Intranasal midazolam versus intravenous/rectal benzodiazepines for acute seizure control in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Acute seizure activity might cause complications including bodily harm, progression to status epilepticus, and poor quality of life in children. The introduction of a venous line may be difficult in children with seizures which would delay the initiation of treatment. Rectal drug administration can be socially awkward for patients and providers. Intranasal (IN) midazolam offers a valuable substitute that is easier and faster to administer.To assess the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal midazolam in children with acute seizure when compared to conventional IV or rectal benzodiazepine (BDZ).PubMed, google scholar, websites clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO-international clinical trials registry platform, were searched. Randomized controlled/prospective randomized trials comparing IN midazolam against IV/rectal BDZ in the treatment of acute seizures in pediatric patients were included in the meta-analysis.Data of 10 studies were quantitatively analyzed. Intranasal midazolam (n = 169) when compared to IV/rectal BDZ (n = 161) has a shorter interval between hospital arrival and seizure cessation {(mean difference = -3.51; 95% CI [-6.84, -0.18]) P = 0.04}. Regarding time to seizure cessation after midazolam (n = 326) or BDZ (n = 322) administration, there is no significant difference between the two groups {(mean difference = -0.03; 95% CI [-1.30, 1.25]), P = 0.97} and both are equally effective for controlling acute seizures (odds ratio = 1.06; 95% CI [0.43, 2.63]; n = 737).In children with acute seizures, IN midazolam is equally effective in aborting seizure and decreases the total time from hospital arrival and cessation of seizures, eventually leading to faster cessation of seizure as compared to IV/rectal BDZ.