Knibbe C A J, Naber H, Aarts L P H J, Kuks P F M, Danhof M
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004 Mar;48(3):302-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2004.0339.x.
Hypertriglyceridaemia is the main cause of therapeutic failure during propofol use in long-term sedated mechanically ventilated patients. Propofol 60 mg ml(-1) has been developed to reduce fat and volume load for the critically ill patient. The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of sedation, achievability of effective concentrations and the effects on serum lipid concentrations of propofol 60 mg ml(-1) vs. propofol 10 mg ml(-1) for long-term sedation in critically ill patients.
In this randomized, open, prospective study, 20 critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients who required sedation for a minimum of 48 h received propofol 60 mg ml(-1) or propofol 10 mg ml(-1) in doses as required during 2-5 days.
No differences between propofol 60 mg ml(-1) and propofol 10 mg ml(-1) were observed in the effectiveness of sedation using the Ramsay Sedation score and the Subjective Sedation score, nor in relation to the propofol concentrations. Between the two groups, there were no significant differences in the daily propofol dose, number of daily infusion rate adjustments or need for additional sedatives. Mean serum triglyceride concentrations were higher in the propofol 10 mg ml(-1) group compared with the propofol 60 mg ml(-1) group [5.26 (3.19) vs. 3.22 (2.05) mmol l(-1), P > 0.05][mean (SD)]. Patients in the propofol 10 mg ml(-1) group received more fat from the propofol infusion than from the propofol 60 mg ml(-1) group [53.2 (29.6) vs. 10.0 (4.7) % compared with fat from nutrition, respectively]. A significant relationship was observed between the daily total fat dose and the serum triglyceride concentration (r2 = 0.32, P < 0.001), whereas there was no significant correlation between the daily propofol dose and the serum triglyceride concentration.
Propofol 60 mg ml(-1) is a useful alternative to propofol 10 mg ml(-1) for the long-term sedation of critically ill patients. Sedation with propofol 60 mg ml(-1) reduces fat and volume load by 83%, which reduces the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia.
高甘油三酯血症是长期接受机械通气镇静治疗的患者使用丙泊酚时治疗失败的主要原因。已研发出60mg/ml的丙泊酚以减轻重症患者的脂肪和容量负荷。本研究的目的是比较60mg/ml丙泊酚与10mg/ml丙泊酚用于重症患者长期镇静时的镇静效果、有效浓度的可达到性以及对血脂浓度的影响。
在这项随机、开放、前瞻性研究中,20例需要至少48小时镇静的重症机械通气患者在2至5天内按需接受60mg/ml丙泊酚或10mg/ml丙泊酚。
使用Ramsay镇静评分和主观镇静评分评估镇静效果时,60mg/ml丙泊酚与10mg/ml丙泊酚之间未观察到差异,丙泊酚浓度方面也无差异。两组之间,每日丙泊酚剂量、每日输注速率调整次数或额外镇静剂的需求均无显著差异。10mg/ml丙泊酚组的平均血清甘油三酯浓度高于60mg/ml丙泊酚组[5.26(3.19) vs. 3.22(2.05)mmol/L,P>0.05][均值(标准差)]。10mg/ml丙泊酚组患者从丙泊酚输注中获得的脂肪比60mg/ml丙泊酚组更多[分别为53.2(29.6)%和10.0(4.7)%,与来自营养的脂肪相比]。观察到每日总脂肪剂量与血清甘油三酯浓度之间存在显著相关性(r2 = 0.32,P<0.001),而每日丙泊酚剂量与血清甘油三酯浓度之间无显著相关性。
60mg/ml丙泊酚是10mg/ml丙泊酚用于重症患者长期镇静的有用替代药物。使用60mg/ml丙泊酚镇静可使脂肪和容量负荷降低83%,从而降低高甘油三酯血症的风险。