• Maija Holsti, Benjamin L Sill, Sean D Firth, Francis M Filloux, Steven M Joyce, and Ronald A Furnival.
• Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Primary Children's Medical Center/University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84158, USA. maija.holsti@hsc.utah.edu
• Pediatr Emerg Care. 2007 Mar 1;23(3):148-53.

BackgroundThe local emergency medical services (EMS) council implemented a new pediatric treatment protocol using a Mucosal Atomization Device (MAD) to deliver intranasal (IN) midazolam for seizure activity.MethodsWe sought to compare outcomes in seizing pediatric patients treated with IN midazolam using a MAD (IN-MAD midazolam) to those treated with rectal (PR) diazepam, 18 months before and after the implementation of the protocol.ResultsOf 857 seizure patients brought by EMS to our emergency department (ED), 124 patients (14%) had seizure activity in the presence of EMS and were eligible for inclusion in this study. Of the 124 patients eligible for this study, 67 patients (54%) received no medications in the prehospital setting, 39 patients (32%) were treated with IN-MAD midazolam, and 18 patients (15%) were treated with PR diazepam. Median seizure time noted by EMS was 19 minutes longer for PR diazepam (30 minutes) when compared with IN-MAD midazolam (11 minutes, P = 0.003). Patients treated with PR diazepam in the prehospital setting were significantly more likely to have a seizure in the ED (odds ratio [OR], 8.4; confidence interval [CI], 1.6-43.7), ED intubation (OR, 12.2; CI, 2.0-75.4), seizure medications in the ED to treat ongoing seizure activity (OR, 12.1; CI, 2.2-67.8), admission to the hospital (OR, 29.3; CI, 3.0-288.6), and admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (OR, 53.5; CI, 2.7-1046.8).ConclusionsThe IN-MAD midazolam controlled seizures better than PR diazepam in the prehospital setting and resulted in fewer respiratory complications and fewer admissions.

37 keywords...

hide…