Suppr超能文献

丙泊酚与咪达唑仑用于重症监护病房镇静:一项加拿大多中心随机试验

Propofol vs midazolam for ICU sedation : a Canadian multicenter randomized trial.

作者信息

Hall R I, Sandham D, Cardinal P, Tweeddale M, Moher D, Wang X, Anis A H

机构信息

Department of Anesthesia, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

出版信息

Chest. 2001 Apr;119(4):1151-9. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.4.1151.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To determine whether sedation with propofol would lead to shorter times to tracheal extubation and ICU length of stay than sedation with midazolam.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized, open label.

SETTING

Four academic tertiary-care ICUs in Canada.

PATIENTS

Critically ill patients requiring continuous sedation while receiving mechanical ventilation.

INTERVENTIONS

Random allocation by predicted requirement for mechanical ventilation (short sedation stratum, < 24 h; medium sedation stratum, > or = 24 and < 72 h; and long sedation stratum, > or = 72 h) to sedation regimens utilizing propofol or midazolam.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Using an intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomized to receive propofol in the short sedation stratum (propofol, 21 patients; midazolam, 26 patients) and the long sedation stratum (propofol, 4 patients; midazolam, 10 patients) were extubated earlier (short sedation stratum: propofol, 5.6 h; midazolam, 11.9 h; long sedation stratum: propofol, 8.4 h; midazolam, 46.8 h; p < 0.05). Pooled results showed that patients treated with propofol (n = 46) were extubated earlier than those treated with midazolam (n = 53) (6.7 vs 24.7 h, respectively; p < 0.05) following discontinuation of the sedation but were not discharged from ICU earlier (94.0 vs 63.7 h, respectively; p = 0.26). Propofol-treated patients spent a larger percentage of time at the target Ramsay sedation level than midazolam-treated patients (60.2% vs 44.0%, respectively; p < 0.05). Using a treatment-received analysis, propofol sedation either did not differ from midazolam sedation in time to tracheal extubation or ICU discharge (sedation duration, < 24 h) or was associated with earlier tracheal extubation but longer time to ICU discharge (sedation duration, > or = 24 h, < 72 h, or > or = 72 h).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of propofol sedation allowed for more rapid tracheal extubation than when midazolam sedation was employed. This did not result in earlier ICU discharge.

摘要

研究目的

确定与咪达唑仑镇静相比,丙泊酚镇静是否能缩短气管拔管时间和重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间。

设计

多中心、随机、开放标签。

地点

加拿大的四家学术性三级护理ICU。

患者

接受机械通气时需要持续镇静的重症患者。

干预措施

根据预测的机械通气需求(短镇静组,<24小时;中镇静组,≥24且<72小时;长镇静组,≥72小时)随机分配至使用丙泊酚或咪达唑仑的镇静方案。

测量与结果

采用意向性分析,短镇静组(丙泊酚组21例患者;咪达唑仑组26例患者)和长镇静组(丙泊酚组4例患者;咪达唑仑组10例患者)中随机接受丙泊酚治疗的患者拔管更早(短镇静组:丙泊酚组5.6小时;咪达唑仑组11.9小时;长镇静组:丙泊酚组8.4小时;咪达唑仑组46.8小时;p<0.05)。汇总结果显示,镇静停止后,丙泊酚治疗的患者(n = 46)比咪达唑仑治疗的患者(n = 53)拔管更早(分别为6.7小时和24.7小时;p<0.05),但未更早从ICU出院(分别为94.0小时和63.7小时;p = 0.26)。丙泊酚治疗的患者在目标Ramsay镇静水平的时间百分比高于咪达唑仑治疗的患者(分别为60.2%和44.0%;p<0.05)。采用接受治疗分析,丙泊酚镇静在气管拔管时间或ICU出院时间(镇静持续时间<24小时)方面与咪达唑仑镇静无差异,或者与更早的气管拔管相关,但ICU出院时间更长(镇静持续时间≥24小时、<72小时或≥72小时)。

结论

与使用咪达唑仑镇静相比,使用丙泊酚镇静能更快速地进行气管拔管。但这并未导致更早从ICU出院。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验