A comparison of oral @entity3175 versus XXXX , administered with intravenous @entity6882 , as premedication to sedation for pediatric endoscopy.

@entity1 @entity3175 @entity6882 @entity1245 @entity1875 @entity1363
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to compare the effects of oral @entity1363 and oral @entity3175 , administered with intravenous (IV) @entity6882 , on pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural sedation and recovery in @entity1 undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy. The costs of pre-procedure sedation were compared for the two @entity1245 . METHODS: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 154 @entity1 (mean age 96.73 +/- 59.34 months, 53% male) undergoing endoscopy. Oral @entity1363 (0.5 mg/kg, maximum dose of 20 mg) or oral @entity3175 (0.3 mg/kg, maximum dose of 10 mg) was given before IV insertion, and with IV @entity6882 (2 mg/kg, maximum dose of 100 mg) given to all @entity1 just before upper endoscopy. Further "rescue" @entity1363 doses (to a maximum cumulative dose of 5 mg) were given as needed to achieve a pre-procedure sedation score of > or =2. All @entity1 received intravenous @entity1875 for procedural sedation. @entity1 were evaluated for the efficacy and safety of pre-procedural sedation, sedation during upper endoscopy, and recovery following completion of the procedure. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between study groups for level of pre-procedural sedation, need for @entity1363 rescue in endoscopy, effectiveness of procedural sedation, occurrence of adverse events, and recovery parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Oral @entity1363 and @entity3175 , in conjunction with IV administration of @entity6882 , provide comparable, effective, and safe premedication for @entity1 undergoing upper endoscopy. The cost of @entity1363 was substantially higher than @entity3175 .
