (98.2 +/- 3.6 min flumazenil vs 96.9 +/- 5.8 min placebo; p = 0.89). The amounts of discomfort experienced, levels of relaxation achieved, recalls for the procedure, and both patient and physician satisfactions were also similar for the 2 groups. There were no serious adverse effects related to the study drug, and minor adverse effects were similar for the 2 groups., Conclusion: Flumazenil is safe and efficacious in reversing midazolam-induced sedation in ED patients given a combination of fentanyl and midazolam to facilitate the performance of a short, painful procedure. The patients given flumazenil returned to baseline alertness earlier and at a faster rate than did the patients given placebo. However, flumazenil did not alter the actual interval from procedure completion until ED release.

We studied the timing and side effects of flumazenil treatment for 10 healthy volunteers and 46 dental outpatients who received intravenous sedation with midazolam. For the volunteers, vital signs were monitored before and after intravenous injection of midazolam and flumazenil. In addition, grip strength, signs and symptoms, and performance on the Romberg's test and addition tests were evaluated 30 min and 60 min after midazolam injection as well as after flumazenil injection. There were no significant changes in vital signs before, immediately after, or 50 min after injection of flumazenil, the latter time corresponding to the half-life of the drug. Thus, awakening from sedation was associated with no effects on the cardiovascular or respiratory systems. Distinct effects of flumazenil were demonstrated by the Romberg's test and the assessment of sedation status. Flumazenil had no effect on the outcome of the addition test. For the outpatients, sedation status and signs and symptoms were studied in patients undergoing procedures lasting 30 min or less (group S) and those undergoing procedures lasting 31 to 60 min (group L). Three patients in group S and one in group L had signs and symptoms of resedation. After treatment with flumazenil, abnormalities such as excitability and nausea were reported by only two patients in group L. One patient in group S had drowsiness that did not resolve after injection of flumazenil and continued until the following day. Our results indicate that flumazenil should be given at least 60 min after intravenous sedation with midazolam in dental outpatients. Moreover, caution should be exercised with regard to the potential side effects of flumazenil.

Methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial of the efficacy of flumazenil was conducted in 22 consecutive patients admitted for bronchoscopy. Sedation was induced by individually titrated amounts of intravenous diazepam (mean +/- s.d., 15.75 +/- 4.4 mg). Post bronchoscopy, patients received up to 1 mg of the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil (Anexate) or placebo intravenously. Clinical scores for the degree of sedation, orientation in time and space, co-operation and anterograde amnesia were used. These, together with three psychometric tests were performed twice prior to bronchoscopy and on eight occasions in the following 24 h. The psychometric tests were: Tapping Test (TT), Simple Reaction Time (SRT) and Critical Flicker Fusion (CFF) and these were carried out using the automated Multipsy test system., Results: The level of co-operation, orientation in time and space and anterograde amnesia were similar in both groups pre-and-post procedure. However compared with the pre-bronchoscopy assessment, the maximum degree of apparent sedation was significantly less in the flumazenil group in the first 4 h. In support of this, the patients in the flumazenil group also showed a significantly greater proficiency with the TT and CFF test post bronchoscopy (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of side effects and flumazenil was well tolerated., Conclusions: In this highly controlled setting, the use of flumazenil (Anexate) was shown to be safe and effective in aiding recovery from benzodiazepine facilitated bronchoscopy and as such provides an additional level of safety for this procedure.

The aim of this study was to reassess the efficacy of flumazenil for reversal of sedation with midazolam. Twenty-four ASA I or II patients undergoing elective surgery under epidural anaesthesia participated. Following epidural block, midazolam was administered to keep the patient sleepy but still responsive to verbal commands. At the end of surgery the patients were randomly allocated to receive, in a double-blind manner, either flumazenil (0.1 mg.ml-1) or placebo. The study drug (maximum dose: 10 ml) was titrated until the patient became fully awake. Sedation was assessed with the Modified Steward Coma Scale (MSCS), the Trieger test (TT) and Critical Flicker Frequency (CFF). The assessments were done before anaesthesia (baseline), at the end of surgery immediately before administration of study drug, and serially afterwards, at 10, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 min. Analyses of variance for repeated measures and pooled t tests were used. The duration of surgery was (mean +/- SD) 0.72 +/- 0.25 hr in the flumazenil group and 0.74 +/- 0.28 hr in the placebo group. The total dose of midazolam was 7.2 +/- 2.2 mg for the flumazenil group and 8.9 +/- 2.7 mg for the placebo group. The volume of study drug administered was 5.5 ml +/- 1.9, equivalent to 0.55 mg, for the flumazenil group and 6.7 +/- 2.2 ml for the placebo group. Critical Flicker Frequency is the only measure which revealed a difference (P < 0.005) between the flumazenil and placebo groups and this occurred only at the ten-minute assessment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Flumazenil, a benzodiazepine antagonist, reverses the residual central nervous system effects of benzodiazepines. In this US double-blind, multicenter study, the efficacy of flumazenil was compared with that of placebo in antagonizing the effects of midazolam, a benzodiazepine used to induce intravenous conscious sedation. The mean dose of flumazenil was 0.7 mg, administered intravenously. At 5 minutes posttreatment, 82% of 131 flumazenil-treated patients, compared with 15% of 65 placebo-treated patients, demonstrated complete reversal of sedation. In 85% of patients who responded to flumazenil, this reversal of sedation was maintained throughout the 180-minute observation period. Psychomotor performance returned to prestudy levels 5 minutes posttreatment in 87% of the flumazenil-treated patients, compared with 28% of the placebo-treated patients. At the doses administered, flumazenil was less effective in reversing midazolam-induced amnesia, with only 60% of patients demonstrating partial recovery of memory. It was, nevertheless, more effective than placebo. Flumazenil was well tolerated. Dizziness (10%) and nausea (9%) were the most frequently reported adverse effects. Results of this study demonstrate that flumazenil antagonizes the central nervous system effects of midazolam after intravenous conscious sedation.

The degree of sedation and amnesia, subjective assessment of awakening and side effects after intravenous injection of 3-4 mg midazolam and 1 mg flumazenil or placebo were studied directly after colonoscopy, and on the first and the eight day. A total of 91 patients were studied; 45 patients were given flumazenil and 46 patients a placebo. Five minutes after injection of the test drugs all 45 patients given flumazenil but only 38 patients given the placebo were alert (p = 0.006). All three response criteria (for sedation, amnesia and subjective assessment of awakening) were fulfilled by 84.4% of the patients given flumazenil and 45.7% of the patients given the placebo (p = 0.0002). Thirty minutes after injection of the test drugs dizziness, nausea, and fatigue were found in 3 patients given flumazenil and in 10 patients given placebo. One day after colonoscopy 9 of 45 patients (20%) given midazolam and flumazenil complained of fatigue and 9 of 46 patients (19.5%) given midazolam and placebo. Eight days (+/- 1 day) later two patients in each group complained of headache, nausea and fatigue. No patient developed phlebitis at the injection site. Flumazenil seems to be a safe and efficient drug for reversing the sedative effect of midazolam, premedication after colonoscopy. However, resedation due to the effects of midazolam may occur. Flumazenil thus permits administration of a higher dose of midazolam without prolongation of the surveillance time. Improved exploitation of time, space and nursing resources is thus possible without jeopardizing patient safety, although caution is necessary since patients may not be fit to resume all normal activities.