Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Propofol versus midazolam for intubating preterm neonates: a randomized controlled trial

Journal of Perinatology volume 31, pages 356–360 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

The ideal combination of premedication for neonatal tracheal intubation has not been established. The aim of this preliminary study was to compare the intubation conditions between propofol and midazolam as premedication for tracheal intubation in neonates.

Study Design:

A double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial was performed, and 20 preterm neonates (28 to 34 week) underwent tracheal intubation following the use of remifentanil associated to either propofol (n=10) or midazolam (n=10). Intubation conditions were scored according to a four-point scale.

Result:

According to the main outcome measured (identification of a 50% difference in the intubation conditions), there were no differences regarding the number of attempts and the overall intubation conditions among the groups (P=1.00).

Conclusion:

Both combinations of premedications have no differences regarding the quality of intubation, which could be of clinical interest. Besides midazolam, propofol could be a valid alternative as hypnotic for premedication for endotracheal intubation in neonates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carbajal R, Eble B, Anand KJS . Premedication for tracheal intubation in neonates: confusion or controversy? Semin Perinatol 2007; 31 (5): 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Silva YP, Gomez RS, Marcatto JDO, Maximo TA, Barbosa RF, Simões e Silva AC . Morphine versus remifentanil for intubating preterm neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007; 92: 93–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Penido MG, Garra R, Sammartino M, Silva YP . Remifentanil in neonatal intensive care and anaesthesia practice. Acta Paediatr 2010; 99 (10): 1454–1463.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Welzing L, Kribs A, Huenseler C, Eifinger F, Mehler K, Roth B . Remifentanil for InSurE in preterm infants: a pilot study for evaluation of efficacy and safety aspects. Acta Paediatr 2009; 98: 1419–1420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Greenwood CS, Colby CE . Pharmacology review: premedication for endotracheal intubation of the neonate: what is the evidence? Neoreviews 2009; 10: 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lagercrantz H, Changeux JP . The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life. Pediatr Res 2009; 65: 255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lagercrantz H, Changeux JP . Basic consciousness of the newborn. Semin Perinatol 2010; 34: 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Attardi DM, Paul DA, Tuttle DJ, Greenspan JS . Premedication for intubation in neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2000; 83: F161.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar P, Denson SE, Mancuso TJ, Committee on Fetus and Newborn, Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. Premedication for nonemergency endotracheal intubation in the neonate. Pediatrics 2010; 125: 608–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Papoff P, Mancuso M, Caresta E, Moretti C . Effectiveness and safety of propofol in newborn infants. Pediatrics 2008; 121: 448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Viby-Mogensen J, Engbaek J, Eriksson L, Gramstad L, Jensen E, Jensen FS et al. Good clinical research practice (GCRP) in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996; 40: 59–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lawrence J, Alcock D, McGrath P, Kay J, MacMurray SB, Dulberg C . The development of a tool to assess neonatal pain. Neonatal Netw 1993; 12: 59–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ambuel B, Hamlett KW, Marx CM, Blumer JL . Assessing distress in pediatric intensive care environments: the COMFORT scale. J Pediatric Psychol 1992; 17: 95–105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Duncan HP, Zurick NJ, Wolf AR . Should we reconsider awake neonatal intubation? A review of the evidence and treatment strategies. Paediatr Anaesth 2001; 11: 135–145.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shah V, Ohlsson A . The effectiveness of premedication for endotracheal intubation in mechanically ventilated neonates: a systematic review. Clin Perinatol 2002; 29: 535–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lago P, Garetti E, Merrazi D, Pieragostini L, Ancora G, Pirelli A et al. Guidelines for procedural pain in the newborn. Acta Paediatr 2009; 98: 932–939.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Allegaert K, Peeters MY, Verbesselt R, Tibboel D, Naulaers G, de Hoon JN et al. Inter-individual variability in propofol pharmacokinetics in preterm and term neonates. Br J Anaesth 2007; 99: 864–870.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghanta S, Abdel-Latif ME, Lui K, Ravindranathan H, Awad J, Oei J . Propofol compared with morphine, atropine, and suxamethonium regimen as induction agents for neonatal endotracheal intubation: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2007; 119: 1248–1255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Marsh DF, Hodkinson B . Remifentanil in paediatric anaesthetic practice. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 301–308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics of Medical Faculty, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenida Alfredo Balena, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    M G Penido, E C Tavares & Y P e Silva

  2. Department of Neonatology, Julia Kubitschek Hospital—FHEMIG, Rua Dr Cristiano Rezende, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    M G Penido, D F de Oliveira Silva & Y P e Silva

  3. Department of Anesthesiology, Lifecenter Hospital, Avenida do Contorno, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Y P e Silva

Authors
  1. M G Penido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D F de Oliveira Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E C Tavares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y P e Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y P e Silva.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Penido, M., de Oliveira Silva, D., Tavares, E. et al. Propofol versus midazolam for intubating preterm neonates: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol 31, 356–360 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2010.135

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2010.135

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links