Magarey J M
Adelaide University, Department of Clinical Nursing, SA.
Aust Crit Care. 2001 Nov;14(4):147-54. doi: 10.1016/s1036-7314(05)80056-6.
Intensive care patients are commonly sedated to maintain comfort and to facilitate life saving therapy. Although sedation is ordered by medical staff, nurses are usually responsible for its administration and titration and thus the question of which drug regime should be chosen is an important practice issue for nurses (1,2). This paper is a report on a systematic review that was conducted to compare the effectiveness of two of the most common drugs used for the sedation of adult ventilated patients in Australian intensive care units (ICUs)--propofol and midazolam (3). All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared propofol with midazolam for the sedation of adult ventilated patients in ICUs were included in the study. The outcome measures evaluated were the quality of sedation achieved, the length of time from cessation of sedation till extubation, recovery time, duration of admission to the ICU and the incidence of haemodynamic complications. Meta-analysis was used to compare results of studies where subjects had the same characteristics and the outcome criteria were measured in the same manner. The review found that infusions of both midazolam and propofol appear to provide similar quality sedation, that extubation time and recovery time is shorter in patients sedated with propofol and that haemodynamic complications related to either drug regime are not usually clinically significant.
重症监护患者通常需要使用镇静剂来维持舒适感并便于进行挽救生命的治疗。尽管镇静剂由医护人员开具医嘱,但护士通常负责其给药和剂量调整,因此选择哪种药物方案是护士面临的一个重要实践问题(1,2)。本文是一篇关于系统性综述的报告,该综述旨在比较澳大利亚重症监护病房(ICU)中用于成年机械通气患者镇静的两种最常用药物——丙泊酚和咪达唑仑的有效性(3)。该研究纳入了所有比较丙泊酚和咪达唑仑用于ICU成年机械通气患者镇静效果的随机对照试验(RCT)。评估的结局指标包括镇静质量、从停止镇静到拔管的时间长度、恢复时间、入住ICU的时长以及血流动力学并发症的发生率。荟萃分析用于比较受试者具有相同特征且结局标准以相同方式测量的研究结果。该综述发现,咪达唑仑和丙泊酚输注似乎能提供相似质量的镇静效果,使用丙泊酚镇静的患者拔管时间和恢复时间更短,且与任何一种药物方案相关的血流动力学并发症通常在临床上并不显著。