Hall R I, Sandham D, Cardinal P, Tweeddale M, Moher D, Wang X, Anis A H
Department of Anesthesia, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Chest. 2001 Apr;119(4):1151-9. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.4.1151.
To determine whether sedation with propofol would lead to shorter times to tracheal extubation and ICU length of stay than sedation with midazolam.
Multicenter, randomized, open label.
Four academic tertiary-care ICUs in Canada.
Critically ill patients requiring continuous sedation while receiving mechanical ventilation.
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.
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).
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.
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。
多中心、随机、开放标签。
加拿大的四家学术性三级护理ICU。
接受机械通气时需要持续镇静的重症患者。
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。
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)。
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。