Subcutaneous administration of midazolam: A comparison of the bioject jet injector with the conventional syringe and needle

Jeffrey Bennett, Frank Nichols, Martin Rosenblum, James Condry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare jet injection to a syringe and needle in terms of the difference in discomfort and pharmacokinetics after the subcutaneous administration of midazolam. Patients anti Methods: Using a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study design, 14 subjects were administered midazolam on two separate occasions (at least 2 weeks apart). The subjects were randomly distributed into two groups: syringe and needle (saline)/jet injector (midazolam) or syringe and needle (midazolam)/jet injector (saline). The subjects were randomly assigned to receive either EMLA (eutectic mixture of local anesthesics) or a placebo at the injection site for the first administration and the other topical agent on the second visit. Each subject received one subcutaneous injection in the deltoid region per arm per day. Each injection contained the same volume of solution. Subjects completed visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires assessing the discomfort of the injection. Blood samples were taken at specified intervals over 2 hours for determination of midazolam levels. Results: The discomfort associated with the injection was less with the Biojector 2000 (Bioject Inc, Portland, OR) although this was not statistically significant. However, persistent discomfort was significantly greater at the needle site. The mean peak plasma level of midazolam was achieved more rapidly with the Biojector 2000 than with the syringe and needle (P <.05). However, the peak plasma level after jet injection or injection with a syringe and needle was not statistically different. Conclusion: The results of the study show that the Biojector 2000 is a needle-free injection system that can be used for the administration of a premedicant before induction of anesthesia. It has several advantages, including the potential reduction of anxiety associated with the 'fear of needles' and occupational injuries.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1249-1254
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume56
Issue number11 SUPPL. 5
StatePublished - 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Midazolam
Syringes
Needles
Injections
Jet Injections
Occupational Injuries
Topical Administration
Subcutaneous Injections
Visual Analog Scale
Fear
Anxiety
Anesthesia
Pharmacokinetics
Placebos

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Subcutaneous administration of midazolam : A comparison of the bioject jet injector with the conventional syringe and needle. / Bennett, Jeffrey; Nichols, Frank; Rosenblum, Martin; Condry, James.

In: Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 56, No. 11 SUPPL. 5, 1998, p. 1249-1254.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bennett, Jeffrey ; Nichols, Frank ; Rosenblum, Martin ; Condry, James. / Subcutaneous administration of midazolam : A comparison of the bioject jet injector with the conventional syringe and needle. In: Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 1998 ; Vol. 56, No. 11 SUPPL. 5. pp. 1249-1254.
@article{2171f3a225f8449cbfb9154d732d27f5,
title = "Subcutaneous administration of midazolam: A comparison of the bioject jet injector with the conventional syringe and needle",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare jet injection to a syringe and needle in terms of the difference in discomfort and pharmacokinetics after the subcutaneous administration of midazolam. Patients anti Methods: Using a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study design, 14 subjects were administered midazolam on two separate occasions (at least 2 weeks apart). The subjects were randomly distributed into two groups: syringe and needle (saline)/jet injector (midazolam) or syringe and needle (midazolam)/jet injector (saline). The subjects were randomly assigned to receive either EMLA (eutectic mixture of local anesthesics) or a placebo at the injection site for the first administration and the other topical agent on the second visit. Each subject received one subcutaneous injection in the deltoid region per arm per day. Each injection contained the same volume of solution. Subjects completed visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires assessing the discomfort of the injection. Blood samples were taken at specified intervals over 2 hours for determination of midazolam levels. Results: The discomfort associated with the injection was less with the Biojector 2000 (Bioject Inc, Portland, OR) although this was not statistically significant. However, persistent discomfort was significantly greater at the needle site. The mean peak plasma level of midazolam was achieved more rapidly with the Biojector 2000 than with the syringe and needle (P <.05). However, the peak plasma level after jet injection or injection with a syringe and needle was not statistically different. Conclusion: The results of the study show that the Biojector 2000 is a needle-free injection system that can be used for the administration of a premedicant before induction of anesthesia. It has several advantages, including the potential reduction of anxiety associated with the 'fear of needles' and occupational injuries.",
author = "Jeffrey Bennett and Frank Nichols and Martin Rosenblum and James Condry",
year = "1998",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "56",
pages = "1249--1254",
journal = "Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery",
issn = "0278-2391",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "11 SUPPL. 5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Subcutaneous administration of midazolam

T2 - A comparison of the bioject jet injector with the conventional syringe and needle

AU - Bennett, Jeffrey

AU - Nichols, Frank

AU - Rosenblum, Martin

AU - Condry, James

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare jet injection to a syringe and needle in terms of the difference in discomfort and pharmacokinetics after the subcutaneous administration of midazolam. Patients anti Methods: Using a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study design, 14 subjects were administered midazolam on two separate occasions (at least 2 weeks apart). The subjects were randomly distributed into two groups: syringe and needle (saline)/jet injector (midazolam) or syringe and needle (midazolam)/jet injector (saline). The subjects were randomly assigned to receive either EMLA (eutectic mixture of local anesthesics) or a placebo at the injection site for the first administration and the other topical agent on the second visit. Each subject received one subcutaneous injection in the deltoid region per arm per day. Each injection contained the same volume of solution. Subjects completed visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires assessing the discomfort of the injection. Blood samples were taken at specified intervals over 2 hours for determination of midazolam levels. Results: The discomfort associated with the injection was less with the Biojector 2000 (Bioject Inc, Portland, OR) although this was not statistically significant. However, persistent discomfort was significantly greater at the needle site. The mean peak plasma level of midazolam was achieved more rapidly with the Biojector 2000 than with the syringe and needle (P <.05). However, the peak plasma level after jet injection or injection with a syringe and needle was not statistically different. Conclusion: The results of the study show that the Biojector 2000 is a needle-free injection system that can be used for the administration of a premedicant before induction of anesthesia. It has several advantages, including the potential reduction of anxiety associated with the 'fear of needles' and occupational injuries.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare jet injection to a syringe and needle in terms of the difference in discomfort and pharmacokinetics after the subcutaneous administration of midazolam. Patients anti Methods: Using a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study design, 14 subjects were administered midazolam on two separate occasions (at least 2 weeks apart). The subjects were randomly distributed into two groups: syringe and needle (saline)/jet injector (midazolam) or syringe and needle (midazolam)/jet injector (saline). The subjects were randomly assigned to receive either EMLA (eutectic mixture of local anesthesics) or a placebo at the injection site for the first administration and the other topical agent on the second visit. Each subject received one subcutaneous injection in the deltoid region per arm per day. Each injection contained the same volume of solution. Subjects completed visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires assessing the discomfort of the injection. Blood samples were taken at specified intervals over 2 hours for determination of midazolam levels. Results: The discomfort associated with the injection was less with the Biojector 2000 (Bioject Inc, Portland, OR) although this was not statistically significant. However, persistent discomfort was significantly greater at the needle site. The mean peak plasma level of midazolam was achieved more rapidly with the Biojector 2000 than with the syringe and needle (P <.05). However, the peak plasma level after jet injection or injection with a syringe and needle was not statistically different. Conclusion: The results of the study show that the Biojector 2000 is a needle-free injection system that can be used for the administration of a premedicant before induction of anesthesia. It has several advantages, including the potential reduction of anxiety associated with the 'fear of needles' and occupational injuries.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031769921&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031769921&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9820211

AN - SCOPUS:0031769921

VL - 56

SP - 1249

EP - 1254

JO - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

SN - 0278-2391

IS - 11 SUPPL. 5

ER -