2007Korean Journal of AnesthesiologyOpen access

Comparison of Sedation Anesthesia between Midazolam and Midazolam/Alfentanil: for Prolotherapy and Intramuscular Stimulation

Dae Hyun Jo, Sang Jin Kim, Hyungsuk Lee, Myoung‐Hee Kim

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

Background: The presence of pain during interventional pain management such as prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation is stressful to patients and can affect the treatment outcome.We studied the safety and efficacy of two drug regimens: midazolam alone and midazolam/alfentanil for sedation anesthesia during prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation.Methods: Fifty three patients received either midazolam 0.04-0.08mg/kg (Group M) or midazolam 0.01-0.02mg/kg with alfentanil 4-8μg/kg (Group A) for prolotherapy or intramuscular stimulation.We recorded the pain response, sedation score and side effects during the procedure, as well as amnesia, satisfaction and time to discharge after the procedure.Results: Both drug regimens had significant sedation scores, amnesia and overall provided patient satisfaction.The treatment of pain was superior in Group A. Respiratory depression of three patients occurred in Group A. The time to discharge was longer in Group M.Conclusions: Midazolam and midazolam/alfentanil used for sedation anesthesia during prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation were both effective; however, midazolam alone was the safer approach.(Korean J Anesthesiol 2007; 52: 306∼9)

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Background: The presence of pain during interventional pain management such as prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation is stressful to patients and can affect the treatment outcome.We studied the safety and efficacy of two drug regimens: midazolam alone and midazolam/alfentanil for sedation anesthesia during prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation.Methods: Fifty three patients received either midazolam 0.04-0.08mg/kg (Group M) or midazolam 0.01-0.02mg/kg with alfentanil 4-8μg/kg (Group A) for prolotherapy or intramuscular stimulation.We recorded the pain response, sedation score and side effects during the procedure, as well as amnesia, satisfaction and time to discharge after the procedure.Results: Both drug regimens had significant sedation scores, amnesia and overall provided patient satisfaction.The treatment of pain was superior in Group A. Respiratory depression of three patients occurred in Group A. The time to discharge was longer in Group M.Conclusions: Midazolam and midazolam/alfentanil used for sedation anesthesia during prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation were both effective; however, midazolam alone was the safer approach.(Korean J Anesthesiol 2007; 52: 306∼9)

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Background: The presence of pain during interventional pain management such as prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation is stressful to patients and can affect the treatment outcome.We studied the safety and efficacy of two drug regimens: midazolam alone and midazolam/alfentanil for sedation anesthesia during prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation.Methods: Fifty three patients received either midazolam 0.04-0.08mg/kg (Group M) or midazolam 0.01-0.02mg/kg with alfentanil 4-8μg/kg (Group A) for prolotherapy or intramuscular stimulation.We recorded the pain response, sedation score and side effects during the procedure, as well as amnesia, satisfaction and time to discharge after the procedure.Results: Both drug regimens had significant sedation scores, amnesia and overall provided patient satisfaction.The treatment of pain was superior in Group A. Respiratory depression of three patients occurred in Group A. The time to discharge was longer in Group M.Conclusions: Midazolam and midazolam/alfentanil used for sedation anesthesia during prolotherapy and intramuscular stimulation were both effective; however, midazolam alone was the safer approach.(Korean J Anesthesiol 2007; 52: 306∼9)

Key concepts: Alfentanil, Midazolam, Anesthesia, Medicine, Sedation, Prolotherapy, Fentanyl, Alternative medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of Sedation Anesthesia between Midazolam and Midazolam/Alfentanil: for Prolotherapy and Intramuscular Stimulation — Research Paper | ScholarLens