Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Intranasal vs intravenous midazolam for stopping seizures in dogs
By Charalambous, Marios et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2019·Small Animal Department·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of intranasal versus intravenous midazolam for management of status epilepticus in dogs: A multi-center randomized parallel group clinical study.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs experiencing status epilepticus, a serious condition involving prolonged seizures, were treated with either intranasal or intravenous midazolam to see which method worked better. The intranasal treatment stopped seizures in 76% of cases, while the intravenous method was effective in 61% of cases. Notably, the intranasal route was faster, with seizures stopping in about 33 seconds compared to 64 seconds for the intravenous method. Both treatments caused some sedation and unsteadiness in the dogs, but overall, both methods were found to be safe and effective for managing this emergency situation.
People also search for: dog seizure treatment · status epilepticus in dogs · midazolam for dogs · intranasal seizure medication for dogs
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The intranasal (IN) route for rapid drug administration in patients with brain disorders, including status epilepticus, has been investigated. Status epilepticus is an emergency, and the IN route offers a valuable alternative to other routes, especially when these fail. OBJECTIVES: To compare IN versus IV midazolam (MDZ) at the same dosage (0.2 mg/kg) for controlling status epilepticus in dogs. ANIMALS: Client-owned dogs (n = 44) with idiopathic epilepsy, structural epilepsy, or epilepsy of unknown origin manifesting as status epilepticus. METHODS: Randomized parallel group clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated to the IN-MDZ (n = 21) or IV-MDZ (n = 23) group. Number of successfully treated cases (defined as seizure cessation within 5 minutes and lasting for ≥10 minutes), seizure cessation time, and adverse effects were recorded. Comparisons were performed using the Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests with statistical significance set at α < .05. RESULTS: IN-MDZ and IV-MDZ successfully stopped status epilepticus in 76% and 61% of cases, respectively (P = .34). The median seizure cessation time was 33 and 64 seconds for IN-MDZ and IV-MDZ, respectively (P = .63). When the time to place an IV catheter was taken into account, IN-MDZ (100 seconds) was superior (P = .04) to IV-MDZ (270 seconds). Sedation and ataxia were seen in 88% and 79% of the dogs treated with IN-MDZ and IV-MDZ, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Both routes are quick, safe, and effective for controlling status epilepticus. However, the IN route demonstrated superiority when the time needed to place an IV catheter was taken into account.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31580527/