1994Critical Care MedicineRequires access

Comparison of sedative recovery time after midazolam versus diazepam administration

Robert E. Ariano, Diamond A. Kassum, Kristan J. Aronson

Open publisher page 50 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sedative recovery rate pharmacology of intravenous midazolam vs. diazepam when used for short-term sedation. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles were identified through a search of the MEDLINE and InPharma databases. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were examined for relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-eight studies were identified based on a priori inclusion criteria. Eight trials had enough information to combine results for sedative recovery rate. DATA EXTRACTION: The difference in mean time to sedative recovery, weighted by sample size, was determined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 28 trials, eight reported a significantly faster sedation recovery rate from diazepam vs. midazolam, whereas 19 trials reported no difference in sedative recovery time, and a single trial reported that midazolam offered significantly faster recovery from sedation than diazepam. A commonly defined time to sedative recovery event was available for only eight trials. The median dosing ratio for these eight trials was 2.1:1 for diazepam over midazolam. The weighted mean time difference was 4 mins 16 secs in favor of diazepam as the agent from which patients recover more quickly. CONCLUSIONS: These results firmly underscore the understanding that elimination half-lives of benzodiazepines do not necessarily correspond with their sedative pharmacodynamic effects, and we conclude that there are no clinically important sedative recovery rate differences between midazolam and diazepam, while midazolam is a more expensive agent.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sedative recovery rate pharmacology of intravenous midazolam vs. diazepam when used for short-term sedation. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles were identified through a search of the MEDLINE and InPharma databases. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were examined for relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-eight studies were identified based on a priori inclusion criteria. Eight trials had enough information to combine results for sedative recovery rate. DATA EXTRACTION: The difference in mean time to sedative recovery, weighted by sample size, was determined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 28 trials, eight reported a significantly faster sedation recovery rate from diazepam vs. midazolam, whereas 19 trials reported no difference in sedative recovery time, and a single trial reported that midazolam offered significantly faster recovery from sedation than diazepam. A commonly defined time to sedative recovery event was available for only eight trials. The median dosing ratio for these eight trials was 2.1:1 for diazepam over midazolam. The weighted mean time difference was 4 mins 16 secs in favor of diazepam as the agent from which patients recover more quickly. CONCLUSIONS: These results firmly underscore the understanding that elimination half-lives of benzodiazepines do not necessarily correspond with their sedative pharmacodynamic effects, and we conclude that there are no clinically important sedative recovery rate differences between midazolam and diazepam, while midazolam is a more expensive agent.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 50 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

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sedative recovery rate pharmacology of intravenous midazolam vs. diazepam when used for short-term sedation. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles were identified through a search of the MEDLINE and InPharma databases. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were examined for relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-eight studies were identified based on a priori inclusion criteria. Eight trials had enough information to combine results for sedative recovery rate. DATA EXTRACTION: The difference in mean time to sedative recovery, weighted by sample size, was determined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 28 trials, eight reported a significantly faster sedation recovery rate from diazepam vs. midazolam, whereas 19 trials reported no difference in sedative recovery time, and a single trial reported that midazolam offered significantly faster recovery from sedation than diazepam. A commonly defined time to sedative recovery event was available for only eight trials. The median dosing ratio for these eight trials was 2.1:1 for diazepam over midazolam. The weighted mean time difference was 4 mins 16 secs in favor of diazepam as the agent from which patients recover more quickly. CONCLUSIONS: These results firmly underscore the understanding that elimination half-lives of benzodiazepines do not necessarily correspond with their sedative pharmacodynamic effects, and we conclude that there are no clinically important sedative recovery rate differences between midazolam and diazepam, while midazolam is a more expensive agent.

Key concepts: Sedative, Midazolam, Sedation, Medicine, Diazepam, Anesthesia, Sedative/hypnotic, Hypnotic

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of sedative recovery time after midazolam versus diazepam administration — Research Paper | ScholarLens