Intranasal vs Buccal vs Intramuscular Midazolam for the Home and Emergency Treatment of Acute Seizures in Pediatric Egyptian Patients

Abstract Introduction: Acute convulsions in children are a common emergency worldwide. Benzodiazepines are the recommended first line of treatment. We wished to compare the efficacy, ease of administration and overall satisfaction of midazolam by the buccal, intranasal orintramuscular route in the treatment of acute seizures in Egyptian children both at homes and Emergency room (ER) Methods A prospective, randomized, trial was performed in children aged 1 months to 17 years with acute seizures lasting longer than 5 min. Children were randomly assigned to receive midazolam, 0.2 mg/kg, by the buccal, intranasal or intramuscular route. The primary endpoint was seizure cessation within 10 min of drug administration and no seizure recurrence within 30 minutes. Results There were 196 seizures analysed in home group, 67 patients received midazolam via buccal route, 60 via intranasal, 69 via intramuscular route while 105 patients were recruited from ER 37 patients received buccal midazolam, 34 received intranasal and 34 received intramuscular midazolam. Intramuscular midazolam stopped seizures within 10 min in 94.2 % in home group and 85.3 % in ER group. On the other hand, intranasal midazolam was successful to stop seizures in 93.3% in home group and 88.2 % in ER group within 10 minutes. The buccal route was effective in 91% in home group and 78.4 % in ER group. There were no significant differences in efficacy between all groups. P = 0.763 and P = 0.509 among home and ER groups respectively. Time to seizure cessation was significantly higher in the buccal group 5.11 ± 1.23minutes in home group and 5.91 ± 1.25 in ER group (P = 0.000). Highest overall satisfaction and ease of administration was seen in intranasal group especially among caretakers in home group > 7= 49 (81.7 %) P = 0.002.. Intramuscular midazolam was more preferred by physicians in ERgroup >7=32 (94.1%) (P = 0.001) There were no significant cardio-respiratory events in all groups. Conclusions Our results indicate that there is no clinically important difference between buccal, intranasal and IM routes of administration midazolam. Buccal and intranasal midazolam were safe and effective for treatment of acute seizures in children.