Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Low-dose intranasal versus oral midazolam for routine body MRI of claustrophobic patients

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess prospectively the potential of low-dose intranasal midazolam compared to oral midazolam in claustrophobic patients undergoing routine body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Seventy-two adult claustrophobic patients referred for body MRI were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups (TG1 and TG2). The 36 patients of TG1 received 7.5 mg midazolam orally 15 min before MRI, whereas the 36 patients of TG2 received one (or, if necessary, two) pumps of a midazolam nasal spray into each nostril immediately prior to MRI (in total, 1 or 2 mg). Patients’ tolerance, anxiety and sedation were assessed using a questionnaire and a visual analogue scale immediately before and after MRI. Image quality was evaluated using a five-point-scale. In TG1, 18/36 MRI examinations (50%) had to be cancelled, the reduction of anxiety was insufficient in 12/18 remaining patients (67%). In TG2, 35/36 MRI examinations (97%) were completed successfully, without relevant adverse effects. MRI image quality was rated higher among patients of TG2 compared to TG1 (p<0.001). Low-dose intranasal midazolam is an effective and patient-friendly solution to overcome anxiety in claustrophobic patients in a broad spectrum of body MRI. Its anxiolytic effect is superior to that of the orally administrated form.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Melendez JC, McCrank E (1993) Anxiety-related reactions associated with magnetic resonance imaging examinations. JAMA 270(6):745–747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hollenhorst J, Munte S, Friedrich L, Heine J, Leuwer M, Becker H, Piepenbrock S (2001) Using intranasal midazolam spray to prevent claustrophobia induced by MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(4):865–868

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schweizer E, Clary C, Dever AI, Mandos LA (1992) The use of low-dose intranasal midazolam to treat panic disorder: a pilot study. J Clin Psychiatry 53(1):19–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Walbergh EJ, Wills RJ, Eckhert J (1991) Plasma concentrations of midazolam in children following intranasal administration. Anesthesiology 74(2):233–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harbord MG, Kyrkou NE, Kyrkou MR, Kay D, Coulthard KP (2004) Use of intranasal midazolam to treat acute seizures in paediatric community settings. J Paediatr Child Health 40(9–10):556–558

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lloyd CJ, Alredy T, Lowry JC (2000) Intranasal midazolam as an alternative to general anaesthesia in the management of children with oral and maxillofacial trauma. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38(6):593–595

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Uygur-Bayramicli O, Dabak R, Kuzucuoglu T, Kavakli B (2002) Sedation with intranasal midazolam in adults undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 35(2):133–137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bjorkman S, Rigemar G, Idvall J (1997) Pharmacokinetics of midazolam given as an intranasal spray to adult surgical patients. Br J Anaesth 79(5):575–580

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Burstein AH, Modica R, Hatton M, Forrest A, Gengo FM (1997) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam after intranasal administration. J Clin Pharmacol 37(8):711–718

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Merrick PA, Ramsby GR (1994) Conscious sedation for imaging and interventional studies. Radiol Manage 16(2):35–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nordt SP, Clark RF (1997) Midazolam: a review of therapeutic uses and toxicity. J Emerg Med 15(3):357–365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Reed MD, Rodarte A, Blumer JL, Khoo KC, Akbari B, Pou S, Kearns GL; Pediatric Pharmacology Research Unit Network (2001) The single-dose pharmacokinetics of midazolam and its primary metabolite in pediatric patients after oral and intravenous administration. J Clin Pharmacol 41(12):1359–1369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Biro P, Weidmann G, Pietzsch S, Alon E, Brugger P (1997) [The dose-dependent effects of oral premedication with midazolam]. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 32(11):672–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moss ML, Buongiorno PA, Clancy VA (1993) Intranasal midazolam for claustrophobia in MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17(6):991–992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Knoester PD, Jonker DM, van der Hoeven RTM, Venneij TAC, Edelbrock PM, Brekelmans GJ, de Haan GJ (2002) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam administered as a concentrated intranasal spray. A study in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 53(5):501–507

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Merkus F, Lehr C (2004) Intranasale Applikation von Arzneistoffen mit systemischer Wirkung. Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung 144(4):61–65

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fischer S, Renz D, Kleinstuck J, Schaper W, Karliczek GF (2004) [In vitro effects of anaesthetic agents on the blood-brain barrier]. Anaesthesist 53(12):1177–1184

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dantendorfer K, Amering M, Bankier A, Helbich T, Prayer D, Youssefzadeh S, Alexandrowicz R, Imhof H, Katschnig H (1997) A study of the effects of patient anxiety, perceptions and equipment on motion artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 15(3):301–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zürich, Switzerland

    Frank T. C. Tschirch, Kerstin Göpfert, Genevieve Brunner & Dominik Weishaupt

  2. Klus-Apotheke, Hegibachstrasse 102, CH-8032, Zürich, Switzerland

    Johannes M. Fröhlich

Authors
  1. Frank T. C. Tschirch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerstin Göpfert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes M. Fröhlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Genevieve Brunner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dominik Weishaupt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank T. C. Tschirch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tschirch, F.T.C., Göpfert, K., Fröhlich, J.M. et al. Low-dose intranasal versus oral midazolam for routine body MRI of claustrophobic patients. Eur Radiol 17, 1403–1410 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0457-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0457-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation